Comments on: Obama’s Afghan Indecision Carries Costs

By: JoeB

JoeB — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:48:39 +0000

Clausewitz’s book “On War” is a must read to understand the inexricable link between war and politics. Another good study for today is Bismark’s wars of German reunification and his keeping Motke’s military on a leash – until needed. Fighting limited wars is hard. The one positive thing we have in our favor today is the turnaround of the Pakistani’s attitude/efforts in fight ting the Taliban/AQ. They are taking away the last santuary for them. This is the primary difference between Afganistan and Vietnam – there’s no sanctuary. Now’s the time to push HARD both militarily and in population security and that take’s troops.

By: Carlman

Carlman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:42:07 +0000

Maybe Obama simply put off the decision because he didn’t agree to it, it’s a mess and he didn’t know how to deal with it in a way that was consistent with his beliefs..
I still don’t understand why the US has to stick its virtual prong into the butts of every other country and force democracy down their throats… all the while making money on their exports and imports through tarriffs.
I don’t claim to know exactly what I’m talking about.. but I do know that it appears to me the US has more interest in exploiting other countries than fixing its own.

By: Dancer

Dancer — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:57:28 +0000

Just to be accurate historically, the US supported the Mujahideen during the pre and post Soviet invasion of Afghan. (support began with Jimmy Carter, by the way). It was only after the Soviets withdrew and there was no one left running the country, only disparate bands of warlords, that the Taliban was able to fill the power vacuum. They really took over in the late 1990′s when Clinton was asleep at the wheel as far as tracking terrorists (e.g., World Trade Center bombing by Bin Laden) was concerned. The US needs to figure out what it’s objective is in Afghan. Are we still hunting Bin Laden? Are we trying to nation build? The latter isn’t the role of the military; that’s a UN job and we all know how GREAT they are at getting jobs done. Whatever Mr. Obama’s strategic plan comes up with, there needs to be an objective. Gen. McChrystal is trying to put a big bandage on the wound but Mr. Obama needs to tell us where the bleeding is and what defines stopping it. His inaction will only lead to more bloodshed and not just in Afghan. Other despots around the world are getting the message that the US is slow, indecisive and not necessarily ready to commit. What is the “Obama Doctrine”??

By: kiwi

kiwi — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:45:02 +0000

And now we converge in agreement. My views lie more generally with yours, but I thought it important to track some history, while at the same time not resiling from the fundamental importance of the decision that Obama must come to.

By: Gavino

Gavino — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:20:03 +0000

Many thanks for your incisive comment, Kiwi. Of course, I don’t share your views but I do hope that Obama is carefully “considering the political, geographic and ‘winnability’ realities of America’s role in Afghanistan”. That is welcome, but he has also had nine months to do this since taking office. He has waited at least 4 weeks to initiate it since receiving his General’s plan. All this could and should have already been carried out before now. The fact that he only spoke to McChrystal once in 70 days suggests that he has had little interest in what has been happening in Afghanistan. It took a jolt from the media (McChrstal’s “60 Minutes” interview on CBS) to get something going. Amazing really. The review could serve a useful purpose but it wasn’t conceved in the best circumstances and this delay has its consequences too.

By: kiwi

kiwi — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:44:23 +0000

Perhaps an alternative theory is worthy of, at least, consideration.

Can it be that Obama is actually considering the political, geographic and ‘winnability’ realities of America’s role in Afghanistan? There is a significant history of failure to tame the Taliban and its allies that stretches back way past either of the two most recent US Presidents. An under-equipped and strategically light Soviet Union failed. An over-equipped and strategically strong US (and allies) campaign is going nowhere. One could posit that the surges in US presence in the area were a reaction from an enraged but impotent President Bush whose post-9/11 promises to his electorate were spectacularly unfulfilled. Bush Jnr’s promises to a shocked nation that his Administration would inflict a death rattle on terrorism were unfulfillabe at best and dangerouse at worst. His Administration’s failure to achieve his promise led to the disasters of the WMD debacle, Gitmo, waterboarding and other excesses. Finally Bush turned to Afghanistan in an attempt to placate a populace becoming increasingly concerned at the number of body bags returning to America. Obama inherited the unwinnable. He now faces the unenviable task of writing many many more letters to grieving spouses and familites of dead American forces as this war continues. And this war continues without much evidence of success. There are, of course, very significant geopolitical underpinnings to American’s adventures in the hills and I do not for a moment suggest that withdrawal is any kind of acceptable option. But I do wonder whether Obama’s apparent indecision over his Generals’ very unsubtle ‘recommendations’ might indicate that there is a more rational and strategically thoughtful process underway – and if that is so, it has much to commend it in comparison to the Bush ‘sheriff with a pair of six guns’ approach.