Obama's advisers at war over Afghan conflict
President accused of dithering as leaked memo reveals bitter divisions over strategy in his inner circle
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Getty
President Barack Obama leaves the White House yesterday to embark on his visit to Asia
enlarge
The West's military strategy in Afghanistan slipped even deeper into confusion yesterday after President Barack Obama flatly rejected all four options for increases in troop levels presented to him by his team of national security aides.
The delay was prompted in part by a last-minute bombshell from the US ambassador in Kabul. In two cables to the President, Karl Eikenberry argued it would be a bad idea to increase troop levels because of the ineptitude of President Hamid Karzai, who finally secured a second term last week after the fraud-marred mess of the August elections. By speaking up, Mr Eikenberry has put himself on a direct collision course with the US military leader in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. US commanders in Kabul greeted the envoy's intervention with dismay although some civilian officials believe the development gives Mr Obama a valuable breathing space in which to explore the least harmful ways out of a seemingly intractable situation. The procrastination may point to a possible swing in sentiment in Washington toward those who fear a Vietnam War-type quicksand.
Some significant new US deployments are eventually likely to be approved, but the delay weighs on the military planners not just of the US, of its Nato allies, with no decision now likely before early next month. "This will create immense problems for military planning on the ground. It could not have come at a worse time," said one senior American defence source in Kabul. British ministers meanwhile fear the splits in Washington will further erode public support for the war.
American and British commanders are desperate for more troops to stem the tide of the Taliban insurgency and say that every day that slips by without a clear commitment from Washington makes their task more difficult. The open divisions in the US, say diplomats, will make it even more difficult for the US to persuade other Nato members to expand their contributions. The Western strategy for the next phase of the war has been predicated on General McChrystal getting a significant proportion of the 40,000 troops he had asked for if the Afghan mission is not to fail.
The ambassador's two memos were sent to the White House last week and leaked to the US media after being debated at a Council of War on Wednesday. There is some suspicion that Mr Eikenberry leaked his own messages to get the President's attention. But their surfacing publicly at this juncture gives Mr Obama some cover for postponing a decision. Republicans have accused him of "dithering" but the leaks allow Mr Obama to send a message to voters that he is not allowing himself to be railroaded by military commanders and that he takes seriously those who want to know when and how America will get out of this war.
This is why the White House moved to issue a statement after Wednesday's meeting to stress the deliberateness of Mr Obama's pace. "The President believes that we need to make it clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended," it said. And yesterday, he received back-up from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, who is believed to support additional troop deployments, but not as many as the 40,000 requested by General McChrystal. Mrs Clinton listed "corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance, absence of the rule of law" as the main lingering concerns about Afghanistan today.
Unsurprisingly, the Karzai circle did not take kindly to the amplification of US dissatisfaction. "We are committed in further fighting corruption as we prepare to form a new government," said a spokesman for Mr Karzai, Siamak Herawi, before adding: "At the same time, we want the international community to do more to eliminate corruption in spending aid money."
The frustration has only deepened since Mr Karzai won a second term. Spectacularly irritating to them was an interview last week, in which he implied that Afghanistan might be better off without the Americans anyway.
Mr Obama, who last night left for an eight-day tour of Asia, meanwhile faces growing headwinds from an American public fed up with the war. A CNN poll this week showed 58 per cent of Americans opposing the conflict and 56 per cent unhappy about sending in more troops.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Please stop using the verb "dithering." Apart from being boringly repetitive, it is inaccurate.
If Churchill had been 'hard at work evaluating options and receiving input' for months, without making a clear decision, at any stage of WWII, we'd probably all be typing in German now.
No, the plain fact is that Obama has turned dithering into a fine and extremely dangerous art, with profoundly negative implications for the West. We all wondered if this man, who seemed to be a great rhetorician, would also prove to be a strong and decisive leader. We now see that, without doubt, he is a political lightweight incapable of delivering decisive and strong leadership. Afghanistan will probably finish him, but that's just as well, because the West cannot afford this kind of political and military chaos and incompetence.
WWII was a war with serious threat from Germans.
Afghanistan is an invasion with a serious threat from the Americans.
Two very different situations.
The problem is quite simple. The Americans went into Afghanistan, guns blazing, thinking they could take the country in a few hours. To some extent they did with the few capital cities and towns.
Ie, mainly in the north. This was because the Northern Alliance wanted them in. There was a civil war between the Taliban and Northern Alliance. A difference in ideology, the Taliban are sunni wahabbi and the Northern Alliance are shia.
