Another Quarter - Another Afghanistan Mission

Per the AP and Fox News: 'Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is heading to South Asia on a mission aimed at refining the goals of the nearly 9-year-old conflict in Afghanistan as fears mount about the war.'  We have consistently failed to establish a clearly stated mission in Afghanistan, adapting tactics to the situation as necessary, and we have yet to properly and fully source any of the stated missions to date.  Instead, we keep redefining the mission, accomplishing little in the way of long-term success as a result.  These are failures of both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and must be rectified if we are to achieve success.  This is not to advocate that we blindly stick with a mission that we're unable to accomplish, or for which there is no political and public will, but we must find a mission that we can and will support.  Otherwise, there is little point to being there.

To Afghanistan - With Love

On Valentine's Day, I enjoyed a nice meal with my family, cards, flowers, etc. As I enjoyed those, US Marines and Afghan soldiers had their minds and hearts on their mission - and I find my thoughts and prayers with them. 5,000 US and Afghani troops are participating in a major operation to destroy the Taliban in Marja (west of Kandahar), while British and Afghanis are operating in Nad Ali.

Good hunting gentlemen, and God speed.

Army - Navy Game 2009

Despite being, in all other respects Army-true, this one day each year I'm all Navy, in honor of my father, a 1962 Annapolis grad. A few minutes ago, Navy won: 17 -3. The best and friendliest of rivalries of college sports is done for another year, and many of the 2010 graduates, especially from Westpoint, will be headed to Afghanistan next summer.

UPDATE 1: You Took Your Time - We're Taking Ours

Update 1: Good news from Secretary Clinton: NATO appears to be pledging up to 7,000 troops from twenty-five member nations. NPR is reporting that WH staffers state that these commitments were made prior to the president's speech. Germany and France are standing pat on waiting for the January conference before committing to any troop increase. It will be interesting to see 3,000 more troops can be whistled up between now and the end of January. If so, Gen. McChrystal's plan would be almost fully staffed. President Obama now seems to accept that the surge plan from Iraq is transportable to Afghanistan.

Previously Posted:
While the Pentagon and President Obama have requested 10,000 additional Afghan-bound troops from NATO members, primarily for training purposes, NATO is likely to provide, at most, 5,000 troops. If the war has lost support here in the United States (to 50% or just under), support in the European public is far lower, and NATO governments have lost patience with President Obama's long decision-making process. Germany and France seem unwilling to answer the president's call until at least January:

'German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm welcomed Obama's timeline for withdrawal saying it was "correct and sensible." But on the question of whether Germany would send more troops, he preferred to point to the Afghanistan conference set to take place at the end of January in London. After the conference, Germany will decide "whether and if so what kind of additional efforts we might undertake." ... German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle also pointed to the January conference. "Obama also took his time to work out the speech and his strategy and we will take our own time to assess what he said and discuss this with our allies," he said. Indeed, the only countries which immediately offered to up their troop contingent were Britain, Poland and Italy. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that the UK would send an additional 500 troops with Poland likely to up its contribution to 2,600 from 2,000. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said his country would send more as well, but avoided a concrete pledge, saying only that Rome would "do a lot."'

Reaction to the President's speech at West Point was mixed, and the latest major polls were taken prior to the speech, making it difficult to gauge it's effect on the American public. Spiegel Online has openly reflected Europe's disenchantment with Obama Administration leadership. One can only hope that they'll pony-up in the long run, or the new Afghan strategy will prove just as flawed as the old.

Success v. Victory

When even the Daily Beast pleads for some victory talk from the President (along with others), you know there's a problem.

'It would have helped him immensely if he'd actually used the word "winning"—or any kindred words—somewhere, anywhere, in his speech. But he did not: "Successful conclusion" and "responsible transition" just do not hack it.'

Contrast 'victory' to this:

'In a prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy, the president said his new policy was designed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion." The troop buildup will begin almost immediately - the first Marines will be in place by Christmas - and will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.'

