Free Markets, Free People

Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy

He said, in 4,579 words what probably could have been said in 500 or so. The 40 minutes were mostly used to justify to the left his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to A’stan.

On the plus side, he made a decision. It took much longer than it should have, and, as I’ll cover further on, it isn’t a great decision by any means, but he did finally decide to do something.

Using the cadets at West Point as a backdrop (they seemed as enthusiastic about the plan as I am) he told the military that the reason this decision had taken so long is he owed them a clear mission before he sent them into battle. Yet reading through his speech, I’m still not clear as to what the military’s mission is.

Certainly at the level of Commander in Chief, you speak in much broader terms when describing a mission, than would a platoon leader getting ready to attack an insurgent stronghold. But there’s a point where “broad” is sort of meaningless. The three broad missions I heard enunciated that I assume comprise the Obama strategy are:

1. Deny al Qaeda safe haven.

2. Reverse the momentum of the Taliban

3. Safeguard the Afghan people

The first is counter-terrorism. Joe Biden’s ninja and drone strategy. It is, I assume, the reason Obama decided to commit fewer troops than Gen. McChrystal asked for. The second and third are elements of counter-insurgency.

For numbers 2 and 3, we remain – even with the 30,000 new troops – woefully undermanned. Gen. McChrystal will attempt to make the best of his assets, but attempting to reverse the momentum the taliban and safeguard the Afghans are two labor intensive (boots on the ground) roles. Also included in the 3rd mission is the training of a competent Afghan security force.

Obama says these troops will deploy by fastest means possible. Additonally he said:

Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.

Well let me be clear – deploying troops to a theater of war takes a long lead time. Preparation and training are key. While it is probably true that there were no calls for deployments before 2010, a 3 month delay means 3 months in which the alerted units are shorted vital training time. And now the deployment cycle is going to be speeded up because he’s trying to cover his tail? Guess who suffers to make him look better?

To this point, I’ve laid out a plausible but complex military mission. But it moves from “plausible and complex” to impossible with this line:

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

Even getting the deployment cycle initiated as quickly as possible, the troops (most likely 3 BCTs, a Marine MEU, 4,000 trainers and a command and control element of 7,000) will take 12 to 18 months to complete their deployment. So how is this a surge if as the last unit arrives in country as the first leaves?

In fact, that line alone initiates all sorts of questions.

What if the Afghan forces aren’t ready? What if the government isn’t yet prepared to fulfill its role. What if the Taliban still have “momentum”? He promised a civilian surge as well – concentrating on agriculture. Who will protect them or are they leaving as well?

Afghan Security Forces (ASF) are not going to be ready in 18 months. Certainly we can train the grunts in that period of time to some level of competence. But it is the leadership that is key. You don’t develop an NCO corps or an officer corps in that period of time. And it appeared the key to this strategy is standing up a competent ASF capable of defending itself and the country against the Taliban.

Obama claims we’ll embed with the Afghan units and fight along side them. But, given that we’ve announced that we’re leaving in 18 months, what if the Taliban decide to sit it out and not engage in battle? They’ve been fighting since the ’80s – what’s 18 months to them? Why not wait until we withdraw and then take on a green ASF with its seasoned fighters?

Obama does leave himself a fall-back position later in the speech when he says:

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, <em>taking into account conditions on the ground</em>.

If I’m a Taliban commander, I take this as a gift from God. He has not only announced the US’s strategy for the next 18 months, he’s determined mine. The Taliban knows, just as we should, that 18 months is not enough time to train up the ASF into a competent fighting force. The Taliban knows that any COIN strategy is just marking time given this announcement. The people of Afghanistan now know that we will not be there to protect them in 18 months so there is absolutely no incentive to cooperate with us (or the Kabul government) and a huge incentive not too. They certainly know who will be there after our withdrawal and they’ll do their level best to reach accommodation with them.

This isn’t a plan for success. This is a plan for withdrawal and a strong signal to our enemy that if they play the game for 18 months, they can have Afghanistan. Ironically, while taking on his detractors Obama claims he’s not doing precisely what his plan is doing:

[T]here are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

This plan is all about the maintenance of the status quo while attempting to give the appearance of decisive action. It is certainly not about that. We can argue until the cows come home about the numbers necessary to conduct successful COIN in Afghanistan, but I can assure you no expert would tell you 30,000 are enough. We can give all the lip service we want to saying we’re going to train up the ASF to a level they can take over their own defense, but no expert is going to agree that 18 months is enough. Gen. McChrystal can smile and claim he’s very pleased with the resources he’s been given, but anyone who does an analysis of the missions outlined in the speech know he’s been badly short-changed. If we could beam in the 30,000 troops tomorrow along with 10,000 more NATO troops, it still wouldn’t be enough to do more than “maintain the status quo” – at least for 18 months.

On the other hand, if I’m the Taliban I’m absolutely exultant about what I’ve heard. And I’m immediately into planning a disinformation campaign that will paint the rosiest possible picture in 18 months time. Meanwhile, my forces are basically on R&R for duration (or concentrating in Pakistan) while I sit back and wait out the withdrawal. And when that last C-17 is wheels up out of Bagram, I’m headed into Afghanistan in force. Given that speech last night, they must finally believe that Allah truly is on their side now.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy

  • This seems so… so… familiar.  It’s like I have a vague memory of hordes of orientals of some sort overrunning a country after we pulled out.  And the phrase “killing fields” keeps buzzing around in my head.  Why is that?

