I do believe President Obama should have accepted General McChrystal’s resignation, and I agree with the near universal assessment on the right that there can be no better replacement than General David Petraeus. However, that does not mean I am more confident about the fate of Afghanistan today than I was yesterday. The reason is simple: President Obama.
Amidst the praise for General Petraeus – which he certainly earned from his performance in Iraq – we have almost entirely forgotten the importance of the civilian who appointed him, as if having Petraeus as the military commander makes the president a better Commander-in-Chief. It doesn’t.
Lest we forget, when Petraeus was commander in the Iraq theatre, then-President Bush had his back every step of the way, and he set the tone for everyone else in his Administration: the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, other civilian appointees, etc. Even Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who couldn’t have agreed with the general every second of every day, kept his contentions (and attempts to resolve them) private.
Contrast that with Obama’s treatment of McChrystal, who was not only appointed by Obama but was on the president’s side politically (no one knows to this day what Petraeus’ political affiliations are): civilians from Vice President Biden on down could and did brief against the general’s strategy – even though it was supposed to be the president’s, too.
Nearly everyone assumes Obama et al will avoid that sort of thing with Petraeus.
I have my doubts.
The only thing we knew about President Bush’s view on the WBK War was that he wanted it won. The only thing we knew about President Obama’s view on the WBK War is that he wants it over. That’s not the same thing, as I fear Petraeus is soon to discover.
Consider the President’s own words (SF Headlines Examiner):
So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.
Notice what’s missing? Any references to defeating the Taliban? Any references to defeating al Qaeda? Any reference to victory? No to all three.
In short, the president has picked the right general, but for the wrong objectives. He (the president) still wants merely to end the war, not to win it. That’s a flaw no general can fix, not even David Petraeus.
Filed under: International Politics, National Politics
[...] Why I cannot join the optimists on the Petraeus appointment « Virginia Virtucon says: June 24, 2010 at 11:20 am [...]
This is counter-insurgency strategy. its what Petreaus, and McChrystal, have been recommending for years.
And it’s doomed to failure.
If you’re going to blame anyone, don’t blame Obama, blame the Generals for giving him bad advice.
This move has a where is Joe Gibbs when you need him flavor to it — don’t expect much out of it other than some short term PR advantage.
I definitely see your point. That’s why in my post I stated that I HOPED the president would given Petreaus everything he needs to WIN the war and DEFEAT the Taliban and al Qaeda.
If he doesn’t, then this change is nothing more than window dressing and I would hope that Petraeus would then look up the number for that Rolling Stone reporter…
You’re not looking at this the right way.
COIN doctrine has nothing to do with defeating the enemy on the battle field and everything to do with “winning hearts and minds”
Its the same bullshit strategy that the Generals who ran the Vietnam War came up with and it’s going to fail in Afghanistan just like it failed there.
The sooner we get the hell out of there, the better
There is no one COIN strategy. The generals are not developing the strategy. Obama is. They are being told to develop the strategy and tactics to implement Obama’s mission. Patraeus’s COIN strategy worked in Iraq. But he was supported by a President that wanted to win. Now, not so much.
The strategy in place now is the COIN strategy that McChrystal himself proposed.
And what worked in Iraq (at least for the moment, get back to me in a couple years) won’t necessarily work in Afghanistan.
We went into Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda, not to attempt to bring “democracy” to a tribal culture that has no concept of the term and which is united in name only. It’s time to but an end to this WIlsonian nonsense.
Patraeus is the epitome of a pentagon politician. He’s with Obama because he wants Mullen’s job.
The Afghan strategy now seems to be a warmed over version of the Vietnam Paris Peace talks minus an Operation Linebacker component. The resulting reality of this failed war will be bloody instability from the Stans all the way to Indonesia as radical fundamentalists pursue the original goal of all oil for a new Dar al-Islam caliphate. The genocide of Rwanda and Cambodia will become a minor footnote in history, replaced by Central/SE Asia, and eventually the oil regions of Africa.
