Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:30 AM

On Afghanistan, Time May Not Be on Obama's Side

Holly Bailey
 

When President Obama received his copy of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s Afghanistan assessment last month, one of the first questions posed to the White House was how long it would take Obama to decide whether he’d send additional troops into the region. “Weeks,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. The decision, he said, was “not immediate and not imminent.” It’s a talking point that the White House has repeated over and over since then: Obama wanted time to digest McChrystal’s report and to weigh his options. A month later, Obama is still deliberating. Tomorrow he’ll convene the third of five planned Afghan strategy sessions in the White House’s Situation Room with top advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. McChrystal, as he did last week, will participate via videoconference. A fourth meeting is planned for Friday. According to the White House, Obama’s decision is still “weeks” away, but how much time does the president really have?

Over the weekend, Jim Jones, Obama’s national-security adviser, pointedly told CNN’s John King that time is on the president's side. “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of failing,” Jones said. That may be true, but it’s the growing pressure from Congress and the public that the White House really has to worry about. The political scenario Obama faces these days is strikingly similar to the environment George W. Bush faced as he contemplated his own game-changing strategy in Iraq almost three years ago. Public anxiety over the war is increasing by the day as the casualty count rises. And, as with Iraq, the White House’s deliberation is playing out against a backdrop of scary pictures of life on the ground there. August was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the conflict began eight years ago, and during September the growing turmoil on the ground there dominated cable-TV and network newscasts. But it’s not just that the national media are paying more attention. Every life lost gets front-page coverage in local newspapers. Over the weekend, as Jones hit the Sunday shows, eight American soldiers from Colorado’s Fort Carson were killed in an ambush in eastern Afghanistan. It was, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette, the base’s deadliest day since Vietnam.

As a presidential candidate, Obama often referred to Afghanistan as “the forgotten war.” He wasn’t talking just about strategy, though he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he believed the Bush administration had badly neglected the region. Obama openly worried that the American people didn’t fully grasp the danger of what was happening in Afghanistan. It would be hard to make that argument today, and, in some ways, the awareness could potentially limit the political capital Obama will no doubt need to maintain the public’s faith in his handling of the war. A recent Gallup poll found that 61 percent of those surveyed think the war is going badly, while 37 percent believe the war was a “mistake.” An ABC/Washington Post poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed believe the war isn’t worth fighting—an almost direct flip from this past spring when Obama unveiled his initial Afghanistan strategy. Back then, 56 percent said the Afghanistan conflict was worth it. The administration’s very public hand-wringing, namely the back and forth between the White House and McChrystal, likely isn’t helping those numbers. Add to that the pressure from Congress. On one hand, Republicans like John McCain argue that the White House doesn’t have much time to lose on Afghanistan, while Democrats like Russ Feingold are openly wondering if Obama shouldn’t set a timetable for withdrawal.

Advertisement

One lesson from Bush’s handling of Iraq is that he waited almost too long to approve a change of strategy in the region. While the troop surge was ultimately regarded as a success, Bush’s approval ratings with the public never recovered, and it largely overshadowed the rest of his presidency. It’s something Obama does think about. Over the summer he  told a group of historians visiting him at the White House that he was worried Afghanistan could suck the oxygen out of his own presidency. There’s no indication that Obama plans to run down the clock in the way Bush did on Iraq, but with every passing day the White House loses a little bit of control on the public narrative. And, in a conflict as unpredictable as Afghanistan, that’s not something that's easy to reclaim.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Davole (October 9, 2009 at 9:45 AM)

Fernadez -

The Field Commander, and in this case one uniquely qualified due to specific expertise beyond that of any other General, is in the field of battle, and has but one concern - win at all costs.

The ditherer-in-chief, a completely inexperienced novice in this capacity, is safely thousands of miles away from the war scene, and distracted by several concerns - his ultimate legacy, whether or not he sufficiently accommodates the wishes and demands of the far left radical segment of his party, how the cost of the war will restrict his other more menial pet projects and wish-to-do projects, gauging the public mood, appeasing the conflicting views afforded by retired generals who have become socialites, and his debilitating massive doubt that he will somehow make the right decision.  

His wimpy stalling which has extended for about a month and a half, is starting to demoralize the military rank and file. It appears as though they put more faith in their Field Commander than they do in their commander-in-chief. If I were in their shoes, that would also be my sentiment.

I would trust George W. Bush to be much more competent in successfully handling this crisis than Barack Obama. Bush would spend most of his time actually demonstrating confident leadership to produce positive results, whereas Barack Obama would juvenilely continue to gallivant around the globe trying to emulate and win favour with the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez by trash-talking America.  

If and when Barack Obama fails, especially by retreating or surrendering, I would expect 9/11 to be relegated to being a minor disaster compared to the major destruction which terrorists would wreak upon America.

I believe that many of the voters who elected Barack Obama now realize that they are dependent upon a naive narcissistic overaged boy having to do a man’s job! And the prognosis is not great.


Posted By: Fernadez (October 9, 2009 at 1:34 AM)

Davole,

Let me stress the point of your concerns with regards to General Stanley McChrystal request for more troops,Never in the history of War,where the General in the War field request "FEWER TROOP" in the battle.not ever since during the time of Alexzander the Great.Yes it's makes alot more sense for the Commander -in-Chief to considers first all the General views before making his final decision.

