With the recent flurry of reports of requests by 'commanders in the field' for the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan - and the hesitation by the White House to offer any echo of
Gen. Stanley McChrystal's and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman,
Adm. Mike Mullen's apparent desire to further escalate the occupation - there's a question as to where the notion actually originated. The lack of any clear sign that the recent escalation of force has gotten us any closer to either reconciliation or victory over our nation's opponents in Afghanistan may be what has caused President Obama to shy away from outright agreeing with the general, but he's going to be pressed, anyway, in the coming weeks, to (re)define the future of his mission there (in light of the consequences of the Afghan's disputed and widely discredited elections) in ways which will convince Americans that both his commitment and his approach are reasonable and doable. There are signs that instead of tripling the military commitment in Afghanistan, the president is considering focusing most of the military effort in the near future on 'defeating' al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
The president has made clear with his declaration of U.S. military goals in Afghanistan that he has increased the commitment of forces there in the belief that al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters in the region can ultimately be "eliminated or "defeated". However, assessments in McChrystal's leaked memo and by others show the insurgency growing and gaining influence in Afghanistan, despite the increased U.S.-led military offensive and the completion of the elections there which were supposed to produce the political stability the administration has argued is essential to any successes assumed to be achieved by the escalated raids and assaults against the resistance forces.
In televised remarks Sunday on 'Meet the Press', Mr. Obama said the question he's asking those who are advocating increased military presence and action in Afghanistan is: "How does it make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the US homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe?"
"If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward," the president said. "But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration."
That's as clear a statement of reservations from the president about military involvement in Afghanistan as he's offered, so far, as president. Most of his comments about Afghanistan (before the recent elections there) have appeared to be directed toward those who were looking to find some resolve from the new administration to continue the military campaign that candidate Obama had complained was inadequate to the task of confronting and eliminating any threat to U.S. from fugitive al-Qaeda and their allies in the region.
Indeed, even as the White House attempted to put the lid on escalation reports, the republican opposition in Congress looked to pressure the president into following through on his stated commitments to military action and to support the leaked calls for more troops. A "deeply troubled" House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said in a statement that, "It's time for the President to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated," Boehner said, "because the longer we wait the more we put our troops at risk."
Despite his reticence though, to dig our troops in any further into the Afghan soil, it doesn't look at all like the president is ready to completely abandon his ambitious military campaign to "defeat" al-Qaeda.
AP reported yesterday that one alternative to increasing the size of the U.S. military contingent in Afghanistan may be to step up the number of drone (unmanned) aerial attacks on targets in Pakistan. That strategy, however, has been hailed as a success by the military, but panned by the Pakistanis caught in the way of the seemingly arbitrary and tragically collateral U.S. air attacks across their sovereign borders from Afghanistan.
All of the speculation about troop increases stems from a report prepared for Gen. McChrystal from which he's expected to make recommendations for the way forward for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. What may be lost in all of the punditry is that U.S. policy regarding Afghanistan and the region in conflict will ultimately be directed from the White House, not the Pentagon. The president is looking at a number of options which may not necessarily center on the role of just the combat forces which have been deployed to facilitate the elections just held.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
http://www.rferl.org/content/Obama_Administration_At_A_Crossroads_In_Its_Afghan_Strategy/1828431.html">yesterday, answered those anxious to promote the yet-to-be-announced requests for more troops, asserting that, "We have a process going on with respect to our strategy in Afghanistan. As the president has said, it's strategy before resources."
"We're soliciting and receiving advice and assessments from a broad range of those who are directly involved
, and of course we welcome General McChrystal's thoughts. But that's a classified pre-decisional memo, and we are looking to integrate everything that we're doing, and then of course the president will make his decisions," she said.
Some of the individuals who are attempting to influence the president's Afghanistan policy are apparently having some success in acting outside of the administration. Spencer Ackerman at the 'Washington Independent' reports that neoconservative vigilantes, Fred and Kim Kagan contributed to the Pentagon review which reportedly calls for up to an additional 40,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan, and are now issuing their own call for a 40,000 to 45,000 increase in an article Monday hawking their insider's view of the recommendations in McChrystal's leaked 66-page memo.
More troops to Afghanistan may well be inevitable. Even critics in Congress who have expressed reservations about sending additional troops to Afghanistan (like Democratic Sen. Carl Levin) have spoken about their desire to, nonetheless, provide more U.S. 'training' forces to speed the development of the Afghan military so they, in turn, can provide the future security for their government and their citizens.
Whatever the generals ultimately present to the president as a way forward for the military in Afghanistan, there will need to be an increased acknowledgment of the limits of military power in achieving even the modest political goals set out by the administration. The mixed results of the Afghan elections and the almost negligible effect on the balance of power outside of Kabul (a majority adhering to the tribal leadership of the Taliban and others over the influence and control of Afghanistan's central government) expose the administration's nation-building behind the force of our military as the crap-shoot almost everyone expected it to be.
Facing limited resources (both money and manpower) available to fulfill all of the desires to escalate the occupation of Afghanistan, President Obama is now challenged (either by process or deliberate manipulation of the leaked review) to be more specific about what our future military role is in Afghanistan. It looks, more and more, that our new president is not going to be willing to invest his political capital in defending a unpopular military campaign in Afghanistan at the expense of a focus on his domestic priorities and ambitions. His statement that, he's "not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration," is encouraging. We'll see . . .
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
