Back in March there was with a high degree of certainty in Obama's announcement that counterinsurgency and 21,000 more troops to execute it were the new strategy for Afghanistan. Afghanistan was, after all, the real front in the war on terror. But today the administration doesn't know what the right strategy is. It may not be counterinsurgency after all. And oh by the way, is there a war?
In today's Wall Street Journal Karl Rove advises President Obama that it is both vital and possible to build a bi-partisan coalition to support the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Rove suggests that fear of losing his left wing base is driving Obama's sudden reluctance to follow through on the counterinsurgency strategy he announced last spring. Rove may also have hit on another somewhat bizarre reasoning behind the administration's strange turnaround on it.
After consultations with the Obama transition team, the Bush administration's strategic review was not released nor were its recommendations implemented. Instead, the review was handed over to the incoming president. Drawing on it, Mr. Obama announced a "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" on March 27.
Emphasizing the need to destroy al Qaeda and defeat the Taliban as it attempted to regain control of the country, Mr. Obama supported his new Afghan strategy by dispatching 21,000 additional troops. In June he also named a new commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
On Aug. 30, Gen. McChrystal warned in an assessment sent to the Pentagon that the war could be lost unless the U.S. sent more combat troops to the country. Inexplicably, Mr. Obama did little about the general's assessment until it was leaked to the public. This led to a Sept. 30 situation-room meeting—the first of five on Gen. McChrystal's report.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has made winning the war harder by mismanaging the U.S.'s relationship with the Afghan government. Mr. Obama refused to take a call from Afghan President Hamid Karzai after his recent disputed election, a confidante to Mr. Karzai told me. That same confidante also said that the Afghan president was dismayed when political strategist James Carville, who has close ties to both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Emanuel, became an adviser to Ashraf Ghani, who ran against Mr. Karzai. Mr. Karzai took that as a sign that Mr. Obama was encouraging opposition to him. And, finally, administration figures have raised doubts about the White House's confidence in Afghanistan's government. In his interview on CNN on Sunday, for example, Mr. Emanuel questioned "whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner."
I can't imagine that Obama's new commander, General Stanley McChrystal, intended for his August request for more troops to be a "put up or shut up" challenge to his Commander-In-Chief, yet that seems to be what it's become. Pundits immediately began comparing McChrystal to MacArthur. Generals should shut up and salute. Reliably pro-Obama cheerleader Eugene Robinson wrote in this the Washington Post:
McChrystal's statements have come at a pivotal moment when the White House is engaged in a fundamental review of Afghanistan policy. Some officials, including Vice President Biden, have argued for a minimalist approach in terms of goals and resources. Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but now must face the implications of an open-ended escalation.
McChrystal, in his public advocacy for more troops, seemed to be trying to limit Obama's options. But what we want to achieve in Afghanistan is a political question, and we don't pay our generals to do politics. That's the job of the president and Congress -- and whether our elected leaders decide to pull out tomorrow or stay for 100 years, the generals' job is to make it happen.
For the record, this would be my position even if McChrystal were arguing for an immediate pullout -- or even if George W. Bush, rather than Obama, were the president whose authority was being undermined. In October 2006, when the chief of staff of the British army said publicly that Britain should pull out of Iraq because the presence of foreign troops was fueling the insurgency -- a view I wholeheartedly shared -- I argued that he ought to be fired. I wrote that I didn't like "active-duty generals dabbling in politics, even if I agree with them." If military officers want to devise and implement geopolitical strategy, they should leave their jobs and run for office.
In a confidential report to the president -- leakedtwo weeks ago to Bob Woodward of The Post -- McChrystal arguedfor a counterinsurgency strategy that would basically involve protecting the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and thus winning the population's hearts and minds. To do this would require lots more than the 62,000 U.S. troops now in the country. So, logically, McChrystal wants more forces -- and wants them soon.
