David Broder to Obama: Stop Taking the Time to Get it Right
Nov 15th, 2009 | 80 responses
Make a decision — any decision. That is the Dean of Washington Journalism’s advice to Pres. Obama on Afghanistan:
The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose — and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.
It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision — whether or not it is right.
Steve Benen is incredulous:
“Whether or not it is right.” The Commander in Chief, in other words, should put expediency over merit. Speed is preferable to accuracy. It’s only the longest military conflict in American history, with the future of U.S. foreign policy on the line — the president should worry less about due diligence and thoughtful analysis, and worry more about picking a course, even if it’s wrong. Other than the loss of American servicemen and women, untold billions of dollars, and undermining U.S. interests in a critical region, what’s the worst that can happen?
80 Responses to “David Broder to Obama: Stop Taking the Time to Get it Right”
Broder has gone senile, I'm afraid.
I'm sure that Fred and company want to get their war on and figure the sooner a decision is made the more likely that decision will be in favor of the long war. But there are ways to say the same thing without sounding like a senile old man.
I am not a hawk, I believe the Afghanistan war is for practical purposes unwinnable. McChrystal delivered his recommendations to Gates 2 1/2 months ago and noted the current strategy will not work. Despite this, Obama continues to follow a failing strategy and send Americans into harm's way.
Neither liberals nor conservatives should be comfortable with this. I am surprised at the patience and tolerance for more deaths shown by people who are ostensibly pacifists.
It's tough to balance the competing interests of informing a decision and making a decision in a timely manner. There aren't any right answers, but from what I've read the President intends to make a decision by the end of the month and that works for me. At the very latest, a decision should be made by the end of the year.
you usually make better sense. McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops in harms way. How do you think that's going to affect the level of violence and deaths of American troops. Any way you think they'll go down? Right, no way. So making no decision is preferable on that metric than making a decision to go McChrystal's way. Of course he could stop all American deaths over there by terminating the mission right now. Is that what you're advocating? Pretend you're a business manager. Your staff brings you a handful of suggestions you don't like. Do you choose the least worst and go with it? Or do you send them back to the drawing board? I'm not a hawk either. But I do respect a leader who takes the time to get it right than one with the “ready, fire, aim” approach of the Bush administration. Just imagine where we'd be if he had held off on the Iraq war until the WMD issue was accurately assessed. 4,000 dead American soldiers would still be alive today, 25,000 would not have been maimed and we'd have several trillion less in national debt.
Any way you think they'll go down? Right, no way.
If McChrystal is right that more troops are needed to carry out the current strategy, then of course we could reasonably expect fewer troops being killed when more are deployed. Some pundit (I forget who it was or I'd quote) gave an analogy of a burning building- is it safer for the firefighters if the chief sends in a smaller number of them, or if he correctly assesses how many are needed and sends the appropriate number in to put out the fire?
I am surprised at the patience and tolerance for more deaths shown by people who are ostensibly pacifists.
As opposed to what? Sending 40,000 more troops?
What if they're fighting a chemical fire with water hoses and the chief sends in more firefighters? Will that put out the fire?
Bush was too quick, Obama too slow. Oh, for the Goldilocks president who gets it just right to satisfy us.
If we had all the information and intelligence available to us that the President may have, we would be better armchair generals.
lol, dduck, good one
To add a wee bit, sending 40,000 troops is inherently a long-term decision and it's more justifiable to only make such a decision taking a long-term view point. Sending 40,000 more troops is essentially a 3 year decision, minimum. Months for roll-out, probably working at least another year to see if it's having an effect, and then months of roll-back after hoped for success. It would make no sense to immediately sign an order to send 40,000 troops and then 6 months later stop and review the strategy. Review it now, which will take some time, make a call.
If this was a shorter term decision, such as a requisition of needed supplies (and therefore a reallocation of the budget), then Obama should be rightly criticized for not making a decision in a week or so.
Either way, I hope we have a better exit plan. I'm amazed at how many wars our recent presidents have gotten us into war without a plan for getting us back out. That exit plan is at least as important as the invasion plan.
