To Surge or Not to Surge?
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Led by a conflicted president of a divided party and nation, America is deepening her involvement in a war in its ninth year with no end in sight.
Only one parallel to Barack Obama’s troop decision comes to mind: the 2007 decision by George W. Bush to ignore the Baker Commission and put Gen. David Petraeus in command of a “surge” of 30,000 troops into Iraq.
That surge succeeded. Baghdad was largely pacified. The Sunni of Anbar, heart of the resistance, accepted Petraeus’ offer of cash and a role in the new Iraq. Together, Americans and Sunni began to eradicate al-Qaida. In July, the surge ended and U.S. troops withdrew from the cities.
In August and October, however, the Finance, Justice and Foreign ministries were bombed. The Sons of Iraq now say the Shia government reneged on its pledge to pay their wages and bring them into the army.
Jockeying in parliament for the inside track to power in January’s elections may force a postponement of the elections, and of the U.S. timetable for withdrawal. Kurds and Arabs are battling over Kirkuk. Iraqis seem to be going back to fighting one another.
What hope can there be then for a U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, a larger, wilder, less accessible, more backward country, whose regime is less competent and more corrupt than that in Iraq?
Conservative columnist Tony Blankley, who supported the Iraq war and surge, has come out against more troops in Afghanistan. His reasoning: Obama will be sending many hundreds of young Americans to their deaths and thousands to be wounded in a war about which he himself has doubts.
While it may speak well of Obama as a man that he has reflected, agonized, debated within himself and conducted nine war counsels with scores of advisers before acceding to General McChrystal’s request, what does this say of him as commander in chief?
Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive. As was James K. Polk when he sent Winfield Scott to take Mexico City. As was Abraham Lincoln when he congratulated General Sherman on his barbarous March to the Sea. As was Harry Truman, who ordered the dropping of an atom bomb to jolt Tokyo into accepting unconditional surrender.
One may condemn the wars these presidents fought. One may deplore their tactics. But they and the most successful American generals — Stonewall Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton — were not Hamlets. They did not agonize over why they were fighting or whether it was worth it.
How does a president lead a nation into a war where he is not wholly and heartily committed to victory and from which, say his aides, he is even now planning the earliest possible exit?
When Dwight Eisenhower took office, he concluded that the price of uniting Korea under a pro-U.S. government meant years more of war and scores of thousands more U.S. dead. He decided on an armistice. In six months, the war was over.
Ike was as decisive as Obama is diffident.
From tapes of his conversations with Sen. Richard Russell, LBJ agonized over Vietnam as early as 1964. He worried about the U.S. casualties and whether we could prevail in a country of little interest to him and of no vital strategic interest to the United States.
Out of fear that Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater would call him the first president to lose a war, Johnson plunged in. And rather than win swiftly and brutally as we had with a mighty Japanese Empire, LBJ fought Vietnam as the conflicted war president he was, babbling on about building “a Great Society on the Mekong.”
One senses Obama is escalating for the same reason: He is not so much exhilarated by the prospect of victory and what it will mean as he is fearful of what a Taliban triumph and U.S. defeat would mean for America — and him.
And he is right to be. A U.S. withdrawal leading to a Taliban triumph would electrify jihadists from Marrakech to Mindanao and mark a milestone in the long retreat of American power. Pakistan, having cast its lot with us, would be in mortal peril. NATO, humiliated in its first war, would become more of a hollow shell than it already is.
To prevent this, Obama plans to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to hold off a resurgent Taliban, even as he plans for their eventual withdrawal.
The United States is today led by a commander in chief who does not believe military victory is possible, who is not sure this war should be fought and who has a timetable in his own mind as to when to draw down our troops. And we face a Taliban that, after eight years of pounding, is stronger than ever, and believes God is on its side and its victory is assured.
Who do we think is ultimately going to prevail?
“He is not so much exhilarated by the prospect of victory and what it will mean as he is fearful of what a Taliban triumph and U.S. defeat would mean for America — and him. And he is right to be. A U.S. withdrawal leading to a Taliban triumph would electrify jihadists from Marrakech to Mindanao and mark a milestone in the long retreat of American power”
To mitigate this Taliban triumph and jihadist revelry, America must mount a campaign against the doctrines of the jihadists’ preceptors. The West must diligently scrutinize their worldview and refute it to the satisfaction (also making the case that it has not always been Western foreign policy that stoked jihadist fury) of other world powers and Muslim states alike, who will then be able to put pressure on seditious jihadism wherever it may arise. This may take the sting off of any American setback in Afghanistan.
