The Administration is putting out word that it won’t countenance further troop deployments beyond what it has committed this year. But General Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan is predicated on safeguarding the civilian population, and that takes boots on the ground. President Obama needs to weigh whether he can afford not to meet his commanders’ force requirements in a war he has repeatedly described as a must-win for the U.S.
Given how unpopular the Afghan war is with Mr. Obama’s left flank, that will take some political courage. For evidence of an altogether different kind of courage, we’ll be looking to the Afghan voters and their ink-stained thumb in the eye to the Taliban. – The Wall Street Journal
As for what’s going on in Afghanistan prior to the elections, it’s “getting hotter in Afghanistan,” and Ryan Gawn isn’t just talking about the weather.
As I’ve said innumerable times, I have supported Obama on his initial Afghanistan strategy from the start, unlike many others. Yeah, I know, you’re tired of the reminder. But it’s a critically important point at this juncture, with Obama considering an escalation and the right surely to push hard after the elections, when the McChrystal’s assessment is due.
On another note, I got into an interesting back and forth on Twitter with Eli Lake, someone whose reporting I’ve covered and respect. This tweet from Lake got my attention, with the conversation opening out:
EliLake It’s fascinating how U.S. military officers are no longer warmonger liars for the netleft when a democrat is in power. #afghanelection
taylormarsh @EliLake RT “US military officers no longer warmonger liars 4 netleft when democrat is in power.” HUH? Afghanistan not Iraq. #afghanelection
EliLake @taylormarsh The same military officers running Afghanistan were in Iraq at the time and using the same COIN strategy.
taylormarsh @EliLake Yes, but you’re confusing intent/purpose of wars, too. Preemption v. war started by necessity & 9/11. Once Saddam ours, goal done.
Though I’ve never been part of the “warmonger liars for the netleft” and can’t really name any progressive I respect who ever called U.S. military officers by that title, Lake illustrates the confusion caused by liberals pushing back so hard in Iraq, and just how deep the disconnect became when it was also turned on Afghanistan.
As I’ve argued from the beginning, Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different wars with the intent in both countries set entirely differently from the start. Iraq was simply not a war of necessity. Afghanitan was for liberals like myself and many others, seen through the destruction on 9/11. Though for me it’s also about the women and girls in that country, as I’ve written.
It’s not that progressives were upset simply with the military officers supporting the Iraq war, it’s that some important voices allowed themselves to be cowed by the Bush administration, which hurt not only our foreign policy, but the U.S. brand across the world, which extended to the fiasco of Abu Ghraib, not just the narrow focus of Lake’s focus on COIN. Former Gen. Colin Powell comes to mind, though he’s not the military officer type to which Lake is referring. That probably is at least particially directed at the MoveOn.org ad against Gen. Petreaus.
McKiernan’s firing and being replaced by McChrystal illustrated a change in Afghan strategy that is challenging Obama’s initial strategy of what we intend the Afghanistan war to manifest on the ground. I’m a supporter of COIN, but remain very skeptical of the mission creep we keep hearing out of Washington. We’ll know soon what McChrystal is advising.
But hearing “that takes boots on the ground” rhetoric from the WSJ editorial weenies just makes me more skeptical, not less.
As a long-time serious student of military strategy, though not an expert, I’ve lived through plenty of political battles that turned war strategy over to good generals and earnest military men, which simply led us down paths of no return.
Comments are closed.