As opposed to what? Sending 40,000 more troops?
My first preference is to withdraw from Afghanistan. My second preference is to pursue a strategy that will work. Right now we have neither.
Afghanistan can neither be subdued nor governed. Our “mission” was to drive Al Qaeda from it's sanctuary. We have accomplished our mission.
Given that the mission has been accomplished and that nation building is not possible, the decision should be to declare victory and leave. That we should send more to die and be maimed to build a nation that cannot be built is indefensible.
Never thought I'd live to hear myself say this, but I agree with Dick Cheney (though from an entirely different perspective). Obama is dithering.
Cs -
You know I respect the heck out of you, but what is “the current strategy”? More importantly what is the end goal there? Do you believe Afghanistan can be governed by anyone? Or that 40,000 or 500,000 more American troops will be able to accomplish that? The real question, it seems to me, is what we are trying to accomplish at this point. Is the end goal to make the country a little less violent? To stop drug trafficing? To prop up the Karzai regime for a few more years? To establish a colony (sarcastic)? What are we trying to accomplish? Really, what?
I think what we are trying to accomplish is to keep the Taliban from retaking the country as soon as we leave and giving Al Qaeda a home base from which to operate again. The hope is that if security can be arranged for a large portion of the country for some time, then enough strength will take hold in the regime to combat the Taliban by itself. If the leaks and reports are accurate, Obama's not convinced yet that the plans he's been given show that end point of leaving. If there is no such end point possible, then the idea is to switch to a simple “bomb the Taliban” strategy and leave the rest. I've seen no dithering.
OK Pacatrue, I'll admit to some hyperbole on the agreeing with Cheney comment. If our goal is to keep the Taliban from retaking the country, we will be there for generations. As for Al Qaeda, they already have new santuaries. Please tell me how we accomplish these things short of permanent colonization.
If we want a permanent presence there to keep the Taliban off guard or to make sure Al Qaeda uses someplace else as its sanctuary, why not drop a few million into Karzai's Swiss bank account in exchange for establishing a permanent military base and stop trying to subdue or govern the country? Ok, that's more hyperbole, but there's a real point here. Afghanistan has never been governable and has never been controllable. That's not hyperbole. Why should we believe that we, with 40,000 more troops, can do what no one has ever been able to do in all of history?
Times have changed, strategies have too, but altogether too slowly. However, a real glimmer of hope is that the military mindset has changed recently as a result of the success of the Predator. One of the top commanders there remarked that the idea of having a 24/7 air presence anywhere was unthinkable until the last decade. Today, the “pilot” of a Predator unmanned drone can finish his shift and turn the job over to someone else, something that has never been possible before. Now the military is looking at even longer missions including airships that could stay aloft for 3 years at a time. We don't know what the discussions are right now, and dduck's armchair generals quip was most appropriate. It is not inconceivable that we could establish a more or less permanent surveillance capability far cheaper than troops can provide.
I commend to you all the recent Esquire article that really gives a flavor of what it's like for our troops in Afghanistan. http://www.esquire.com/print-this/afghanistan-w…
As I've proposed here (armchair president?), what I'd do is buy all the opium, buy all the guns, hire all the Afghans and win this war economically, instead of militarily.
Haha, well, the difference in our positions is that you already know that there can be no successful government in Afghanistan. With that knowledge, then, yep, time to pick up and leave, by and large. My understanding is that Obama's trying to reach your current state of knowledge.
(Hope you don't mind the bit of cheekiness. Meant in good spirits.)
GD -
“As I've proposed here (armchair president?), what I'd do is buy all the opium, buy all the guns, hire all the Afghans and win this war economically, instead of militarily.”
Not only would that save lives, it would probably be cheaper.
Perhaps I should offer to advise him and share my “knowledge”, aka opinion.
On the other hand, maybe I just spent too long at the Buffalo Chip Saloon and Dance Hall earlier and should go to bed and save further comments till morning. Btw, there really is such a place in Cave Creek, AZ and I really did spend several hours there with friends earlier.
Don't worry about being cheeky…made me laugh.
Sorry, more targets, more casualties.