Decisiveness is a virtue only if the decision is the right one to begin with. If not, it just means that the wrong course will be pursued more zealously with less likelihood of change and more of wasting additional lives and wealth. The legacy of Bush’s decisiveness is two unfinished wars, an increasingly vigorous worldwide Islamic insurgency, and the worst economic conditions domestically of the post-WWII era. Obama’s main defect is not that he is indecisive, but that he is following the wrong course laid out by Bush, in effect doubling down on Bush’s bad bet.
Pons Seclorum wrote:
“The West must diligently scrutinize [the jihadist] worldview and refute it to the satisfaction (also making the case that it has not always been Western foreign policy that stoked jihadist fury….”
Except that in large measure it *has* been Western foreign policy that has stoked that fury, and in even greater if not absolutely total measure it has been Western foreign policy that has given it the support it has.
See, e.g., Michael Scheuer.
I.e., good luck with that.
Cheers,
Where to begin… grammar, there were nine war *councils.* Historical accuracy and consistency… it was not at all decisive for Lincoln to congratulate Sherman… congratulating success is hardly a decision at all. The historical record is that Lincoln had grave doubts as to whether the March to the Sea would work, but let Sherman try it anyway.
There are three good reasons to keep trying in Afghanistan for a limited time only: one, to prevent the spectacle of a press release co-written by Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, dateline Kabul, about how they outlasted the Great Satan. Two, to reduce the chance of Pakistan falling to Islamists. Three, to avoid the bloodbath that will happen to our supporters when we leave.
Were it not for the fact that circumstances make any sort of success difficult, this would be a no-brainer. And had Bush and Rumsfeld conducted this at all competently from the beginning… and done what it took to get bin Laden and Omar… the picture now would be very different. They were extremely decisive about failing at the primary mission and making a sharp left turn into the deserts of Mesopotamia, and for what?
It says here that yes, Obama is going to try to do more to salvage the situation, and at the same time is going to be looking for the moment to bail and cut his losses. As well he should. The pursuit here is the interests of the American people, not some emotionalist craving for ‘exhilaration.’ We could easily ‘win’ this war with hydrogen bombs. How we win is more important than that we win, and if we cannot win, how we lose matters, however emotionally unfulfilling that will be for those who need to feel exhilarated and confuse that with anything meaningful.
These wars should’ve NEVER been fought in the first place. I don’t think our leaders have learned anything from the past 9 years. Have ANY of them read “The Art of War”? There’s some pretty good lessons in there I think these war councils would benefit highly from.
I’m surprised at you Pat – you of all people should know that the analogy is not to Johnson in Vietnam, but to Nixon. If he can get his decent interval and turn the tables on the neocons and the media who want to pass the blame for the war on to him, he may yet have the last laugh.
Schadenfreude is a dish best served cold. It’s not worth a single American life, but we’ll now get to watch as 1) Obama gets savaged by the pro-war right for not sending more troops and the Michael Moore left for sending any at all, and 2) the O-bot personality cult ties itself into a knot justifying anything Dear Leader puts his name to, including the war, to the general disgust of voters in 2010 and 2012.
A few points that bear repeating,
1) The Surge was a ’success’ only in that it allowed Bush to pass the responsibility for ending the Iraq fiasco onto the next Administration. That’s all it ever was, another delaying tactic, crafted to give the MSM something shiny and exciting to write about while the Maliki Regime completed ethnically-cleansing Baghdad and US funds bought off enough Insurgents to lower the noise level.
2) Obama campaigned and won a landslide election victory while saying openly that he considered Afghanistan a ‘necessary war’ that he planned to fight properly. I might not agree with his policy, but that doesn’t change the fact that he has an electoral mandate to carry it out.
3) Bush’s ‘decisive’ method of decison-making led to one disaster after another for America in Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain’s promise to be just as mindlessly aggressive was a major factor in his crushing defeat last year. Now the Obama Administration has to clean up the mess Bush left behind, and has chosen to put some actual thought into the decisions it makes. This is a – good – thing, regardless of how the anti-intellectual right and its water-carriers in the Media try to spin it into a weakness.
