Nederland en Afghanistan 216

Obama -- Really the Afghanistan "Decider"?
Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: October 24, 2009 01:08 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/obama----really-the-afgha_b_33
2655.html

There is something rotten in the current state of Washington's Afghan
policy making. The White House, we are told, is in the midst of an intense
review of our strategy with nothing having been decided. Yet the NATO
defense ministers meeting in Brussels on Thursday gave their seal of
approval to the 'surge' being actively promoted by General Stanley
McChrystal. The General made a long presentation of his plan behind closed
doors.

Secretary Gates was in attendance but afterwards claimed that he was there
"in a listening mode." Supposedly, then, the United States as leader of the
Alliance and in charge of the AFPAK campaign sat mute while a judgment was
made that preempts a decision in Washington that in principle is weeks off.

A confused American public, and an ever credulous press, are buying this
fairy tale. Obviously, simple logic tells us that the story doesn't hold
together. Either Obama already has made up his mind to back at least the
essence of the McChrystal plan or he is being boxed in a corner by his
general who acts as if he is the commander in chief with Gates' tacit
support. Both interpretations are dismaying.

A president who misleads the American people on a question of war and peace
is continuing his predecessor's practice of deception that brought us to
ruin in Iraq -- a practice that Obama swore oaths to reverse. The
alternative is just as harrowing: the Pentagon is preempting presidential
prerogatives. Sad to say, neither should be a complete surprise given the
White House's record of having abandoned its much ballyhooed dedication to
transparency while letting itself be pushed around by everyone from Goldman
Sacks to Max Baucus to Bibi Netanyahu.

The unrelenting McChrystal lobbying campaign is undeniable evidence that
something is seriously amiss. First he leaked a copy of his report so as to
generate political pressure on Obama. He followed with a public address in
London wherein he made the case for his escalation while disparaging
alternatives. The White House reined him in at that point -- or so we are
told. Yet the indefatigable general was back at it within a week.

McChrsytal curtly rejected Vice President Biden's idea of scaling back
nation-building objectives while concentrating on al-Qaeda and Taliban
military assets -- itself a plan that leaves in place all the key premises
of present thinking. Taking that "shortsighted strategy" would lead to
"Chaos-istan," he pronounced.

There is no precedent to this kind of conduct by a commanding officer in
the American military -- at least not since MacArthur went rogue in Korea
and was sacked by Harry Truman. It is a worrying comparison both because of
the fateful matters at hand in the two instances and the simple truth that
one cannot imagine Obama mustering the strength of character to do anything
remotely as brave.

There remains, though, the competing interpretation of these goings-on. The
White House may be giving McChrystal his head so as to cast itself as the
embodiment of prudence when it announces only a modest expansion of
American forces. That choice could then be presented as the considered
judgment of a strong president who will not bend to pressure whether from
his generals or his 'left wing friends' as he calls the people who elected
him.

This is the sort of clever tactic that has the fingerprints of White House
fixer Rahm Emanuel all over it. It obviously appeals to Obama who has
followed a similar tack on financial 'reform,' health care 'reform' and
restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The tactic's failure to produce
tangible success in all those cases has not shaken the president's
confidence in playing that game. A fluid definition of goals, and therefore
success, eliminates any critical point of reference. Devaluing of the
American people's trust in their leader eliminates an obligation to honest
public discourse.

Obama also seems unmoved by the consequences of leaving the impression that
he can be bullied by the Pentagon. That impression of him in the minds both
of his generals and other governments is a distinct and dangerous
liability.