Certainly you mean “our last president” not “recent presidents” with no exit strategy. Clinton ended Kosovo & how many Americans have died there recently?
Yes, we managed to get out of Somalia and Kosovo, but not because we had exit plans.
Well, Clinton said we'd be out of Bosnia in 12 months and we were there for many years. Both Kosovo and Bosnia aren't exactly stable and we've provided no long-term solution there. Sometimes what happens isn't what you plan for.
Obama came into office thinking he had the ends and ways figured out and was going to adjust the means. Along the way he had second thoughts about those ends and ways – good for him for not blindly following his campaign rhetoric.
What if they're fighting a chemical fire with water hoses and the chief sends in more firefighters? Will that put out the fire?
No, of course not, and I'm not critical of the idea that the strategy may have to be re-revised after an assessment of whether or not the revision that Obama announced in March is working and/or workable. But since a new strategy is not yet ready, we can't leave the troops who are there hanging and more may need to be deployed in the interim. My comment to GD was in regard to the faulty logic that sending more troops necessarily means incurring more casualties. In some situations, more troops in the theater can increase the safety of all of the troops because they can then actually carry out tactics to acheive security goals. McChrystal, apparently from what is known about his report and recommendations, believes this is one of those situations. I have no way of knowing if he's correct, or if he is, does that mean that we'll tip the tide toward potentially creating enough security and stability to leave with something we'd consider a 'victory'. But that's a longer term question, and the immediate one is whether or not we need more troops there until the long term goal and possible exit strategy are decided.
You know I respect the heck out of you, but what is “the current strategy”?
The counterinsurgency strategy announced by Obama last Spring. All of the questions about strategy, goals, and exit plans are valid, but where were all of you guys during the campaign when Obama continually talked about ramping up efforts in Afghanistan (the war we must win) and this Spring when he announced that he was sending reinforcements and committing (well, sort of, anyway) to this COIN approach? (Mind you, I don't know if you personally opposed all of that tidbits and raised the questions then, I'm just saying that there was a general absence of debate about it at that time.) I suppose the Kucinich wing of the Dems have been pretty outspoken about this all along, but otherwise most people seemed to go along until now, when a second round of troop deployments is needed to continue on this course. Some are using the legitimacy of the Karzai election as the turning point, but really…if you believe that Afghanistan is ungovernable, does it matter whether or not that election was fraudulent? If it's true that the country is made up of feuding warlords and the vast majority of the people are illiterate, can any election be considered legit and binding, and would it really matter?
I actually think that the corruption in Pakistan is a bigger problem, but it seems that we're constantly walking on eggshells (for good reason, but it's still very problematic.) We've given billions in aid to Pakistan (and that was designed to help Pakistan help us in the border region) but they divert it to build their capacity against India.
Where has the State dept been in all of this? Part of the strategic announcement in March was about a standing trilateral negotiation between US, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and beefing up diplomacy with all of the regional players. That was March, now its November. Is there really any indication that there's been any 'smart diplomacy' going on there? Can we move beyond 'reset buttons' and apologies for the past administration's cowboy diplomacy?
More importantly what is the end goal there? Do you believe Afghanistan can be governed by anyone? The real question, it seems to me, is what we are trying to accomplish at this point. Is the end goal to make the country a little less violent?
I would say the end goal all along should have been to establish enough security and stability in the region to prevent a power vacuum that would result in the re-ascendance of the Taliban (and probably, re-establishment of safe haven for Al Qaeda.) That is not actually a goal that can be accomplished militarily, but I do feel that a strong military presence is a necessary condition for the political goals to be accomplished.
Word is that McChrystal actually said that around 80,000 troops are needed, and he suggested that perhaps 40K could be US troops and 40K additional NATO forces. I speculate that what has actually been going on has been an attempt to see how many troops NATO allies might add before we commit- but the reaction from Europe has been the opposite of what we'd want. They seem to be saying that if the US is wavering, they're certainly not going to step up. I think the rhetoric being used for US domestic political purposes is that maybe we have to rethink our entire commitment, and the election is being used as the main rationale for that, but using that kind of rhetoric weakens the ability to ask European countries to further their commitment. Of course another angle is that Europe may not even have the capacity to send the number we need, so it may not be all about the political will to do so.
more targets, more casualties.
