Obama's plan? what plan?

Despite his claims, the president has no Afghan strategy
By AMIR TAHERI

Last Updated: 12:42 AM, September 27, 2009

Posted: 12:26 AM, September 27, 2009

Throughout last year’s presidential campaign, Barack Obama lambasted the Bush administration for fighting “the wrong war” in Iraq and ignoring the right one in Afghanistan. Iraq was a “war of choice,” Obama claimed, while Afghanistan was a “war of necessity.”

Repeatedly, he claimed that, if elected president, he’d unveil a new “stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy.”

In March, in one of those solemn-looking occasions in which he excels, Obama said that the new strategy, which he did not elaborate, was already in place. He speeded up the troop buildup ordered by the Bush administration, and a few weeks later named a new commander for Afghanistan.

That commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, lost no time in revealing that the Obama administration had no specific strategy and that his first task was to work one out. By the end of August, he’d drafted a “new strategy” and submitted it to the Pentagon in the form of a 66-page report that included specific steps for moving ahead, as well as a request for still more troops.

Then, nothing happened — until someone leaked the report.

One can only imagine the general’s surprise when President Obama, asked to comment on the leaked report, said he wouldn’t allow himself to be rushed into sending more troops, as requested by McChrystal, pending the development of a “new strategy.”

One might say, Wait a minute! We thought you had a strategy before you were elected, when you castigated Bush’s performance in Afghanistan — or at least in March, when you announced “the new, smarter strategy,” or in June, when you appointed a commander to “carry out the new strategy.”

What of McChrystal’s proposed “new strategy” spelled out in his report? No, the president says he’s still looking for a strategy.<p>

Obama has reportedly set up a special “situation room” to look for a strategy. One meeting has been held, with three or four more planned for the next few months.

As on so many other issues with Obama, we have “on-the-job training” on grand scale.

The New York Times recently quoted administration officials saying that the president may be having “buyer’s remorse” after “ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.”

Cynics might say that Obama drummed up the “necessary war” mantra in Afghanistan in order to paint the Iraq war as “a strategic error” without appearing to be soft on national security.

Now that he’s in office, however, he no longer needs to take risks with a difficult war — especially when Afghanistan is becoming a liability in terms of public opinion.

The US media tell us the administration is divided over strategy. We’re told Vice President Joe Biden is pressing for a reduction of troop numbers in Afghanistan, while Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton urges more boots on the ground.

Nor is there agreement on the diagnosis of the problem. Biden thinks that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat in Afghanistan, that America should transfer the war to Pakistan. Clinton mocks that view — insisting that, if the US scales down its military footprint, al Qaeda will return to Afghanistan “like mushrooms after rain.”

Let us welcome Obama’s delayed admission that he has no strategy, and his tacit dropping of his claim that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity,” rather than a war of choice.

Despite all talk of doom and gloom, America its NATO and Afghan allies have already defeated the forces of obscurantist terror in Afghanistan. What they face is the consolidation of a hard-won victory that, unless protected for many more years, could be undone by the enemies of the Western democracies — who happen to also be enemies of the Afghan people.

To become credible on Afghanistan, Obama must do several things:

* Demonstrate clearly that he knows what he’s talking about. Right now, there are at least five diagnoses of the Afghan situation in his administration (those of Biden, Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. McChrystal and political adviser David Axelrod). He must take the lead in developing a synthesis supported at least by his own team.

* Try to convince both friend and foe that he’s committed to Afghanistan.

print email share
buzz digg reddit fark it facebook rss Throughout last year’s presidential campaign, Barack Obama lambasted the Bush administration for fighting “the wrong war” in Iraq and ignoring the right one in Afghanistan. Iraq was a “war of choice,” Obama claimed, while Afghanistan was a “war of necessity.”

Repeatedly, he claimed that, if elected president, he’d unveil a new “stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy.”

In March, in one of those solemn-looking occasions in which he excels, Obama said that the new strategy, which he did not elaborate, was already in place. He speeded up the troop buildup ordered by the Bush administration, and a few weeks later named a new commander for Afghanistan.


AFP/Getty Images
That commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, lost no time in revealing that the Obama administration had no specific strategy and that his first task was to work one out. By the end of August, he’d drafted a “new strategy” and submitted it to the Pentagon in the form of a 66-page report that included specific steps for moving ahead, as well as a request for still more troops.

Then, nothing happened — until someone leaked the report.

One can only imagine the general’s surprise when President Obama, asked to comment on the leaked report, said he wouldn’t allow himself to be rushed into sending more troops, as requested by McChrystal, pending the development of a “new strategy.”

One might say, Wait a minute! We thought you had a strategy before you were elected, when you castigated Bush’s performance in Afghanistan — or at least in March, when you announced “the new, smarter strategy,” or in June, when you appointed a commander to “carry out the new strategy.”

What of McChrystal’s proposed “new strategy” spelled out in his report? No, the president says he’s still looking for a strategy.

Obama has reportedly set up a special “situation room” to look for a strategy. One meeting has been held, with three or four more planned for the next few months.

As on so many other issues with Obama, we have “on-the-job training” on grand scale.

The New York Times recently quoted administration officials saying that the president may be having “buyer’s remorse” after “ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.”

