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.