A conclusion that can only be reached if one believes that our military consists of sitting ducks who are deployed without training or leadership.
Hey, ACP (Arm Chair President): A Modest Proposal. I hope they are at least they are considering at parts of your plan. LOL
“My comment to GD was in regard to the faulty logic that sending more troops necessarily means incurring more casualties. In some situations, more troops in the theater can increase the safety of all of the troops because they can then actually carry out tactics to achieve security goals.”
You betcha. A lot of ACG (Arm Chair Generals) don't realize that point. Well said.
CS -
I understand what you are saying about Afghanistan being the “good war”, and you are correct that there was little public debate about the subject either during the campaign or in the early days of the Obama adminstration. Your read of the political climate is correct.
On a personal level, I have criticized our continuation in Afghanistan for years and opposed the Iraq invasion since before it took place, but that is my traditional conservative reluctance to get involved in foreign entanglements.
My criticism of recent American military involvement is that we repeat the same mistake. We (politicians) set our goals/mission. The armed forces enter and accomplish those goals/missions, all to great acclaim. We really were greeted as liberators initially in Iraq, for example. Then, having achieved our stated mission, we decide to stay on and engage in nation building. It is not something our military is designed for and eventually descends into civil unrest, resistance and our being viewed as occupiers who need to be expelled rather than the liberator perception of the initial action. At that point, our mission becomes murky, our politicians flounder (Bush in Iraq, now Obama in Afghanistan), the American public becomes disenchanted and our allies seek to disassociate themselves.
It is this hallmark of American military policy, as defined by political leaders, that leads enemies to position themselves not for battle but for counter insurgency after we have won the war. It is also this hallmark of our policy that repeatedly turns victory into murky stalemate. Reagan understood the idea of getting in, acccomplishing the mission and getting out (Granada); GHW Bush understood it (Gulf War); but, subsequent administrations seem not to have learned, or to have forgotten, that lesson.
I agree with almost all of that, tidbits. The problem is though, we have to deal with the situation we currently find ourselves in, not the one that might have been if we hadn't entered into these two wars.
At this point, I would hope that a well considered strategy will evolve for Afghanistan/Pakistan, and I am by no means a dove.
I found an article in yesterday's NYT, Business Section, to be very interesting as it applies to war as well as our every day lives. The basic theme is “escalation of commitment”.
Food for thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/business/econ…
Heh, good article, dduck. It's funny because as I was writing my last comment to tidbits I was reminded of the line from the movie “Wargames” where the computer learns “this is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” An observation that fits those bidding games as well.
What I carried away from that article is we all over commit to something. If you are a Dem. or a Rep., you wind up defending some ill conceived strategy because “your guys” developed it. I like the moderate concept since I don't feel like a traitor if I am flexible enough to consider another viewpoint.
However, when in the presence of die-hards left or right, I get out the big guns and blast away, damn the torpedoes.
The partisan digging in of heels is a good point too, but I was struck by the description of games that have a very slim chance of winning and a greater chance that you'll end up losing, and facing the choice of cutting losses at some point or losing bigtime.
The only problem with the analogy to 'deciding to play the game of war' as it applies to our current wars is that I'm not convinced that not playing would have been a winning situation either. That's less clear with Iraq, but WRT Afghanistan few people would have agreed with allowing the Taliban to remain in power when they wouldn't turn over Al Qaeda. From there though there's also the problem that removing the Taliban left a void that can't be left unfilled either.
Raising the troop strength to General McChrystal request would put our troop strength to where Soviet troop strength was during the1980's… and we all know how that worked out!
You are correct. The trick is to be careful not to over commit. Very difficult. Look at some of the long-winded discussions we have here. Once you have posted your position, and added variations and retorts, you find it almost impossible to quit since you've invested too much time and brain cells (and darn it you know you're right) the other guys won't quit either. Blah, blah, blah.