Afghanistan doesnt have the terrain for democracy or invasion. There is no arm in the world that can succeed there. So Obama isnt dithering - he simply doesnt have any options open to him.
If the USA leaves, they loose.
If the USA stays, they loose.
We dont really know how the white Amercian soldiers were treating Nidal Hasan about his religion and Arab ethnicity. I suspect they were winding him regularly and rubbing him up the wrong way and in the end, he may have flipped.
Modern man has been instilled with nationalism.
About 500 years ago, it was regionalism in incidents like the War of the Roses between Lancaster and York (Lancashire and Yorkshire). We have moved on an cannot understand how people from two regions killed each other. Our scope has widened - we take the nation view. Similarly, the Muslims (in theory) have a worldwide view of other Muslims - national boundaries are man made. In fact, many non-Muslims also take a global view as their consider migrating to other parts of the world for their retirement.
It is not like he hasn't got the time to make a decision. Obama found the time for hundreds of Town Hall Meetings, interviews with the press, (five exclusives in one day), and speeches to supportive groups (unions), but he seems to have ignored McChrystal and to have been exceptionally weak in providing support to his own strategy.
Now you want Mr. Dithers to sit back and evaluate, educate and fully understand the implication of his own decision; PRIOR TO making an ULTIMATE choice. WHAT WAS IT HIS FIRST TIME?
Is this like PRE SCHOOL, where Obama gets a do over, because he just did not understand what he was doing? Maybe OBAMA is just pressing the reset button and starting all over again. No he's DITHERING! Or maybe he is playing politics and just doesn't want to do anything until he gets the Obamacare bill through Congress. Could it be that he's afraid his liberal base will go crazy when he acts on Afghanistan and he just might lose on Obamacare?
The number of troops needed for a decisive blow to the Taliban would by far exceed the kind of involvement the West would be willing to.
The situation isn't much better than when the Russians tried to eradicate moslim extremism. You kill one enemy and ten new enemies pop up. You kill one Taliban, you insult a family, and suddenly his brothers, cousins, nephews etc. become Taliban too. Children in Taliban dominated areas grow up with pictures of death and destruction, and honestly, give me one good reason why they should like us?
Unless the West is willing to exterminate a couple of million Afghan civilians, this war cannot be won. At least not within a reasonable amount of time.
If you think long term, concentrate your efforts to build up Afghan infrastructure in areas where you have relatively good control and get some form of working economy. That could eventually result in a growing number of Afghans supporting the western point of view. They need to see improvement in their economical and life situation. They need to be offered a way of living based on their own terms that pays off for both of us. For instance agriculture: we need to buy their products at such a price they stop producing opium.
Your blood thursty gibberish doesn't help the case...
Public support? What public support? A YouGov poll for Sky News found that support for the war had dropped to 21 per cent, from 28 per cent in August, while 63 per cent said British troops should not be in Afghanistan, up from 57 per cent three months ago.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/w
Public support for the war was eroded long ago when the Government clealry failed to provide the best protective equipment and vehicles for our soldiers, gave then shoddy accommodation to live in on their return and appalling medical support and compensaation for the injured. Do the soldiers get overtime? It seems the bonueses paid to our brave MoD civil servants were justified as they went ojn rare field trips to Afghanistan. But our soldiers, who have to wake uo each day knowing they have to go out on patrol etc with bad equipment and vehicles vulnerable to IEDs get taxed! If a private company treated its workers this way there'd be a boycott. The Government's apparent disinterest in acting like a good employer may be a factor in the public's so-called support for the war.
People like yourselves who likes to bang on about this subject because the red top media told you to do so are nothing but hypocrites. Put your money where your month is and don't complain when they increase your taxes to pay for all this extra equipment. Likewise, Rupert Murdock should pay his fair share of corporates taxes instead of using every loophole available to avoid it every year.
The Pentagon reacted quickly to improve body armour, especially groin guards, which reduced casualties. The British Govt has repeatedly failed to respond as promptly.
So put your foot where your mouth is, and shoot yourself in the foot. I have no idea what the red media are you are banging on about. I guess you don't have family in the war, so go choke on a pretzel if you don't like people wanting their soldiers to be better protected.
Of course American soldiers have better care and financial support, better body armour and all the rest of it, because their military budget is over $515 billion per annum while our budget is £35 billion. If we tried to match everything they have, the country will be bankrupted. It would be nice to give our soldiers the best of every thing but we must be realistic about what we can afford or are willing to pay. Having the best of everything isn't stopping those American body bags coming home, so malleable sheep like you should stop banging on about it as if it's the answer to everything.