The President must considers all options before reaching his final conclusion.Whatever his final decision he made,he must has his priority selection right that base only of "National Interest" First , rather just concentrate in Wininng the War (which many Americans start to doubt about Afganistan War) at whatever cost,even at the danger expenses of hurting the Country at Large.

As we all know this a Touch Call that ,The President must made without prejudice or fear.The President needs to juggle in between by using his intellectual ability and of course "ALL" the General Involvements including the General at Field ,General Stanley McChrystal.For the record,The President already send 21,000 soldiers for Afghanistan this Year as request by the General.

The Only the Smart and Able person can steer and made the "RIGHT" decision course on behalf of all Americans with base on All Whatever resources available to him right now,Not the Generals or General Stanley McChrystal,And that person is no other than Commander -in Chief ,President Obama.


Posted By: Davole (October 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM)

Fernadez -                                                                                                                                            

I accept your agreeing to the correction - 40,000 was your intent.

But in any dialogue, as a common courtesy, one person usually responds to, or answers, the comments of the other individual. I replied to your post in which you raised 10 issues. Would you care to comment on my response to that conversation?

Moving forward to answer your most recent post, we both seem to agree that the “main Goal Strategy for Afghanistan War is ‘TERRORISM’ not just Bin Laden And AL-Queda.” Yes, although that’s what the priority should be, Barack Obama begs to differ. Why did he ban the expression “War on Terror”, and instead substitute some rather milk-toast term such as Task to Minimize Man-made Disasters? That decision of his doesn’t “strike”me as being dedicated, competent, and presidential.

So, you now admit, contrary to your statement in a previous post, that Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts is unknown. I believe that he is in the region somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

You also admit that this is not a conventional war, just as I have stated when I suggested that General Stanley McChrystal, due to his unique expertise in special ops clandestine searching for and apprehending Saddam Hussein and several high value insurgents justifies him being the one most qualified to devise an effective war strategy.  

You claim that I have not proposed a solution - I have - let the most qualified individual, the current field commander set the strategy and give him as many troops as he believes are needed to achieve success. Don’t tie both of his hands behind his back, and then send him out to do battle.                                                                                                                                                              

Sure, I do engage in verbal personal attacks against the ditherer-in-chief, because he is the monkey wrench which clogs what could be an effective military machine. I haven’t  asserted that he is inexperienced in foreign relations - I have maintained that he is INCOMPETENT as commander-in-chief. That’s not a red herring, rather it’s a whale of a fact. Just because he “served” (your word) for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that doesn’t qualify him as experienced. He was only a senator for 143 days, and much of that time he spent campaigning for the presidency. And note - he was merely a member of that committee, not the chairman. And as a state senator, he had a penchant for cowardly voting “Present.” That verifies that he is terrified with regard to taking a decisive stand.

Again, I maintain that he has had 9 months to set benchmarks for his much promised change in direction regarding waging the war in Afghanistan - where are those benchmarks? If he doesn’t have any, yet again that displays his incompetence as wimp-in-chief.

Your personal frustration is evident by your statement “But everyday there are many "NEW RECRUIT TERRORISTS" are born ,that's what really disturbing me”. You ask for my answer - here it is - don’t worry now about any terrorists who are being born during the next year - it will take at least 12 years before they could become teenage terrorists. As for the other terrorists who are active currently - put some faith in General Stanley McChrystal’s ability to devise military tactics which will kill the terrorists in much greater numbers than they are being born.

Again, I disagree with your belief that Barack Obama will work “to establish respect for human rights and democracy in a post-conflict environment.” To do that, he would have to associate with and support the leaders of allied friendly countries, but he demonstrates that he prefers to shun them, and instead spends his time denouncing America to rulers of dictatorial regimes. He doesn’t convey to them a respect for the great humanitarian accomplishments of the US, rather he soaks up much of the anti-American rhetoric and disdain of those evil repressive governments.  

Unlike you, I’m not frightened by anything that Hillary Clinton says. I merely note and remember her ideas and intended policies. If necessary, I will criticize or confront them, but I will never fear them.                                                                                                                                                    

Then you resort to introducing “racial or ethnic discrimination “ into the conversation. I don’t “dance” to that overly worn-out record, even though it appears to be a major pillar of the democrat party. But I do commend Barack Obama for ensuring that he would be born partially black, so that he could appeal to that group which won’t dare to stray from the democrat plantation.                                                                                                                                                      

Contrary to your belief that Barack Obama “will bring about a new respect for the U.S. around the world,” I am certain that he will make the US the laughing stock of the whole world. Case in point - Chicago’s speedy rejection by the IOC, especially after Obama’s narcissistic plead that the Olympics be awarded to Chicago, America’s war-zone, in which more people die each year than US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. But give him some more time, due to the mounting number of US military deaths in Afghanistan, he may be able to reverse that statistic.

It sure appears that the safety of Chicago residents wasn’t on Barack Obama’s radar screen while he was a community inciter there.

But I do agree with you that he will definitely be remembered “in the realm of international affairs,” because so much of his time is spent away from his desk in the White House as he globe-trots in Air Force One flanked by a squadron of other planes transporting his so-called news or propaganda journalists and TV talking heads.