I think ObamaRahm should do exactly as they think best, including stalling a decision, and ignore every post in here that tells them to do otherwise.
SteveK -
Yeah, we do seem to have a remarkable ability to ignore history, whether it is the implacably warring tri-tribal artificial British colony/nation of Iraq or the tribal/warlord culture of Afghanistan and its resistance to being subdued or governed.
Why so many American politicians think the rules of history don't apply to us difficult to understand.
where were all of you guys during the campaign when Obama continually talked about ramping up efforts in Afghanistan
Things have changed considerably in Afghanistan, or at least the assessment thereof. I don't think ANYONE as of the end of 2008 was estimating the strength of Al Qaeda in the country at 100 (and 300 in Pakistan). Now the idea of sending 40,000 troops to fight 100 insurgents seems a bit excessive. We don't know what the goals, aside from fighting them, are. Take a look at the article I linked to, in order to get a sense of what a “mission” there is actually like. Personally, I think McChrystal is mistaken in trying to increase this kind of combat. I think Obama is right to say 'wait a minute. Isn't there a more modern approach to this situation? Give me more options.' It's a good thing when a leader presses his staff to think outside the box to come up with a more sensible approach. After reading the article, you tell me if having twice or 4 times the boots on the ground is really the answer. If I'm a middle manager, of course I want to triple my staff and can reasonably assert that I could make more progress that way. But my boss might very well say 'find a way to do more with less human resources. Think of ways to use other resources.' As I mentioned, the remote warfare capabilities of unmanned drones is a game changer, getting eyes and weapons above the insurgents with far less risk than troops trekking through that difficult landscape.
Speaking as someone who deployed to Afghanistan in 2005 and continues to study the country excessively, estimations of AQ strength at the end of 2008 were not surprising. They were also irrelevant since the goal in Afghanistan was the creation of a friendly government to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe-haven to AQ or anyone else.
The decision on troop levels is down the line from other considerations. In the military this is usually the “ends, ways, means” continuum where a strategy will have stated ends achieved by the ways (plans, operations, etc.) and supported by resources, or the means. A good strategy links ends, ways and means.
If the desired ends is a “nation” of Afghanistan, with a legitimate government able to control its territory and adequately represent its population, then that requires a different set of ways and means than something else. McChrystal's recommendations are based on the assumption that the goal is going to be nation-building. I think what happened is the President Obama is, after initially putting out a plan for nation-building, is now questioning it and looking at changing the “ends,” or the our goals. If he does, then the the plans and resources necessary to achieve that will change as well. So I think the discussion among the President's advisers is much more fundamental than troop levels and goes to the heart of strategy – identifying an acceptable and achievable goal for our Afghan policy.
Personally, I don't think it is possible for us to do the kind of nation-building that the strategy, up to this point, had as its goal. Nation-building is a multi-generational, expensive effort and I seriously doubt the American people have the patience to commit resources for that length of time for what is a country of limited strategic significance. So I'm glad to see the President look at other options and hope he comes up with something more modest in scope.
cost of additional troops to Afghanistan – $40,000,000,000
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/1…
population of Afghanistan – 28,396,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Afgh…
troop increase cost per capita (Afghanistan) – $1408
per capita income – $416
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_…
opium growers per capita income – $300
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129577
I just can't imagine that there isn't a better way to spend the equivalent of more than 3 times the annual income of every man, woman and child in Afghanistan to improve their security situation. Microloans? Local infrastructure improvement programs? Read the Newsweek article above. I don't believe the majority of the population wants to be opium growers, and I doubt they want the Taliban in control any more than we do. What I believe they do want is food, water and shelter. If the Taliban gets them that, they win. If we can find a way for them to get it for themselves, I think we might be able to win back a few hearts and minds.
Just to put this in perspective:
equivalent for US per capita – (47,440/416)*$1408 = $160,640
Imagine what problems we might be able to solve here if some external entity were willing to spend $160,640 for every man, woman and child in the US. Per year…
And remember, this is above what we are currently spending in Afghanistan.