No, I don't have any body in the war but it doesn't mean that people who do are some how more worthy than the rest of us. Joining the army is a matter choice and being killed is a major hazard of the job. Grieving families should grieve in private and not go round venting their anger and frustration at the nearest convenient target. If they feel so against how this government is handing the war then why didn't they convince their enlisted family member to leave the forces before they were killed? Why wait until they are killed to act the martyr?
You evidently think it acceptable for British soldiers to die for want of decent equipment, and justify it citing Americans are also being killed. You cannot accept the right of relatives of soldiers to criticise the government for poor planning and support, without indulging in some insane ranting about asking grieving relatives (I'm not one) to convince their family memebers to quit their jobs. From the tone of your posts are you sure you aren't the one venting his (or is it a her?) anger and frustration at the nearest convenient target? As far as I am concerned, this correspondence is ended.
As for your point about the government's poor planning and support. I personally think our soldiers are getting the best support this near bankrupt country can afford. End of.
Public support? What public support? A YouGov poll for Sky News found that support for the war had dropped to 21 per cent, from 28 per cent in August, while 63 per cent said British troops should not be in Afghanistan, up from 57 per cent three months ago.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/w
Public support for the war was eroded long ago when the Government clealry failed to provide the best protective equipment and vehicles for our soldiers, gave then shoddy accommodation to live in on their return and appalling medical support and compensaation for the injured. Do the soldiers get overtime? It seems the bonueses paid to our brave MoD civil servants were justified as they went ojn rare field trips to Afghanistan. But our soldiers, who have to wake uo each day knowing they have to go out on patrol etc with bad equipment and vehicles vulnerable to IEDs get taxed! If a private company treated its workers this way there'd be a boycott. The Government's apparent disinterest in acting like a good employer may be a factor in the public's so-called support for the war.
Edited at 2009-11-13 07:59 am (UTC)
Army manuals dont work in Vietnam or Afghanistan...
The USA is spending $1B per 1000 soldiers -> $1M/soldier.
Its hurting the Americans much more than the insurgents.
Time is on the side of the insurgents, they just have to wait from either the body bag count or the accountants to step in.
The Taliban have no such problems.
Therefore they will win. Remember Westmoreland Vs. Giap in Nam?
Whenever politicians try and fight wars instead of men on the ground their side loses.
I wish it was otherwise but there it is.
Why is there little media coverage of the damage done by the cost of the Iraqi occupation, the Afghan occupation, the secret war against Iran, and the (n+1) US overseas military establishments?
Just the Afghan invasion is costing the USA $1Billion/1000 soldiers/year. That works out at $1M/soldier/year.
Not ideal, in a recession that was not predicted. The USA must now be desparate to end it. Thats why the USA is thinking about holding talks with the insurgents.
It must be costing the insurgents less than $500/insurgent/year but they have poppy power funding their defence, so they are able to sustain their defence costs indefinately.
To date Uncle Ben Laden has cost the US trillions in dollars hundreds and thousands in lives on both sides not forgetting the knackering of their military equipment
Compare the military might of the coalition forces against Uncle Bens propoganda machine plus kalashnikov rilfles, hand held rocket launchers, IEDs, the constant warring between the US military advisors these are depleting the US economy far far more than the bankers fiasco
and Ms. Clinton expects that they will learn this from our example through our actions in their country?
Drones blowing up families from two miles in the air is certainly a great way to teach people how to apply rule of law to their advantage.
Paying off Taliban chiefs is another great example of how well rule of law works.
And then there is the lack of transparency issue: our secret prisons, Bush's uncorrected, unconstitutional, secret domestic surveillance systems and insistence on extraordinary rendition as an effective tool of the state is surely a great way to model rule of law and transparency to neophyte democracies.
How about the ability to pick and choose when to use habeas corpus?
Not to mention the changes implemented to the constitution during Bush's term that grant the administrative branch the powers of royalty and that stand un revised and unchallenged by this administration.
How about Ms. Clinton's plausibly deniable connections to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Central America? I'd sure want to take that example out as a great talking point during lectures to places we have bombed to smithereens in hopes of helping them manufacture out of thin air, a crippled economy and legless children, a working democracy.
This is something other than dithering. This article is something other than journalism.
From today on we let Fox and CNN broadcast victorious pictures of our troops winning the war. Hollywood distributes documentaries on how we won the Afghan war. We withdraw all troops and suddenly the Taliban has nothing left to fight against.
We fool them into thinking they are beaten!!!