It’s not difficult to understand the political strategy behind this decision, as previous commenters have illustrated. What’s frustrating about Obama is that he has enough judiciousness to take these decisions seriously unlike the previous administration, but not enough courage to pull an Ike and do the right thing, which is to recognize a sunk cost and cut losses before this fool’s errand soaks up ever more of our blood and treasure.
There are myriad ways to guard against the outgrowth of Al Qaeda in the region without continuing this occupation. Nation building is a fatal conceit of empires and the hight of hubris. Protests about humanitarian crises if we leave is a sick joke coming from the enthusiastic endorsers of aggressive hegemony. “We” owe the Afghani people nothing–our Political Class bear the responsibility for their own decisions, not the American people, who have little, if any real say in policy. Nobody asked my permission to spend my taxes in Afghanistan.
I can understand the reluctance to bear the shame of a perceived defeat and the outrage over sacrifices made in vain, but worrying about a propaganda coup of a bunch of ragtag fanatics is only such a concern because the neocons cynically exaggerated the true threat they pose with a lot of propaganda of their own. They built them up into these Uber-Boogeymen; a giant hobgoblin menace akin to the the worst caricatures of our previous mortal enemies, giving credence to their own egotistical, delusional rantings about Caliphates and world domination. When you glorify your enemy to the extent that we have, it becomes difficult to then deal with them realistically, according to the attention they actually deserve.
Also, we have a sad obsession with superficial postures of strength and victory in this country, with patriotism reduced to a pep-rally mentality, while our true strength and influence rots from within. Obama is certainly concerned about domestic politics and how his handling of Af/Pak influences his electoral fortunes. In this way, he’s rationalizing the certainty of more dead soldiers as the price of fulfilling the rest of his domestic agenda. Unfortunately, this evil Machiavellian thinking is rather typical, and it will be darkly humorous to watch as progressives bend over backwards to defend it.
“Who do we think is ultimately going to prevail?”
Who do we think prevails when the debate is about war instead of war PROFITS?
PROFITS that could be taxed into extinction in less than one generation:
Like chattel slavery between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor.
Since this won’t happen with the current US Congress, FLUSH the DC TOILET in 2010!
And replace every member of congress running for reelection with someone who won’t kill thousands of Muslim (Mexican?) children for campaign contributions
Pat – you need to invite William Sturgis Lind (who also writes here) over for coffee – perhaps Irish coffee – and listen for a few hours.
You too avoid defining “victory”. Stockholm on the Euphrates with Zurich at the end of the Khyber? (audience: please stop laughing, you may pass out) Reagan went into both Grenada and Panama, accomplished the very narrow and short mission and exited quickly. Brevity is the soul of whit, but it is also the goal of tactics. When Lebanon turned into a “sit and bleed” situation, he realized that there is no victory against an insane populace and EXITED.
Bush and Obama would do a “surge” in Lebanon after a large loss. They are both fools.
The only dishonor should be in attempting to continue the futile at the expense of American blood.
If Bin Laden isn’t laughing, I would be surprised. We have lost our liberty, or economy, and much blood, and even those who are otherwise wise would have use continue on that path until we are ashes and dust.
Except that in large measure it *has* been Western foreign policy that has stoked that fury, and in even greater if not absolutely total measure it has been Western foreign policy that has given it the support it has. See, e.g., Michael Scheuer.
TomB, what transgressions had America committed against Tripoli (what had Europe done as well?) in 1785 when ambassador Sidi Haji Abdurrahman proclaimed that there was a state of war between the two nations and demanded tribute for pacification? It is not always about foreign policy.
Pons Seclorum wrote:
“TomB, what transgressions had America committed against Tripoli … in 1785 …? It is not always about foreign policy.”
No, but it is now.
“No, but it is now.”
TomB, If we had an about-face with our foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East and adopted non-interventionism (which I would support), do you think that will be the end of the jihadists? No, we would still have to be on guard since they would still despise and assail America. As Jack Hunter has said, “Liberals who believe Islamic terrorism is mostly due to US occupation of Muslim nations are correct, but foolish to believe there does not exist a religious dimension” (not that I’m implying that you are a liberal) and that, absent American foreign policy, jihadists would have “much less inspiration to commit murder”. They would have much less inspiration, but inspiration nevertheless.