    McQAnd when that last C-17 is wheels up out of Bagram…

    Change that to, “When the last Blackhawk lifts off from the embassy building in Kabul…”

  • I’d just like to mention that anyone on the left who supports this “surge” and hasn’t signed up is a chickenhawk…

    • So… that’s nobody?

      To paraphrase that great intellectual and moral leader among lefties, Jean-Francois Kerry, the left was for the surge before they were against it.

  • Al Qaeda and Taliban forces will spend the next two years visiting tribal leaders and reminding them that “there will be new management soon.”  Tribal leaders, caught between a rock and a hard place, will assure them of their cooperation once US forces leave.  I wonder how they’ll deal with Pakistan, though.  Will they press the issue, or will they work towards an “accommodation,” giving them the chance to regroup and reorganize in anticipation of re-taking Afghanistan?

  • I am somewhat dubious that the withdrawal portion of this plan will happen under the timeframe he wishes.
    I think that the timeline for withdrawal is there just to attempt to placate his former allies of the far Left.

  • The timeline is to encourage the Taliban/AQ to go to sleep giving the false appearance of the improvement necessary to justify pully out.  

    I wouldn’t want to be in Afgahnistan once we’re 60-70% gone, though. 

    • It’s possible; however it’s also possible that the 18 month figure is aimed at the Left.  Obama is starting to have trouble holding the Left, the more so since he’s not immediately teleporting our troops out of A’stan.  Obama needs the Left if he’s to in any way counter the growing push to “throw the bums out” of Congress in 2010; the Left in turn isn’t going to support him if they think he’s sending our boys to the sandbox for a long time.  18 months is conveniently just over that horizon, and it’s just the right length to be plausible to people who know nothing about the logistics of troop deployment or the requirements of victory.
      I fully expect that the 18 month timeline will be roundly ignored.

  • It’s a forlorn hope, but if the Taliban do stand down for 18 months, that buys significant breathing room for the government and the economy to solidify. That same 18 months allows the marginal fighters to get reattached to civilian life. Maybe not as many will be willing to pick up arms again.
    It’s also true that every forecast I’ve seen is for increased casualties next year, which doesn’t sound like a stand-down on their part.
    Longer term, if Obama’s surge fails after Bush’s evidently succeeded, I hope we learn the correct lessons. It won’t be “Vietnam”, it will be “if you say you’re going to take Vienna, take Vienna”.

    • I’m not suggesting there won’t be any incursions by the Taliban. They’ll keep a certain level of pressure on because they’re going to want to influence the people of Afghanistan. They will disrupt and they will intimidate, etc. They want to remind Afghanies who will still be there when we leave. What they may not do is mount major offensive operations that will cause us to decide the “conditions on the ground” aren’t good enough to withdraw. That would be the last thing they’d want.

  • “Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.”
    This is typical Obama misleading rhetoric: he (or someone at DoD) had Gen. McChrystal’s proposal(s) in March. I don’t see much if anything different in his speech from what McChrystal proposed, other than the specific troop commitment (and the target exit date). So, if I’m counting right, that means that something like 8-9 months have passed that could have been used in preparation for and implementation of this troop increase.
    So, if this is where it all ended up anyway, then how has his dithering and war-by-committee strategy meetings not been “delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.”

  • I wonder if Gen McCrystal asked for 40,000 knowing that it wouldn’t happen, hoping and needing  30,000.  That would seem to make some sense.  He should have known that he would never get the exact number he asks for so ask for more-hoping for less.  If you get the more, bonus, if not, you are not disappointed. 

  • I think I’ll just repeat my early in the term analysis – “Gong-show Amateur Hour”.
    (I stand with Wacky in hoping the deadline will be ignored… but the negative effects on Afghan morale will persist, since in order to convince his pacifist-left base that he means it, he can’t tell the Afghans in a believable way that he doesn’t.
    Sure, he can privately tell the Government that, and they can repeat it, but it’s not nearly as believable, is it?)

  • Brilliant. He shows off his war face even while he prepares to leave. He pleases everyone!
    I suspect he thinks he has just bought himself 18 months of time to forget about Afghanistan and will figure out what to do next when that deadline approaches. (Plus the 9 months to make a decision, which his staff factored in – 2012 election year – 9 months dithering = 2010 “off ramp”
    Sarcasm aside, I hope this works. Also, good luck getting Europe to offer more assistance.

  • “Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me…”

    I love this line. As if he could only do what someone else says. 

    I don’t know what the Taliban will do, now that they know (or think they know)that the US will be withdrawing in eighteen months or so, but I know what I would be doing if I were in the Afghan government; I would be stealing all I could in the next eighteen months since  I and my family  would be leaving Afghanistan before the Taliban returned to power.

  • So much for that re-energized 9/11 spirit of unity as Vice President Biden, in an email to supporters,  touts Obama’s speech:

    It’s a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.