Three quarters of U. S. casualties in Afghanistan have occurred since Barack Obama became president. Can someone please make the case for me that President Obama did the right thing in his “Afghan surge” and that he’s doing the right thin now by kicking the can down the road to his successor? I just don’t see it.
The link between U. S. casualty rates and operational tempo could not be clearer.
I’m convinced that his decisions been governed by purely domestic political considerations (and now his legacy) right down the road. Convince me otherwise.
The initial decision to surge was one that was advocated by, AFAICT, the entire military command structure. Obama was seen as dragging his feet when he insisted on spending some time on the decision. He was mostly castigated by the “serious” FP establishment for not opting for a larger surge. While I think there are domestic considerations in all foreign policy decisions, there darn well should be, I don’t think that was a top priority. Once he committed to the surge, it had to be given a while to see if it would work. It did not.
Now we need to get out, but getting out is more difficult than getting in. When we leave, the place will fall apart. I think there are probably some people who believe we can stave that off by weaning down the troops slowly. I think they are probably wrong. What is absolutely certain is that Obama will take the blame if he pulls them all out and then it falls apart. We saw that with Iraq, even though it was clear we could not leave troops, and it was pretty clear that we should not. So for this particular decision I think domestic politics is primary. Of course the alternative was a GOP POTUS and they wanted to stay forever.
Steve
The “Afghan surge” may have been advocated by the military and the foreign policy establishment but to the best of my ability to determine it wasn’t advocated by anybody who actually knew anything about Afghanistan.
IMO the single most important reason that the president pursued what time has proven to be a futile strategy that resulted in the loss of 1,000 American lives was that he had run on that policy. There’s a distinction between domestic politics being a consideration and it being the only consideration. I think the latter explanation fits the facts better.
Steve,
Obama campaigned on reinvigorating the Afghan war – the only question was how to balance a strategic goal and the force necessary to conceivably achieve it. The campaign commander, Gen. McCrystal, presented option for 15k, 40k or 80k troops depending on the strategic goals.
For a trip down memory lane, this is a good synopsis of the decision process – it’s also handy to see how Hillary Clinton looked at this problem.
” but to the best of my ability to determine it wasn’t advocated by anybody who actually knew anything about Afghanistan.”
By that time many of the military advocating it had been fighting there for years and I can guarantee you they had read widely and deeply on its history. Military officers are not a bunch of dummies.
I think that NYT article is pretty accurate. Obama had said he would give the Afghan war more attention (partially just as a critique of the Iraq War). When asked for plans, the military presented its surge options. I don’t really see much evidence that this was dominated by domestic issues.
Steve
Steve,
I think the point is the the President campaigned on a surge. Also, the military presented what the President asked for – he didn’t want options for withdrawal or options for reductions in force or the status quo.
Domestic issues were important because they set the limits of what was politically possible. What would Congress approve? How much would it cost? What about a timetable (a huge issue in domestic politics in Iraq), etc.