12/11/09

President Obama’s Afghanistan decision was met by support from both the military and the American people, and also found broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.  During congressional testimony, our military commanders as well as our ambassador to Afghanistan made clear that they stood by the President’s strategy and decision.  The decision by President Obama was undertaken with pragmatic care and methodical patience, and the next challenge is to address the tough questions related to the implementation of the plan.  These issues were addressed in detail this week on Capitol Hill by General McChrystal, General Petraeus, and Ambassador Eikenberry.  

Nonetheless, congressional conservatives took a politically combative stance towards the administration on Afghanistan.  Instead of delving into the strategic imperatives or the operational challenges in Afghanistan, they focused instead on political posturing about whether the Administration was fully supporting military requests and whether the July 2011 withdrawal timeframe announced by the president was a callous signal to extremists. Despite the unrelenting support of our military and civilian leaders for the President’s decision—including the 2011 timeframe—conservatives still tried to create a wedge between them and President Obama.

Meanwhile, progressives have sought out answers to the tough questions of strategy and success, laying a foundation for effective oversight of the administration’s efforts in this critical theater.  Progressives have sought answers to questions with real bearing on the safety of our troops and the outcome of our military involvement, as well as focused on Afghanistan’s political situation, its overall stability, and how America can support both agricultural and economic development there. This constructive approach lies in stark contrast to how conservatives are once again playing politics with national security policies that are meant to protect the American people.

Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, and Ambassador Eikenberry testify before Congress as extreme conservatives politicize the war. David Weigel of the Washington Independent analyzed this week’s hearings saying that, “Over two days of hearings with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of CentCom, Republican members of Congress settled on a common line of questioning. Did the general have everything he needed to win? Did he have everything he asked for? Was President Barack Obama’s proposed July 2011 deadline for the beginning of a troop withdrawal feasible?”

Weigel goes on to point out the questions from conservatives: “’I have heard that your request of the president was anywhere from 10,000 to 80,000 additional troops,’ said Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), during the morning hearings on the House side. “We have not been given your request. All we’ve had to go on is what we’ve heard.’ The afternoon’s questioning in the Senate took on the same tone. ‘We’ve announced a date divorced from conditions on the ground when we will start to withdraw our troops,’ said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), kicking off his party’s line of questioning. ‘It doesn’t matter whether we call it a cliff or a ramp or anything else. It’s still an exit sign, and it sends the wrong signal to our friends and our enemies.’ Over the course of a long day, McChrystal reiterated his support for the president’s decision, but Republicans got statements on the record about the malleable nature of the proposed July 2011 and cast some doubt on whether the general was getting everything he needed. For the conservative military analysts who’d spent the year consolidating unconditional Republican support for the war, it was a mixed success.” [Washington Independent, 12/10/09]

Meanwhile, progressives asked questions that contributed to the debate and deepened their understanding of the strategy. While conservatives were politically positioning themselves on the issue of the war, progressives were asking tough and substantive questions regarding both the strategy and operations in Afghanistan:

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA): “The first: In your testimony you [said]...’We need to address our efforts to promote governance at the provincial and district levels,’ which I totally agree with. My question for you is, do you believe this is achievable under the current constitutional system that Afghanistan has or would you prefer to see another system of government that devolves power in a way that would make this more compatible with the history and culture of Afghanistan?” [Sen. Jim Webb, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 12/08/09]

Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI): “General McChrystal, since the release of your assessment of the region there has been a healthy debate over the number of troops being deployed to Afghanistan. However, I feel we should not focus solely on the number of troops alone. General, ignoring the total number of troops proposed, my question has to do with equipment and with personnel. Are we sending the right personnel there, with the right equipment in place, to achieve the goals that we have in those regions? As you mentioned, the ultimate goal is the capture of al Qaeda. You probably know what you need in terms of personnel and equipment. So my question to you is, do we have the right equipment and personnel to achieve our goals in the region?” [Sen. Daniel Akaka, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 12/08/09]