Updates: Obama's War

Update 1: The most recent Gallup poll shows support for Obama's handling of Afghanistan at 35%, and it's really not surprising. Tonight is the third strategy address the President has made (the first was when he was a candidate). Each time, he has: 1. blamed Bush (fair enough the first time or so, but old once you've been in charge for awhile) and 2. tried for something new, claiming it was a restatement of the same strategy. Tonight, he spent the first eleven minutes giving a short synopsis of the history of our involvement since September 11, 2001, the obligatory swipe at the Bush Administration, and a defense of the time the review took (stating that the troop request was not slated until 2010). Obama stated twice that he believes our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that new attacks are being plotted from the border region with Pakistan. He then went on to state that we must strengthen Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prevent Pakistan's fall.

He gave three ways to pursue the new strategy in just 18 months: 1. break the hold of the Taliban in certain regions; secure civilian population centers; increase training of Afghan forces. He believes that we'll be able to then begin withdrawal in July 2011 (this is a purely bogus date - if he truly intends to withdraw 'responsibly,' and only if the on-ground conditions are 'right,' he can not promise this date). 2. Improved civilian and political centers by combating corruption and helping with agricultural development. 3. We will act in Afghanistan with the knowledge that we must prevent the spread of the Taliban further into Pakistan. (One wonders how we do this without moving into Pakistan - something we would need far more than 100K troops for). "We can not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intention is clear." (Sounds a great deal like the Bush doctrine of preemption, laid out at West Point in 2002, to me).

He did give a decent explanation of why he doesn't want to commit to a long-term, nation-building program, leaning on the 'it's not in our national interests' argument, but it's hard to see how that fits in with his statements a few minutes earlier that we owe it to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan to secure them from the Taliban. He then sequed into a statement that an open-ended troop commitment would be too difficult economically (true enough), and that he wants to 'build' our nation (how?). He is clearly committed to extending the idea of a war strategy into all kinds of areas (getting rid of nuclear weapons, setting an example by stopping torture, etc.). Much of these areas have little to do with his Afghanistan policy, and did not add to the speech; rather they detracted from the details of the strategy (of which there was none given barring the troop number and the July 2011 date).

Published earlier:
As all now know, the President will be addressing the nation shortly on his new - new strategy on Afghanistan. The President plans to announce that he will be sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan on an accelerated deployment schedule beginning this month, bringing the total US commitment to just over 100,000 troops. Somehow, he also intends to squeeze blood from a stone, and get the Europeans, who have steadfastly refused his requests to date (barring the additional 500 approved by the UK this week), to make up some of the difference between the 30,000 and the 44,000 requested by Gen. McChrystal. The NPR live blog from West Point can be followed here, and live streaming is here. HuffPo states that while the President won't pick a particular exit date, he plans to state the commitment will not be 'open-ended.' In the press conference with Gibbs today, vague statements about a draw-down within three years ("well before the end" of the President's "first term") were made.

Via the Telegraph: Will the Real Man Step Up?

I'm back (sort of) early in light of the President's Afghanistan address tomorrow. The Telegraph is asking the poignant question: "Will the true Barack Obama stand up on Afghanistan?" The answer is likely, no. He's more likely to try to find some sort of a balance point between all positions, and in so doing, may very well fail on one of the cardinal issues of his campaign. The President's decided tendency, when confronted with hard decisions (not unlike many commentators), is to vacillate, waiver and appease. Here is the President's policy statement on Afghanistan in February. Having found that he can't easily accomplish that policy, he is likely to announce tomorrow that he will increase troop levels by 34,000, with an exit strategy pegged at an 8 to 9 year commitment. The President seem likely to set his 'victory' bench marks at what he simply deems achievable. Jake Tapper (ABC News) pulled plenty of this magical-type of thinking out of Gibbs at today's press conference (although he got little in the way of concrete answers). Stay tuned for live blogging of the speech tomorrow.

