In early October, as President Obama huddled with top administration officials in the White House situation room to rethink America's failing strategy in Afghanistan, the Pentagon and top military brass were trying to make the president an offer he couldn't refuse. They wanted the president to escalate the war - go all in by committing 40,000 more troops and another trillion dollars to a Vietnam-like quagmire - or face a full-scale mutiny by his generals.
Obama knew that if he rebuffed the military's pressure, several senior officers - including Gen. David Petraeus, the ambitious head of US Central Command, who is rumored to be eyeing a presidential bid of his own in 2012 - could break ranks and join forces with hawks in the Republican Party. GOP leaders and conservative media outlets wasted no time in warning Obama that if he refused to back the troop escalation being demanded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander overseeing the eight-year-old war, he'd be putting U.S. soldiers' lives at risk and inviting Al Qaeda to launch new assaults on the homeland. The president, it seems, is battling two insurgencies: one in Afghanistan and one cooked up by his own generals...
More at Rolling Stone.
Comments
The only way we can "win" (whatever that means in this case) in Afghanistan is to put in another 300,000 troops, build a border fence (like the Morice Line between Algeria and Tunisia), relocate whole villages into controlled areas, and lock the place down. Or, we turn it over to the U.N. to divide it up among Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. As long as Pakistan and Iran are anti-U.S. Muslim countries (and Pakistan is not a friend of the U.S.) that provide sanctuary and aid to different Muslim crazies and drug dealers who want to run Afghanistan, we are kidding ourselves. If we are there to kill Al Qaeda off, we are failing. If we are there to transplant democracy, we are failing. We are not ruthless enough to "win". Would somebody please be brave enough to either use adequate violence, or failing that, bring our guys and gals home. All the drama about 40,000 troops and our weak CinC is a painful side-show.
The claims of indecisiveness from the right are about as absurd as claims from the left that are parroted in this Rolling Stone article. This issue has officially been dumbed down to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Here's a crazy thought. Perhaps a decision has been made, but it simply hasn't been announced. Maybe - just maybe - what we see going on is a public relations shaping operation for the announcement of the decision. Now there's a wacky idea, huh?
A commander needs to be decisive. Laboring over the current troop request is indicative of an absence of leadership. Also, to suggest the President is battling two insurgencies, one in Afghanistan and the other from his Generals seeks to excuse the time it has taken to make troop commitments. Lastly, a "rumor" that General Petraeus is considering a political career is laughable.
I second Starbuck's question.
I'm not even sure (and not concerned) what Party the General might find more in line with his own personal beliefs. But undeniably there are Republicans who dream of a Petraeus candidacy, and Democrats who consider it their worst nightmare. I believe both groups are small, but the second is slightly more motivated - so probably more such reports will follow.
Far out, man. This article brings back some groovy memories. Reminds me of the days when people were more open to the claim that Generals are just a bunch of squares who want to wage war. The author was really talking to me with the stuff about political ambitions of our Generals and their conspiracy with the right wing. Don't trust ANYONE over 30, man, or at least anyone who was over 30 in, like, 1968. But, he forgot to mention the war profiteers. They're trying to put us on the train to Squaresville, man. And also. Oh bummer. I forgot what else I was going to write. Oh man, I've really got the munchies.
Can we get a count of the "crises in civil-military relations" that we have had in the last 20 years? Everytime there are apparent differences of opinion between civilian policymakers and general/flag officers (active or retired), its quickly termed a "revolt." (I feel I have been reading Richard Kohn make the same argument for that whole period).
I think that there are voices on both sides of the argument, in uniform and out. I'm not sure casting the debate in the usual "threatening civilian control of the military" lens provides any better perspective on the problem.