Troops to Afghanistan: the Decision

[aadler]

 
Let’s see if I have this right.

Our commander-in-chief needs to make a decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. So, he asks for a study by, and the recommendation of, the theater commander, the U.S. military’s leading authority on counterterrorism. The general who has been so tasked, after taking the time necessary to be sure he’s dealing with the most current and pertinent information, comes back and says, “In my opinion this situation doesn’t really call for a counterterrorism approach. We need to be running a counterinsurgency program. (Counterterrorism means finding and killing the bad guys. Counterinsurgency means changing the conditions that allow the bad guys to operate.)

All by itself, this catches my attention. It’s like seeing someone who’s spent his career becoming the recognized expert on nuclear submarines turn around and say, “A small group of PT boats would actually do a better job in this particular spot.” Everybody tends to favor his own specialty; when someone looks outside that paradigm, you need to take him seriously.

Then the same general offers three different counterinsurgency approaches he could institute, based on the resources he’ll be granted. The troop-heavy approach would require 80,000 new combatants; the lightest — and not necessarily his favorite, but he has to offer contingencies — would need at least 40,000. At which time the commander-in-chief — after stalling for as long as he possibly can — says, “You know your low number? What you said was the realistic minimum you would need? I’m giving you 75% of that.”

Given all these things, my questions is this: does our commander-in-chief even KNOW what a direct insult he just delivered? I can see four main possibilities:

1. He’s saying, “You’re lying and I know you’re lying. You don’t need anywhere near that many troops, and I’m calling your bluff. Take it or leave it.”
2. He’s saying, “You’re incompetent. You may think you need that many troops, but you don’t. I know, because I’m smarter than you, even though you’ve been doing this your entire adult life. This is what I’m giving you; take it and like it.”
3. He thinks the general is probably right, but he doesn’t care. It would be politically embarrassing for him to order a massive troop build-up right now, so he’s going to do the least he figures he can get away with. The insult wasn’t his main purpose, but he’ll let the insult stand in order to get what he wants.
4. He’s so thoroughgoingly clueless, so narcissistically oblivious, that he doesn’t even recognize he just called one of his leading generals a liar and/or fool. Besides, isn’t it these guys’ job to shut up and salute?

Maybe there’s more to this than I’m seeing. I don’t believe that, but I would happily be proven wrong. I just see someone choosing a half-assed course based on domestic political expediency rather than military reality. Given the time-frame he laid out, I’m unlikely to be among those who pay the immediate price for his parsimony … but I’m part of that brotherhood, and I greet his decision with neither confidence nor respect.

Comments

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping it's 4. Because surely he wouldn't deliver a deliberate insult. Right?

And the fact that I'm hoping that the CiC is a clueless moron because that's the least bad thing he could be? Oh, god.

[aadler]

I was genuinely unhappy when I made that post, and meant pretty much all I said, but in retrospect I think the overall impression was more negative than I intended … or, maybe, than I feel now.

When all is said and done, there IS a troop increase, enough (with one thing and another) to essentially double our current presence. I don’t think it will be enough, and I’m not sanguine about a President who attempts to compromise between military necessity and political expediency. Still, as long as this isn’t the prelude to giving up and retreating, I can live with it. For now.

…

He should have delivered the full 40,000. That was the recommended minimum, and that should have been his minimum response.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I suspect we're dealing with number 3 here. At least I hope so. Possibly with a side order of, That's the most he thinks he'll be able to get through the current Congress. I may be naive, but I'm just hoping he's dealing with what he sees as a political reality, rather than insulting our military.

[aadler]

I currently lean more toward #3 myself right now. And, honestly, the insult doesn’t mean nearly as much to me (he still has a long way to go before approaching the level of contempt shown to the US military by the Clintons) as the sense that his second-guessing and political calculation will undercut the necessities of the mission.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

All too true.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

You forgot #5: He *wants* to see our country fail, because beneath it all he hates America and sees us as the aggressor. This might be the case if, for instance, he constantly apologizes for America, declares he's "considering" the issue and causes incredibly inappropriate delays of decision making during war time, and/or bows down to the dictatorial leaders of America's enemies. So if *that* happens ....

[aadler]

No, I genuinely don’t think he’s trying to CREATE a failure. I do, however, suspect an attempt to do as little as he can get by with, so that he can later attempt to claim a good-faith effort and then yank us out of a winnable conflict because it’s a ‘distraction’ from the real priorities (the total political and social restructuring of America).

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I believe the total political and social restructuring of America IS creating a failure ... but of course, he wouldn't see it that way. In any case, it's hard to argue that he's setting us up for failure in Afghanistan, by virtue of his lackluster dithering on the subject.

[frogfarm]

I'm not *totally* convinced that Team Obama is deliberately using the Cloward-Piven strategy to implement Fabian Socialism, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Nor me.