OBAMA – Really the Afghanistan Decider?
By Prof. Michael Brenner • Oct 31st, 2009 • Category: Politics, Worth A Second Look • 4 CommentsThere is something rotten in the current state of Washington’s Afghan policy making. The White House, we are told, is in the midst of an intense review of our strategy with nothing having been decided. Yet the NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels on Thursday gave their seal of approval to the ‘surge’ being actively promoted by General Stanley McChrystal. The General made a long presentation of his plan behind closed doors. Secretary Gates was in attendance but afterwards claimed that he was there “in a listening mode.” Supposedly, then, the United States as leader of the Alliance and in charge of the AF/PAK campaign sat mute while a judgment was made that preempts a decision in Washington that in principle is weeks off.
A confused American public, and an ever credulous press, are buying this fairy tale. Obviously, simple logic tells us that the story doesn’t hold together. Either Obama already has made up his mind to back the essence at least of the McChrystal plan or he is being boxed in a corner by his general who acts as if he is the commander in chief with Gates’ tacit support. Both interpretations are dismaying. A President who misleads the American people on a question of war and peace is continuing his predecessor’s practice of deception that brought us to ruin in Iraq - a practice that Obama swore oaths to reverse. The alternative is just as harrowing: the Pentagon is preempting Presidential prerogatives. Sad to say, neither should be a complete surprise given the White House’s record of having abandoned its much ballyhooed dedication to transparency while letting itself be pushed around by everyone from Goldman Sachs to Max Baucus to Bibi Netanyahu.
The unrelenting McChrystal lobbying campaign is undeniable evidence that something is seriously amiss. First he leaked a copy of his report so as to generate political pressure on Obama. He followed with a public address in London wherein he made the case for his touted escalation while disparaging alternatives. The White House reined him in at that point – or so we are told. Yet the indefatigable general was back at it within a week. McChrsytal curtly rejected Vice President Biden’s idea of scaling back nation-building objectives while concentrating on al-Qaeda and Taliban military assets – itself a plan that leaves in place all the key premises of present thinking. Taking that “shortsighted strategy” would lead to “Chaos-istan,” he pronounced. The is no precedent to this kind of conduct by a commanding officer in the American military – at least not since MacArthur went rogue in Korea and was sacked by Harry Truman. It is a worrying comparison both because of the fateful matters at hand in the two instances and the simple truth that one cannot imagine Obama mustering the strength of character to do anything remotely as brave.
There remains, though, the competing interpretation of these goings-on. The White House may be giving McChrystal his head so as to cast itself as the embodiment of prudence when it announces only a modest expansion of American forces. That choice could then be presented as the measured judgment of a strong president who will not bend to pressure whether from his generals or his ‘left wing friends’ as he calls the people who elected him. This is the sort of clever tactic that has the fingerprints of White House fixer Rahm Emanuel all over it. It obviously appeals to Obama who has followed a similar tack on financial ‘reform,’ health care ‘reform’ and restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The tactic’s failure to produce tangible success in all those cases has not shaken the president’s confidence in playing that game. A fluid definition of goals, and therefore success, eliminates any critical point of reference. Devaluing of the American people’s trust in their leader eliminates an obligation to honest public discourse.
Obama also seems unmoved by the consequences of leaving the impression that he can be bullied by the Pentagon. That impression of him in the minds both of his generals and other governments is a distinct and dangerous liability.
Trackback URL
|
|
|
Click For More Articles By Prof. Michael Brenner
Dr. Michael Brenner is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations. He publishes and teaches in the fields of American foreign policy, Euro-American relations, and the European Union. He is also Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 60 articles and published papers on a broad range of topics.
All posts by Prof. Michael Brenner
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.


Dear Prof benner,
General Machrystal is on the ground at Afghanistan. Vice president Biden says that the General will get what he wants only when the Afghan election results are known and American public knew whether it is karzai or Abdullah -abdullah it has to deal with( as if the election will be free and fair this time). Obama is already leaking that karzai brother is in the payroll of CIA as if President Karzai,or Abdullah-abdullah are not!!!!He wants Abdullah.
General machrystal is playing politics because he doesnot want to carry the can of American WITHDRAWAL ALREADY PLANNED WITH FIGLEAF OFFERRED BY MULLAH OMAR.(courtesy Saudi arabia).Americans have learnt the game of Italians who used to bribe the Taliban so that they will attack only German convoys and not theirs. NATO is in shambles with none willing to take casualties.
SAUDIES ARE OFFERRING MUSLIM SENA to police Afghanistan and i think Americans are willing to accept it.Damn the UN force.
Iraq is already unravelling and with it Afghanistan once Americans go home. But it is regional powers like India and Iran which will face these SALAFISTS.$7.5 billion to Pakistani army for training and equipping the very same Taliban who are killing Americans in Afghanistan through haqqani netwrk!!How foolish you americans can get!
It is no sure whether Alabama has an ability to decide anything for Afghanistan as situation has become more complicated as the time is passing but it is clear to us he is stick to US policy and follow the rule to divide Pakistan and Afghanistan as much as possible on the basis of sects, rich and poor, and as pro Americans or anti Americans.
please i want to test this website
My money is on Abdullah Abdullah going to win the run-off election. US government will expect Abdullah, who was an important commander in northern alliance (and a tajik) in a not very distant past to fight Taliban who happen to be Pushtoons, with all his heart. Karzai has lost his appeal and charm for US in this war.
Having said that it is just a hypothesis and it may not be true. One thing is for sure, President Obama’s urge to be seen as a prudent ruler and finding consensus on every issue is really battering Afghan war as sometimes rulers have to take unpopular decision. Everyone can rule with consensus but the true mantle of the leader is tested in face of the need for unpopular decisions.
Nonetheless it is highly unlikely Obama is in any mood to send more troops on top of what he has said, so it is safe to conclude Obama who plays always the safe bet, to wait for the ratings against Afghan War among american public to go so high that he can start to roll back the war in Afghanistan. And looking at the election for congress and some seats in senate in 2010 the possibility of an end to combatant operations in high and may be a timetable would be sufficient. But american public should ask those who started this war. What were the objectives when this war was started and what was achieved. Money of american taxpayers is used indiscriminately around the globe in wars and worse part is, it is not winning USA any friends.