John Kerry Serving at the Pleasure of His Own Ego

Sen. Kerry is now advocating that President Obama take a good deal of time in deciding whether or not to resource Gen. McChrystal's request for additional troops. McChrystal's analysis of the situation on the ground is fully backed by Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, who are dealing directly with the mission that was given to them by the President this year. Kerry seems to blame the military leadership for being so bold as to request the resources necessary to fill that mission. Morning Edition reported today on Kerry's 'helpful' suggestion to listen to those ready to challenge 'the Generals,' calling the military leadership "... a lot of yes people who are there to serve at the pleasure of the wrong choice."

Besides being thoroughly insulting to the professional military, Kerry's new position is in direct contrast to the one he held up until a couple of months ago. Apparently calling for something, and being responsible for sourcing it, are two very different things to the Senator.

UPDATES: Is Gen. McChrystal Being Muzzled?

UPDATE 1: Defense Secretary Gates has said that he will formally receive Gen. McChrystal's troop request by the end of the week, but that the report will stop there until the President and his staff are 'ready to consider it.' Apparently, doing more than one thing at a time only goes so far. Meanwhile, Gen. McChrystal has stated that there is no rift between he and the White House, and that he welcomes the debate. He also warns that taking too long to decide on the troop request will, in essence, be a decision to lose any hope of defeating the Taliban. Hopefully, we'll have a decision in two weeks, after the UN and G20 hoopla are over, but I'm not holding my breath.

From Gen. McChrystal's report to the President:

'"The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans in both their government and the international community that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

"Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or 'doubling down' on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate."'

The problem may be that the President is too boxed in by promises on Afghanistan, health care, stimulus-spending, and most especially, his party supporters, too develop a coherent and winning strategy.

'Obama, who issued a new war strategy for Afghanistan just six months ago, has signaled he will change it again.

"One of the things that I'm absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make the determinations about resources," he said last week. "You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle, without having absolute clarity about what the strategy's going to be."

Anthony Cordesman, a Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst who went to Afghanistan, has rebuked the White House for vetoing McChrystal's request before it even arrives.

"Quite frankly, it would probably be just as well if people in the National Security Council and the White House made their judgments after they get the assessment they need rather than try to resource constrain an assessment in a way that can lose the war," he told reporters.'

Compare this thinking with the 'new' strategy on Afghanistan issued in March:

'So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.'

There's just no way to do (and pay for) it all. Gen. McChrystal is probably feeling like he has a target painted on his back right about now, and that's the wrong approach. He was given a mission (albeit a vague and self-contradictory one), and has given his professional assessment as to the best way to meet that mission successfully. Now political game-playing seems to be cutting his legs out from under him. When commentators wonder if Afghanistan is the new Vietnam, they may be right, but not in the way they're thinking. Our involvement in Vietnam would have been far more successful, if Congress had not constantly tampered with the mission, and the means by which that mission was resourced and fulfilled. If the same tendency toward 'mission-creep' grips this Congress and White House, Afghanistan will indeed resemble Vietnam. The President needs to clearly state his mission objectives for Afghanistan, properly resource those objectives per the recommendations of the professional tasked with carrying them out, and then let those professional succeed. Anything less is disingenuous.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day is always fraught with emotion for me. I come from long lines of service members, men and women, on both sides of my family. Both my parents served (my father for a career in the US Navy and my mother for a short stint in the US Air Force) as did I and my sister (Air Force and Army (NG, Reserves and Active) respectively). On 9/11, friends of mine helped take down the plane in Pennsylvania, family acquaintances were in the Pentagon, and a close friend was working in the north tower in NY. Since then, over 500 service members that I've worked with, served with or been friends with have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Memorial Day is a true holy day (the origin of our word holiday) for me, and my husband and daughter faithfully attend services each year with me. I hope that this year, it is a holy day for you as well. Freedom is not free.