Obama Rules Out Troop Withdrawal
07 October 2009 12:45 pm by Taylor Marsh
–updated–
And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. “I’m the one who hired him,” Mr. Obama said, according to participants. “I put him there to give me a frank assessment.” – Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force
Thank the gods, though I never believed troop withdrawal from Afghanistan was an option. Also believing that McChrystal’s request should not be granted, though Gen. David H. Petraeus, while saying we need “a sustained, substantial commitment,” on which I agree, didn’t say if that meant more troops or how many if so. I’m getting the uneasy feeling that Obama will compromise and send some, while acquiescing to Biden on counterterrorism, while not fully giving up on COIN either, resulting in a strategy with no clear cut purpose. Oh, how I hope I’m wrong.
Today, Obama is meeting with his national security team on Pakistan, with one last meeting on Friday dealing with Afghanistan, which is being reported as the last confab before the President decides.
On a duel track, Laura Rozen puts National Security Adviser James L. Jones’ place in the Obama structure in a strategic light that recently paid big dividends for the President.
David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has also studied the NSC, said the recent McChrystal episode demonstrates “where Jones adds value.”
“In saying, ‘Look, I know the way this works,’ he used very loaded military language, which is that he [McChrystal] is down in the chain of command,” he said. “Jones played it exactly right [and] tried to bring it all under control in a dignified way.”
For you night owls, I don’t know if any of you saw Lara Logan of CBS on “Charlie Rose,” but it was quite enlightening. It also was illustrative of how complex and confusing the obstacles, choices and logistics are on the road ahead. Quotes from Logan, via my tweets last night:
Hearing from Logan about the “US bought into Pakistan’s stories for years” is like hearing history’s judgment. Since Reagan. Infuriating. (link)
“The people that matter are across the border inside Pakistan. …they have to be killed.” (link)
“Taliban on behalf of the Pashtuns want power back. They want to control their country.” (link)
Logan’s assessments on Afghanistan are as good as anyone speaking on the subject. Yet, as true as they are they don’t lead to any clear cut conclusion, which is why the Obama administration is having so much trouble. Her analysis regarding the people that matter are across the border inside Pakistan. …they have to be killed comes as close to the Clinton – Gates view as I’ve heard, Hillary also being partial to McChrystal’s advice as far as reports have offered, though her advice is only going to the President. On the Taliban fighting on “behalf of the Pashtuns,” well, this isn’t new. It’s why Pashtuns were displaced long ago to the north in an effort to unify Afghanistan. You still have to deal with the minorities. And there is no doubt that the U.S. bought into the Pakistanis, going back to when our nightmare began, Ronald Reagan, even if it was Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinksi who tipped the scale and funded the Mujahadeen first. They sure as hell weren’t around long enough to see anything through.
But none of Logan’s analysis aligns with the Afghans aversion to foreigners inside their country telling them what to do, even with the conflicting worry Afghans have that the U.S. are “short timers” in their country, most seeing the need for us to stay to offer security to Afghans, seen through Afghan force training particularly, which is our only way through.
The experts like David Loyn, Peter Bergen, Lara Logan and many others, who have been on the ground, something I’ve not been able to manifest, give us the lay of the land in Afghanistan, with the politics of war inside that country and what it means to our larger mission in Pakistan, which is clearly long term, something else.
But at this point I have a very queasy feeling from what I’m reading and hearing. If we don’t hear something beyond troops, dealing specifically with financial aid, particularly how we get the monies directly to the Afghans, it could lead to a deeper quagmire for the U.S. and more trouble for Barack Obama, which won’t be good for anyone.
It’s also hard to understand any thinking that postulates we can rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. Remembering that the Pakistani Taliban are another thing all together.
“In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn,” Shinkai Karokhail, an Afghan member of Parliament and woman activist, told them. “International troop presence here is a guarantee for my safety.” – Christian Science Monitor
