In the Arena

Mission Creep

There’s a very important piece in the Washington Post today about the military’s passive resistance to President Obama’s Afghanistan war plans. This could be a huge problem going forward. The success of the President’s plan–as a true test of what can be accomplished in Afghanistan–is entirely dependent on two qualities: speed of deployment and focus. The troops need to be in Afghanistan by next summer. The troops have to be focused on the heart of the insurgency, especially the deteriorating situation in Kandahar province; the training of Afghan forces has to focus on quality not numbers. Already the military is beginning to slow-walk the deployment schedule: Obama wanted all the troops in by August, now the last units aren’t scheduled to arrive until November. And, according to this piece, the military has stubbornly–foolishly–insisted on the unachievable goal of a 400,000 man Afghan security force (half that many would be a significant achievement).

The next Afghan policy review is scheduled for one year from now. If the troops don’t arrive in time, if the mission isn’t focused on things that absolutely have to be done–like regaining control of Kandahar city–the military will be able to argue for more troops and more time. That would be a policy, and political, disaster for the President.

I suspect this is a moment for Bob Gates: he needs to gather his generals and read them the riot act. The deployment schedule needs to be sped up, the mission has to be focused now. The military made a significant mistake in 2009, deploying troops to Helmand province rather than trying to secure the heart of the insurgency in Kandahar. That sort of shoddy strategizing can’t happen again in 2010. The details are too complicated for the President to follow on a daily basis; he’s got more than enough other problems to deal with. He needs significant help from his National Security Adviser and Defense Secretary. If they can’t keep the military on plan, he’s going to need to find advisers who can.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • Ffred

    I know there are legitimate arguments against this opinion, but I imagine myself in Afghanistan and weighing the Taliban vs. American forces and finding them both extremely wanting in addressing my major concern, which is can you keep your big Fw#$q^(*&w$ Judeo-Christian-Muslim male equivalent of Alien-esque ovipositors out of my #w#)*($&@#$ life???? I suppose the fact I live in Arizona affects my opinions, but then what the )(*$&# happened to McCain in the last 8+ years?

  • michaelfury

    “The military made a significant mistake in 2009, deploying troops to Helmand province rather than trying to secure the heart of the insurgency in Kandahar. That sort of shoddy strategizing can’t happen again in 2010. The details are too complicated for the President to follow on a daily basis; he’s got more than enough other problems to deal with. He needs significant help from his National Security Adviser”

    In which direction is the pipeline construction “creeping”, Mr. Klein?

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    I agree joe. All this is way to complicated for a community organizer form Chicago. Actually his whole presidency seems to keep him befuddled.
    .
    But he does throw a mean party.

  • pintortwo

    the military will be able to argue for more troops and more time.
    .
    I think that this is a clear objective for the military brass and certain segments of the press. I don’t believe that the “plan” is for quick deployment and early termination of operations, rather for a prolonged engagement. Obama needs to stand up to his generals (and press cheerleaders) in order to create a tenable situation of the short-term.

  • http://www.124monkeys.com Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

    I’m sorry Joe, but how does any of this matter? Have you seen Karzai’s latest cabinet appointments? The whole Afghandyland op is just pointless unless and until the govt. situation is addressed. Until it is we’re just trying to prop up South Vietnam all over again.

    You can’t do COIN or stabilization without a legitimate govt partner, it’s like trying to do a rodeo without rope. Yeah, there might be some pretty action for awhile, but in the end, it’s not going to accomplish anything.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Seasons Greetings to all! :)

    Hopefully some of the Gates ‘crew’ or advisors read this column.

    The case for adhering to the President’s plans in Afghanistan in a timely and effective manner, could not have been elucidated in a more crystal clear manner than has been done in this article.

    Shoddy delivery and lack of cohesiveness is not an option in implementing the Obama plan on this matter otherwise it will fail woefully!

    The Afghan issue will become much much worse if it is not decisively handled in the manner the President posited in outlining his plan for Afghanistan.

    Mr. Klein is read by many, so lets hope someone either reads this piece,or at least is able to make as deft an analysis as this one!

