Article on the split among Obama's advisors on Afghanistan

[karynnj]

The article describes the split in the military. There are some - Casey, for instances not in favor of McChristal's plan. Biden is mentioned as wanting an alternative to a troop build up (as a DU post said in greater detail. Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton are listed as hawks. Then it speaks of other voices that Obama is listening to:

(after paragraph of Powell being cautious)

Mr. Powell is one of the three people considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate — former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed — have all expressed varying degrees of doubt about the prospect of sending more forces to Afghanistan.

Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, where he served, and has floated the idea of a more limited counterterrorist mission. Mr. Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and an Army veteran, has not ruled out supporting more troops but said “the burden of proof” is on commanders to justify it.

<skip>
In an interview, Senator Kerry, who met with Admiral Mullen last week, said that he has not made up his mind about the troop buildup but “we have to ask some very tough questions about that, questioning the underlying assumptions.” In Vietnam, he said, “the underlying assumptions were flawed and the number of troops weren’t going to make a difference.”

Senator Reed, who met with Mr. Biden, was more measured, but said the president needs to look at the capacity of Afghan forces and the prospects of reconciliation with moderate Taliban members. “You have to evaluate several options very vigorously — one to give you confidence in the decision and two, because you want to make sure you have the best operational plan to carry out the strategy,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. Nice to have a President who actually cares about finding the best option...

And getting input from a wide range of people, before making a decision.

I could do without Powell though, personally.

[karynnj]

2. Well - I don't need to post who I prefer he listen to

:)

[blm]

4. I'm liking that Biden shifted to Kerry's view and expect them to dominate the hawks

in this debate, Clinton and Holbrooke.

[karynnj]

5. I would agree with you on this

Even in 2004, this is how Kerry spoke of fighting AQ. Biden was, after Bush's second inaugural address, very open in his praise of the idea of spreading democracy. He was among the last of the Democrats to sign on to setting a deadline in Iraq. But, to his credit, he is the leading Obama administration official arguing against the hawks.

I also wonder, if Kerry, with the chairmanship of the SFRC and his ability to run exceptional hearings isn't better placed than if he was inside the administration. Anyone wanting a more detailed understanding of the difference between counter insurgency and counter terrorism would be well advised to watch the two hearings on Sept 16 and Sept 17 - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html Next Thursday, he has another hearing on the impact of Afghanistan on Pakistan.

[blm]

7. Yep - one of the reasons I wanted Kerry in the Senate instead of being in cabinet.

.

[karynnj]

10. You had more insight than I did

Not to mention that Massachusetts really needs him now. He is also so needed on the Finance committee and to lead the effort with Boxer on climate change. (I also bet that he would really miss some of the contact with people and campaigning that the SoS is not allowed to do. )

[earth mom]

12. There is NO reason for the U.S. to be at war in the Middle East. Period. nt

[HamdenRice]

15. Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Can we at least get our geography right? nt

[BlooInBloo]

16. They're too busy unthinkingly repeating talking points to care about getting it right.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Obama is facing the same situation that JFK faced in 1963 with Vietnam

JFK sent more military advisers, and got involved in the Diem coup. In the Fall of 1963, JFK had to decide to fish or cut bait. His advisers wanted him to escalate the war. While no public announcement was ever made, after JFK was assassinated, several of JFK's closest advisers said that JFK had overruled the Pentagon and his ambassador to Vietnam and decided to de-escalate the war and America's involvement in it.

There is no way to tell what would have happened had JFK lived to see his new policy implemented.

[polichick]

9. It's possible that decision killed him. nt

[Uzybone]

6. Debate? Over war? In the white house

what a change.

Obviously the President should pay very good attention to the Senators (Kerry, Reed) and the VP.

Its refreshing that Obama is listening to informed and serious folks; not bloggers, magazine editors, think tank hacks and the like.

[blm]

8. Or a president doing the bidding of BushInc and Dubai-Saudi royals

I am way sick of that shit!

[nsd]

11. What Obama needs to do is kill Osama bin Laden.

Or, if Bin Laden is already dead, produce evidence of his death. A picture of his body. His head on a platter. Anything. Because that would change everything.

At the moment, American options in Afghanistan are constrained by Bin Laden's (presumed) continued existence. Whatever the military merits, scaling down in Afghanistan is terribly difficult because it would mean admitting a kind of failure in the fight against Al Qaeda -- a failure to avenge 9/11. It's not like Iraq. Nearly no one, not even the neocons, had an emotional investment in Iraq. But Afghanistan has always been different. As Obama made clear during the election campaign, Afghanistan is the central front, home of the Taliban and the headquarters of Al Qaeda, the place that spawned the 9/11 plot. And, for better or worse, Bin Laden is the face of 9/11. Eight years on and he hasn't been killed or brought to justice. That feels like failure.

If U.S. forces were to track down and kill Bin Laden, then we would have closure and Obama would be free to do whatever he thought best in Afghanistan.

[uponit7771]

13. +1

[karynnj]

14. I agree that "getting" OBL would make an emotional difference

But, the counter terrorism approach DID create an Afghanistan where there is no major Al Qaeda presence. They are across the border in the lawless area of Pakistan.

In addition, no one - not even Senator Feingold is speaking of leaving Afghanistan now - he is speaking of a timeline, for the same reason he and Kerry proposed it for Iraq - to put pressure on the Afghans get their own army large enough and to create the institutions needed - the biggest problem is that Iran had the resources - if they had the will. In one of his opening statements on the SFRC, Kerry spoke of Afghanistan needing not reconstruction, but construction.

[nsd]

18. I realize no one has advocated immediately leaving Afghanistan.

However, I question whether Obama and Congress can really treat the Afghanistan war (or, as you note, the AfPak war) in the same way as they did the Iraq war. Leaving Iraq in the hands of the Maliki government is a perfectly fine solution -- because we never had any other objective there (some might say we didn't have any objectives at all). But we did have an objective in Afghanistan, and it wasn't to prop up Karzai or even to create a stable Afghan government. It was to destroy Al Qaeda. Driving them temporarily or permanently into northwestern Pakistan isn't really a satisfying outcome. Maybe it's the best we can hope for, but it doesn't feel like enough.

[karynnj]

19. I fully agree

The point made by some is that with a counter terrorism strategy, we can keep them out of Afghanistan and in conjunction with Pakistan (yeah - I know that may not happen) eliminate them from Pakistan. Completely eliminating AQ may not be feasible - as they might continually gain new adherents.

[IndianaGreen]

17. This is a 'split' among hawks

There isn't a single dove in the White House!

[karynnj]

20. I would agree - Obama himself may be less hawkish than his entire

foreign policy team. Having typed that, it could also mean I give him too much credit and miscatagoized him as he certainly could have picked some to the left. I don't think that Kerry or Reed - neither in the WH - are hawks.