Curiously, Mr. Robinson was incurious on the question of why the general needed to argue in August for a strategy that the administration had committed itself to in March. What changed so dramatically between March and August that a reassessment of the goals in Afghanistan is now in order? Robinson is right about one thing. There are political decisions to be made by the administration, and our military goals in Afghanistan are among them.
However, in everything this administration does American electoral politics weigh heavily in the decision making. A reasonable consideration has to be given to electoral politics, but when we're talking about foreign policy decisions, electoral politics should come into play to the extent that the administration offer its best case for its foreign policy decisions. They should not dictate foreign policy decisions.
In the Obama administration, not only are American electoral politics prominent in policy decisions, it would seem that Afghan electoral politics weighs in as well. As Rove mentioned in his column, James Carville hired himself out to Ashraf Ghani, one of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's political opponents. This is the same James Carville who is tight enough with the Obama administration that he is reported to be included in Rahm Emanuel's weekly conference calls to discuss administration and Democratic party media strategy.
The war on Fox News.White House Communications Director Anita Dunn projected big-time last week by calling Fox News "an arm of the Republican party." Yet Mr. Obama's strategists have worked relentlessly to turn other networks into an arm of the Democratic Party. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is reported to hold weekly conference calls with CNN's James Carville and Paul Begala and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. As Miss Dunn boasted early this year, Team Obama was able to "control" the media.
Another curious point is raised in a report by NPR back in July. In its coverage of Carville's endeavors in Afghan internal politics NPR quoted him saying that his goal was to force a runoff.
Many things people think about Afghanistan in the United States are "just wrong," he says, adding: "Just because it has a failed president doesn't mean that it has to be a failed country."
The president he is referring to is incumbent Hamid Karzai. Karzai's popularity is plummeting because of the growing Taliban insurgency and widespread allegations of corruption in his government. Yet a poll done in May had Karzai with more than a 20-point lead over his challengers.
Ghani, on the other hand, is in third place. He trails Abdullah Abdullah, an ophthalmologist and former commander in the Northern Alliance, which fought against the Taliban when it ruled the country.
Carville's goal is to try and force the presidential election into a second round. That will happen if no candidate gets a majority of the votes cast on Aug. 20.
He needed a little help from the UN, but Carville won his prize. The runoff is scheduled for November 7th. But why would the administration send Carville to Afghanistan to help Karzai's opposition?
Barack Obama said he intended to remake America, and he has taken some decisive steps in that direction. It's become evident that he hopes to bring a socialist utopia to America, but we may not have guessed that Obama's massive ambition was to bring his dream to the entire world. Unfortunately, Obama's utopia will never be realized as long a people have a choice.
Building a utopia needs power and the will to use it. Obama sides with those who will use power to impose their visions, and oddly enough it doesn't seem to matter what those visions might be. So we watch him deliver snubs and sanctions against Honduras to assist a labor union minority who still hope to install Zelaya as dictator. In the meantime he offered lip service to Iranian democrats while they are were being shot dead the streets of Tehran by thugs of the totalitarian mullahs. A smile for Hugo Chavez, but a scowl for Benjamin Netanyahu. It's a long list and one that I won't go through.
But Hamid Karzai is not Obama's guy. It leads me to wonder, if Obama doesn't like him how bad could he be? But I digress. Obama's hesitation over his once certain strategy for the war in Afghanistan may be strongly influenced by his frustration that the wrong guy won the election. Could we be witnessing Chicago politics on an international stage? It wouldn't surprise me if Obama were retaliating against the Afghans for refusing to pick his guy. His guy, Ashraf Ghani, is out.
Had Ghani won Obama would be under much greater pressure to support the Afghan democracy. Is Abdullah Abdullah any prettier in Obama's eyes than Hamid Karzai? Who knows? But Obama seems to have his options. Whoever wins the runoff, Obama is still free to abandon Afghanistan on the pretext of corruption in the Afghan government. The Afghans didn't pick his guy.