Excellent comment, Andy. I think this is exactly right:
McChrystal's recommendations are based on the assumption that the goal is going to be nation-building. I think what happened is the President Obama is, after initially putting out a plan for nation-building, is now questioning it and looking at changing the “ends,” or the our goals. If he does, then the the plans and resources necessary to achieve that will change as well.
And I don't fault Obama or his administration for that reassessment, except that I don't see that they've really spent the last 7 months implementing the nonmilitary parts of the strategy that they announced last Spring. The point of the military engagement is to give time and space for the political solutions to be worked out. In Iraq there was coordination of these efforts with the military surge, and while it's still tenuous there has definitely been more progress than most people would have predicted.
If this is accurate, apparently our Afghan ambassador hasn't been supportive of the nation building strategy. Now, if so, is that because he's right and it can't work, or is it not working because he and other key players aren't committed enough? I'd like to think that we didn't waste more than half a year and billions of dollars, not to mention however many soldiers' lives, while the diplomatic team wasn't committed to their part of the strategy- but it feels an awful lot like that's what has happened.
I have no way of knowing if he's correct, or if he is, does that mean that we'll tip the tide toward potentially creating enough security and stability to leave with something we'd consider a 'victory'. But that's a longer term question, and the immediate one is whether or not we need more troops there until the long term goal and possible exit strategy are decided.
That is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq initially and that kept us there. And this is what I find discouraging, because even people who were gung ho supporters of the Iraq invasion before it happened will say now that It may have been a mistake to go in there without a plan, and yet we're now having it insisted to us that Pres. Obama should do exactly that, make exactly the same mistake, all over again.
Obama is trying to avoid making the same mistake Bush did in Iraq, and he is being criticized for that by the very people who now admit the mistakes progressives have been pointing out all along regarding the Iraq war.
Broder is just a stupid DC fixture, and can be immediately discounted — heavily.
More and more people are agreeing that Obama is taking too long to decide what to do about Afghanistan. I remain in the minority who doesn't believe there is any “crisis” [sic] or need to rush. There is no way any decision will be “brilliant” or popular or widely accepted or pleasant in any way. I hope the consequences are less rather than more bad for us, whatever the eventual decision is.
It is this hallmark of American military policy, as defined by political leaders, that leads enemies to position themselves not for battle but for counter insurgency after we have won the war.
That is an excellent point. It turns on its ear the oft-repeated Bushian argument that we can't have timelines or exist strategies because then the enemy can just wait us out. The enemy is already waiting us out, because they know our m.o. by now, lol.
No, it's not true that this is an example of not learning the lesson of Iraq. As I pointed out earlier to tidbits though, we don't have the luxury of pretending we're not already there- we have to supply troops to back up the troops who are there, unless Obama is ready to begin bringing everyone home.
Obama is trying to avoid making the same mistake Bush did in Iraq, and he is being criticized for that by the very people who now admit the mistakes progressives have been pointing out all along regarding the Iraq war.
Bush made a series of mistakes, so it depends on which one(s) you are referring to. One error was believing in the Rumsfeld idea of smaller troop numbers (which actually was correct, and fairly brilliant, for the initial mission of invading and deposing Saddam- but was incredibly shortsighted in not meeting the needs of the aftermath.) Another error was in allowing disputes between the Pentagon and State Dept to undermine the definition of the mission. On both of those counts, Obama could well be repeating Bush's mistakes instead of learning from and avoiding them.
The problem is though, we have to deal with the situation we currently find ourselves in, not the one that might have been if we hadn't entered into these two wars.
And the problem with that argument is that it assumes the situation we currently find ourselves in is not still being materially affected by the policies of the previous administration. Everything the Bush administration did and planned to do from day 1 — day 1 being 9/12 and continuing — has helped to create that situation we are in now. So Obama cannot decide what to do in the situation we're in now without considering how we got into that situation. Even more to the point, Obama has to consider his options in the context of the possibility that actions taken long before he took office have effectively destroyed any possibility that may once have existed of succeeding in Afghanistan.
Or as Gore Vidal pithily put it: “The United States of Amnesia.”
I have very little respect for Vidal anymore, but that was one of his on-targets.