    This article is a breath of fresh air and illuminates the problems with the implementation of the Presidents Afghanistan strategy so so clearly.

    Thanks.

    LM

    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    He needs significant help from his National Security Adviser and Defense Secretary. If they can’t keep the military on plan, he’s going to need to find advisers who can.

    Sorry Joe but that is absolutely Bass-ackwards. It’s not up to the civiilian leadership to make sure the generals follow their orders. It’s up to the Generals to follow thier orders as written or else find Generals who can.

    There’s a reason our milutary reports to a civilian leadership. Otherwise there’s little to differentiate us from Pakisatan…..

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Pakisatan…..

    Hmmm, I wonder if that was Freudian……

  • slowp

    “Already the military is beginning to slow-walk the deployment schedule: Obama wanted all the troops in by August, now the last units aren’t scheduled to arrive until November.”

    Although it’s always fun and cred-building to rail about those who opposed escalation as know-nothing granola-eating, DFH quislings, the fact is a lot of them opposed escalation because no matter the time, place, or circumstances, historically the military always seems to have a way of putting presidents in the position of having to commit more and more resources, ad infinitum. Mark my words, these guys are sooner or later going to create a major problem for BHO.

  • formerlyjames

    I won’t pick sides here. Nor will I discriminate. The generals and Obama are both wrong. Misguided, elusive strategies in both cases. The religious insurgency will march on by whatever name and in whatever form. Concentrate on Kandahar rather than Helmand? Just let the corrupt “national” government ride and hope for the best? All the more complicated by the confused roles of our own leadership, civilian and military. I have an idea. Let’s just pull out and let the chips fall where they may. And keep the drones on standby for strategic strikes when the cockroach population gets a little too high in a given tribal area.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Time to read Seven Days in May again.

    Dirks is right, the generals sound thisclose to insubordination.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Of course a 4 page article without a single named source should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • juniusredivivus

    Nonsense. Pakistan is totally unlike the US. We don’t have political generals and a party of religious extremists trying to overthrow democracy and install a theocracy based on hatred and a literalist reading of old texts. Oh…

  • coolpix22

    Obviously Joe, you must not have served in the military, like so many of your pencil pushing colleagues, or you’d know how the military works. But then that’s not the media’s calling card, they and you are more interested in sensationalism and gloom and doom than anything else.

    Since when did the Washington Post “staff writers” become experts on military matters or policy? They were part and parcel, along with other war-mongers and sucked in media types, pushing for the Iraq War. Some staff writer’s by-line would be the last person I’d be relying on for a lede to my story.

  • destor23

    Hang on, the militrary drags its feet and would then ask for MORE troops and MORE time? If that’s the case the answer seems obvious… We just say no and bring them home. I can’t imagine that the military actually wants a more prolonged engagement in Afghanistan, it would either want overwhelming force or withdrawal. Lets give them withdrawal and we done with it.

  • formerlyjames

    The WP reporter has expressed opposition to both wars. He is not a warmonger; he is just reporting the confusion of the situation.
    .
    Related to this piece, I just noticed on the teevee news that yemen seems to be the current hotspot for terrorists activity and that al quida has more presence there than anywhere for the time being. Just another notch for my argument that the afghan war is passe, kaput, useless. Cockroaches have more sense than the military strategy here.

  • http://www.peterhsu.org Peter

    It takes a long time to move an army — you can’t just stuff 40,000 people onto a place and send them in. Taking less than a year to put the 40k additional troops in place means that you’re going to be sending in soldiers who have not been adequately trained for Afghanistan.

    I don’t think any of the brass are deliberately slow-walking this out of some nefarious plan to justify a longer commitment, generals just have a strong bias towards ensuring that those they send on a mission are adequately trained and prepared for that mission.

  • shepherdwong

    I won’t waste my time asking Joe if he thought the generals would betray the Commander-in-Chief under the same orders if he happened to have an “R” next to his name. Besides, we already know the answer:
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01iht-edwest.1.5516022.html

blog comments powered by Disqus