There will be no need for recruiting drives because when the last American boot lifts off Afghan soil, the entire Islamic world will realize it was Allah’s will and their personal destiny to join the cause.
You see we have never really understood the enemy and their dream. Besides a bunch of flag waving and singing God Bless America, our country has remained ignorant and unengaged as we send our military on deployment after deployment after deployment that grinds down combat efficiency with no clear objectives.
America had a dream once. 9/11 began the loss.
i think Obama always said during the campaign…..”get out ….responsibily…..”
I start to wonder if all this is part of a turf war within Obama’s administration. On one side you have the Biden faction, and the other is the Hillary Clinton faction. How much does Hillary like Eikenberry (sp?)?
My other concern has to do with Obama’s own lack of leadership. D.J. is right about Obama’s predecessor having much more of a will to win (something that eluded much of our political leadership during Vietnam as well). Obama is now entering the stage of trying to be all things to all people, and vacillating between an image of toughness and conciliation. From a leadership point of view, this is disastrous. You don’t have to live in the kind of authoritarian regimes of Machiavelli’s world to see that popularity does not follow vacillation.
Then again, I wonder how Obama makes up for this new appointment by bungling up other foreign policy matters?
That is an interesting theory Ron, except if Obama wanted to implement what you are saying, he would have just done it and not created all the uproar. I think foreign policy has improved tremendously under Obama. When Bush was in, many or most nations hated us. I stopped attempting to do foreign travel at that time. I had worked in Ukraine on an assignment and wouldnt dare go back. Now i would not hesitate. Now i suppose you can point to more problems since you evidently know something about the subject – i dont!! Except things are much more calm since Bush and Chenney are gone!
Ken, Put it this way (again, channeling Machiavelli) When you are right, it is better to be feared than loved. Obama’s need to be love will eventually lead to him being disrespected. Perhaps you remember Jimmy Carter?
I would note that according to polls I have read recently, the initial enthusiasm for Obama overseas has waned. People overseas like to tell pollsters that they despise the U.S. (particularly Republican leaders), but the same people would give anything to live under the kind of prosperity that a low tax system unleashes. Hey, there is a reason why Hollywood leftists (and many foreign-born actors) stay in the U.S. rather than live overseas.
Ron -you are going all over the lost to make whatever point you seem to want to make…..we are not talking about machiaevelli ir carter…..we are talking about 2010 obama…..and he has done a damn good job notwithstanding all the crap peddled daily by rush and his dittheads……
Ken, Just because ancient and modern history is beyond your grasp is not my fault! LOL
Yeah, that 10% unemployment is part of the “damn good job,” isn’t it? Total cluelessness about Iran, Russia, China, Hamas, and for that matter, Greece is part of his “damn good job.” The increasing number of foreclosures is part of his “damn good job.”
You miss the point. Obama is reeling back and forth between an image of toughness and one of conciliation. Unfortunately, he is not one to pull off the “good cop, bad cop” act. Instead, (whether or not you agree with his policies) this could well be his undoing. As Machiavelli pointed out, it has happened far too many times in history. And it has happened far too many times since the 16th century.
Hellooooooooooooo Ron……………………….is anyone there!!!We are not talking about ancient and modern history………we are talkig about 2010…….earth to Rn, earth to Ron………..the unemployment rate was projected to rise to about 9.9 percent BEFORE Obama took office……it did go to 10, BUT we are moving in the right direction now, thanks in part, to the stimulus; when he took office, we were losing jobs by the thousands each month…….now that is turned around. WOW, you’re even blaming Obama for Greece??? You are indeed Ron, a real piece of work!!!He has renewed progress with Russia on several fronts…things in Ukrraine are slightly better and the ethnic battles in Krysteckstan (sp), and Georgia…..what the hell, fcs,blame Malia and Sasha for those; Iran progress is still neutral; China inches ahead…..even today, theey agreed to raise the value of their currency….a huge support for our economy depending on the amt raised………..now go back to your f 16th century cave and ponder…………………..