Pons Seclorum wrote;
“TomB, If we had an about-face with our foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East and adopted non-interventionism (which I would support), do you think that will be the end of the jihadists? No, we would still have to be on guard….”
“On guard”: Very interesting formulation Pons given that with your background belief you would tend to see our residual situation about as direly as possible, and given that merely having to be “on guard” is one freaking whale of a lot less dire than being “at war,” which of course is the state we are in right now in three separate countries, and threatening in a fourth.
I hasten to say that I also think it’s a very thoughtful, accurate formulation on your part, that I share. But let’s get back to the nub and let me see if I can quantify my point:
If we indeed tried your experiment and “adopted non-interventionism,” and it were indeed true non-interventionism (meaning also a complete cessation of all non-humanitarian support to the regimes in the region including Israel most signally), would you not agree that there is simply no way that this would not reduce the risk of attack upon us by at *least* 75%?
Frankly, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn’t reduce it by at least 90% if not 95% since at that point I don’t think there’d be anything we’d be doing that the jihadists would want us to stop, but maybe that’s just me.
So again, wouldn’t you agree at least with the 75% figure? Picked because it’s my bet that this would probably be in the neighborhood of the consensus of the reduced threat we would face by our professional threat analysts at State, Defense, CIA and etc. (Who could never go along with any much higher figure just out of healthy professional scepticism if not some smart thought to cover their asses just in case.)
Or maybe let’s put it another way: Right now let’s say the state our situation in the Middle East is at DefCon 5: War, right? Unimaginable to me that if we truly pulled out anyone would say that we would quite quickly be at anything greater than DefCon 2. (And, given some time, very possibly at DefCon 1 within a couple of years at most.)
Either way, high end or low end, percentile reduction or DefCon analogy, good enough for me.
Cheers,
“Or maybe let’s put it another way: Right now let’s say the state our situation in the Middle East is at DefCon 5: War, right? Unimaginable to me that if we truly pulled out anyone would say that we would quite quickly be at anything greater than DefCon 2. (And, given some time, very possibly at DefCon 1 within a couple of years at most.)”
I concur. The foundation for jihadist fury would substantially subside since America would have removed the gravamen for their grievances–namely, foreign policy abuses. Jihadist fury against the West will still endure except now the rest of the world would have no sympathy for their plaints and, with America having disengaged from the region, would be far less inclined to grant any legitimacy to them when the jihadists attack America in future.
A distinguishing characteristic of our foreign policy is our refusal to discus difficult realities. The Taliban is now largely a Pushtun ethnic movement. In order to “Win” we would need to crush the Pushtuns as a people until they were unable to resist. This would entail massive casualties and a field day for the international human rights movement, at our expense. If we were the Roman Republic the way forward would be clear. As we are not, the best course of action would be to strengthen the Tadjics and others. They may hold their part of Afghanistan and perhaps do the job for us in the end. Of course Pakistan would side with Pushtuns.
It is purely coincidence that Mr Obama needed just enough months to “study” the situation, that 18 months from now will be after the 2010 elections.
Lucky break.
U.S. President Baraq Hussein, Jr. is a Muslim and there is a direct conflict of interest in pursuing a wider war strategy in another Muslim country.
It is only possible in America for a Muslim politician to become the Head of State. No Muslim country on Earth will allow a non-Muslim to become the Head of State.
U.S. President Baraq Hussein, Jr. should have rescued himself before making any decision where there is a direct conflict of interest regarding continuing a war or ending it in an Islamic country; because, he came to the White House to end ongoing two wars in two Islamic countries.
Vice President Biden should have given the speech at West Point instead of President Baraq Hussein, Jr., since Vice President Biden is not faithful to Islam.
What I don’t see anyone mentioning is the economic pressure on Obama to continue this war. Yes, it will cost many billions to continue this war, but does anyone think those billions are going to be raked into a pile and set on fire? That they are all going into the pockets of Afghanis? Of course, not. Those billions are going into American businesses, mostly if not all defense contractors, who employ Americans in every state of the Union. It’s a giant government jobs program and ending it would add to the unemployment numbers that bedevil Obama and his presidency. Obama doesn’t believe for one moment that we are going to turn Afghanistan into Denmark, but he damn well knows if the economy doesn’t improve he’s toast in 2012. If anyone doesn’t believe this is a factor — perhaps even the deciding factor — at work in Obama’s calculations, they are living in Naive City.