Obama's indecision on Afghanistan frustrates generals
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Last Updated: 13th October 2009, 3:23am
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/13/11381421-sun.html
If he's not careful, U.S. President Barack Obama may face a revolt by his generals over his dithering on Afghanistan -- sort of a reverse of president Harry Truman's firing of Gen Douglas MacArthur in the Korean war.
Soldiers -- or at least generals -- usually do what the commander-in-chief ordains. But Afghanistan is presently in a state of flux, and Obama's indecision bodes ill for the future, especially when critical recommendations of his hand-chosen commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are put on hold.
Not only that, McChrystal and other generals are being muzzled -- shut up, and don't air concerns to the public. Be "candid but private," is how Defence Secretary Robert Gates puts it, and this resonates through the chain of command.
"'Wait and see,' is not a good war strategy," the echo comes back.
And both approaches are correct in different ways.
McChrystal has put a cork in it for the time being, but in a series of earlier interviews he made it plain that if his plea for 40,000 more troops ("boots on the ground") to secure villages, be a presence to deter the Taliban, and to reinforce locals, is rejected, well, McChrystal may resign his command. Or be fired. That would truly be the "Chaos-istan," that McChrystal warns is the fate of the war in Afghanistan if enough troops aren't forthcoming.
No one argues that eventual control must be the responsibility of the Afghan National Army and police, and training goes on with a timetable that is still some years away. Until then, NATO and American troops must keep the Taliban at bay.
Some around Obama urge negotiations (leading to cooperation) with the Taliban, which translates into seeking an escape hatch more than a realistic solution. Joe Biden prefers fewer troops and more unmanned attack drones, which solves nothing.
The only chance for success (if not victory) is for massive troop involvement to protect villagers and reconstruction and aid work, until the Afghan government can take over. That, in essence, is the Canadian strategy.
And it can be done in coordination with continuing efforts in Pakistan to curb both al-Qaida and the Pakistan Taliban. A dysfunctional Pakistan with nuclear weapons and the Taliban, seems a greater threat than anything that's happening in Iran.
It's not only McChrystal who sees this, but also respected generals like David Petraeus and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mulligan, and so on down the line.
Obama muzzling McChrystal is nothing new. When Canada's top general, Rick Hillier, got too mouthy about what should be done in Afghanistan, he was replaced by another general, Stanley Natynczyk (former deputy commander of the U.S. III Corps in Iraq) who may feel similarly to Hillier, but shuts up and doesn't agitate public opinion.
Aid and reconstruction are impossible without military protection, which is why the Taliban are so determined to create chaos and doubts. They gamble that our side lacks the stamina for a prolonged war, and they may be right.
What's distressing about Obama is that his previous determination to do the right thing in Afghanistan and hold firm has wavered as casualties mounted and Taliban insurgency increased. Indecision reigns, as Obama seeks advice from his entourage. It's becoming a committee approach to Afghanistan, which is no way to win a war or ensure peace, security and prosperity.
But it may be a way to lose the confidence of your generals.
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Last Updated: 13th October 2009, 3:23am
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/13/11381421-sun.html
If he's not careful, U.S. President Barack Obama may face a revolt by his generals over his dithering on Afghanistan -- sort of a reverse of president Harry Truman's firing of Gen Douglas MacArthur in the Korean war.
Soldiers -- or at least generals -- usually do what the commander-in-chief ordains. But Afghanistan is presently in a state of flux, and Obama's indecision bodes ill for the future, especially when critical recommendations of his hand-chosen commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are put on hold.
Not only that, McChrystal and other generals are being muzzled -- shut up, and don't air concerns to the public. Be "candid but private," is how Defence Secretary Robert Gates puts it, and this resonates through the chain of command.
"'Wait and see,' is not a good war strategy," the echo comes back.
And both approaches are correct in different ways.
McChrystal has put a cork in it for the time being, but in a series of earlier interviews he made it plain that if his plea for 40,000 more troops ("boots on the ground") to secure villages, be a presence to deter the Taliban, and to reinforce locals, is rejected, well, McChrystal may resign his command. Or be fired. That would truly be the "Chaos-istan," that McChrystal warns is the fate of the war in Afghanistan if enough troops aren't forthcoming.
No one argues that eventual control must be the responsibility of the Afghan National Army and police, and training goes on with a timetable that is still some years away. Until then, NATO and American troops must keep the Taliban at bay.
Some around Obama urge negotiations (leading to cooperation) with the Taliban, which translates into seeking an escape hatch more than a realistic solution. Joe Biden prefers fewer troops and more unmanned attack drones, which solves nothing.
The only chance for success (if not victory) is for massive troop involvement to protect villagers and reconstruction and aid work, until the Afghan government can take over. That, in essence, is the Canadian strategy.
And it can be done in coordination with continuing efforts in Pakistan to curb both al-Qaida and the Pakistan Taliban. A dysfunctional Pakistan with nuclear weapons and the Taliban, seems a greater threat than anything that's happening in Iran.
It's not only McChrystal who sees this, but also respected generals like David Petraeus and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mulligan, and so on down the line.
Obama muzzling McChrystal is nothing new. When Canada's top general, Rick Hillier, got too mouthy about what should be done in Afghanistan, he was replaced by another general, Stanley Natynczyk (former deputy commander of the U.S. III Corps in Iraq) who may feel similarly to Hillier, but shuts up and doesn't agitate public opinion.
Aid and reconstruction are impossible without military protection, which is why the Taliban are so determined to create chaos and doubts. They gamble that our side lacks the stamina for a prolonged war, and they may be right.
What's distressing about Obama is that his previous determination to do the right thing in Afghanistan and hold firm has wavered as casualties mounted and Taliban insurgency increased. Indecision reigns, as Obama seeks advice from his entourage. It's becoming a committee approach to Afghanistan, which is no way to win a war or ensure peace, security and prosperity.
But it may be a way to lose the confidence of your generals.