Senator Jack Reed (D- RI): “One of the issues here is not only the increase in size of forces, but it’s the unity of command and the unity of effort. That stretches across several dimensions—COIN operations, counterterrorism operations, counternarcotic operations, civil-military coordination, operations between NATO and Afghan security forces, operations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, intelligence operations versus tactical operations in the field. Can you in a few minutes tell—and Ambassador Eikenberry also—what are you doing specifically to address this issue of unity of effort, and how important is it to your success?” [Sen. Jack Reed, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 12/08/09]

Rep. David Loebsack (D-IA): “Can you elaborate on the intersection of security and agricultural development?” [House Armed Services Committee, 12/09/09]

Despite conservative insinuations, President Obama is commander-in-chief and civilians control the military. One line that extreme conservatives have been baselessly pushing is that President Obama has simply deferred to General McChrystal’s recommendations without guiding the strategy.  As Senator James Inhofe (R- OK) said this week, “Things are going pretty well right now because the Obama administration realized that the American people want McChrystal to make these decisions.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

An article by Peter Baker in the New York Times Magazine this past weekend shows how the president took advise from many sources, including General McChrystal, before reaching his decision.  The article says, “Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents... Mr. Obama devoted so much time to the Afghan issue — nearly 11 hours on the day after Thanksgiving alone — that he joked, “I’ve got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this.” He invited competing voices to debate in front of him, while guarding his own thoughts.”  Baker also quoted National Security Advisor General James Jones saying that, “The process was exhaustive, but any time you get the president of the United States to devote 25 hours, anytime you get that kind of commitment, you know it was serious business.” In addition, an analysis by the Washington Post finds that the conservative’s claims are clearly not true, the president’s plan is different from the one proposed by General McChrystal: “an acceleration of the troop reinforcements, which will arrive within six instead of 16 months...  Mr. Obama also decided to rely on NATO allies to provide 5,000 to 7,000 fresh troops... Third, Gen. McChrystal wanted to increase the Afghan army to 240,000 troops over the next few years. Mr. Obama set a more limited goal of 130,000 by late next year... Mr. Obama's last innovation is his most conspicuous: the July 2011 date for beginning a U.S. withdrawal.” [Washington Independent, 12/10/09. Peter Baker, NY Time Magazine, 12/5/09. Washington Post, 12/3/09]

What We’re Reading

Western nations may ask Afghanistan to delay their parliamentary elections in the spring in order to avoid the fraudulent activity that plagued last summer’s presidential elections. Afghan women organize and rally in order to demand accountability against widening government corruption.

More details are revealed of the five U.S. nationals from the Washington, D.C. area who were detained by Pakistani authorities under suspicion of wanting to join terrorist groups.

Iraqi lawmakers chastised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his government's failure to prevent the massive bombings that rocked the capital this week, even as Maliki accused Parliament of impeding his ability to improve security. The Prime Minister also canceled his meeting with American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

American impatience with Iran continues to grow as Iran persists in floating international demands for accountability on its nuclear program. A UN panel expressed "grave concern" about what it called apparent Iranian violations of a UN ban on arms exports. Meanwhile, opposition protests appear to be growing more politically radical.

A Federal judge ruled that the Department of Defense was in contempt of court for failing to videotape the testimony of a Guantanamo Bay detainee who is challenging his detention in court.

According to former government officials, Blackwater personnel sometimes operated side by side with CIA field officers in Iraq and Afghanistan as the agency undertook missions to kill or capture members of insurgent groups in those countries.

President Obama delivered an impassioned rationale for war during his address accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The government of Honduras withdrew its offer to deposed President Manuel Zelaya of safe passage out of the country, asserting that he could leave only if he renounced his claim to the office.

North Korea said that its differences with the United States had been diminished during the visit this week of President Obama’s special envoy, but that it needed more talks before deciding whether to return to nuclear disarmament talks.

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is under pressure to find new ways of pacifying the southern Philippines after last month's massacre of 57 people. Exacerbating the situation, gunmen took 75 people hostage at an elementary school. They later released 27 of the captives, including all of the children.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times suggests that Obama’s eloquent Oslo speech was one he needed to give, but not necessarily the speech the Nobel committee wanted to hear.

Ahmed Rashid, Marc Lynch, and Nathaniel Fick each put in their two cents on President Obama’s July 2011 accountability deadline in Afghanistan.

The Economist believes that the military-to-commercial direction of technological developments is beginning to run the other way.