Cynics might say that Obama drummed up the “necessary war” mantra in Afghanistan in order to paint the Iraq war as “a strategic error” without appearing to be soft on national security.

Now that he’s in office, however, he no longer needs to take risks with a difficult war — especially when Afghanistan is becoming a liability in terms of public opinion.

The US media tell us the administration is divided over strategy. We’re told Vice President Joe Biden is pressing for a reduction of troop numbers in Afghanistan, while Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton urges more boots on the ground.

Nor is there agreement on the diagnosis of the problem. Biden thinks that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat in Afghanistan, that America should transfer the war to Pakistan. Clinton mocks that view — insisting that, if the US scales down its military footprint, al Qaeda will return to Afghanistan “like mushrooms after rain.”

Let us welcome Obama’s delayed admission that he has no strategy, and his tacit dropping of his claim that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity,” rather than a war of choice.

Despite all talk of doom and gloom, America its NATO and Afghan allies have already defeated the forces of obscurantist terror in Afghanistan. What they face is the consolidation of a hard-won victory that, unless protected for many more years, could be undone by the enemies of the Western democracies — who happen to also be enemies of the Afghan people.

To become credible on Afghanistan, Obama must do several things:

* Demonstrate clearly that he knows what he’s talking about. Right now, there are at least five diagnoses of the Afghan situation in his administration (those of Biden, Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. McChrystal and political adviser David Axelrod). He must take the lead in developing a synthesis supported at least by his own team.

* Try to convince both friend and foe that he’s committed to Afghanistan.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_plan_what_plan_QdbYwTj5LfQYpLrjkfLulO

And there will still be a well laid out plan or strategy before his FINAL Decision on the matter,, instead of immediate vengeful (but not thought out) action. .......Tomato , tomahto,,,, no more dying for lying,,,,,


OBAMA!!!

I can't wait til 2012 to rid ourselves of this abortion er I mean administration.

Well no one had a strategy for that war. The russians or any other throughtout history has failed. But you know it is a huge problem for him cause he doesnt beleive in the war but can not afford the political capitol to pull out. I don't think anyone has has a solution to this one in all fairness, but pulling out is the right choice. Stop playing politics with our boys either let them crush the enemy or get them the hell out of there!

well like I've said before

there are only three choices

1. Bail. get out and let the chips fall where they may

2. Fight a war to win. Pour in troops and pound em till its over

3. continue to fight a "limited war" and only give enough money and troops to prolong it


Obama will have to decide to do one or the other. Most likely he will continue the "limited war" and bleed America to death of money and troops

He will decide what to do soon enough.

At least he is giving it thought. Our prior president didn't have any thoughts other than making himself and those like him richer.

It is refreshing to have a thinker in office in my opinion.

I don't think Bush made decisions based on his own personal profit

but I do think he made em based on knee jerk ideology (much like a lot of people in these forums) without consideration of the resulting big socio-political picture

I disagree.


Bush did not even know what knee jerk means.

He was an idiot. Made a fool of this country across the board.

He already made a decision just wont state it! The thought that he's thinking about it is laughable. Bush not my favorite at least i agreed with some of the time. But i disagreed with him for his liberal sides not his conservative side! With that said Iraq war may end up to be a great success and the so called "true War" Obama mentioned should be our focus is an utter failure at this point. So he needs to step up and release a strategy to win or get the hell out!

probably a much higher IQ than yourself, but i don't know???? He was not an idiot and he was not dishonest those are just comedy skits! His biggest mistake was pandering to the left, had he stayed on topic he would of been a great president!

How do you know he made a decision?

Why is the fact he is a thinker laughable?

You just don't like him and are not even considering him as valid, right?

he wasn't a idiot

that was just a caricature generated by late night comedians

he did graduate Yale with a MBA after all (with a higher GPA than John Kerry)


he made some decisions based on right wing ideology that a lot of people don't agree with but he wasn't a idiot

I disagree.

I watched his speeches. He was an idiot. Should have never made it to the presidency.

You know you can pay your way into Ivy league schools and pay your way through them. Doesn't make you smart.

i think it's politics that all of them play! Never said that being a thinker as laughable. the fact his decision hasnt been made laughable. he's just trying to find an escape route and hasnt yet! No i don't like his politics at all i am an ultra conservative!

NOT!!!

well i disagree with it was his right wing policies that was his demise it was the complete oppisite. bush was a moderate and thats why we are in this mess with the economy. a true conservative would have never bailed out the banks and spent us into the hole. he is a moderate!

yeah he gave terrible speeches

I dont think he was ever comfortable in front of crowds. And I heard thsat he never did figure out how a teleprompter works

but I keep hearing how personable and charming he was in one on one situations

I started out giving him the benefit of the doubt just because he was a Texan but yeah I cringed everytime I heard him give a speech

yeah he wasnt a very good speaker thats for sure! But he was a highly intelligent man, i think he is smarter than Obama who is probably the best public speaker i have seen in my life time!

The only thing obama has going for him is charm. He is like clinton in this way. Maybe obama can later tell America that he didn't not have sexual relations with that woman or exhale.

I don't really understand what happened. we had high hopes for him

he was the most popular governor Texas has ever had. And he actually did more for Democrat-Republican unity in Texas than anyone before. Half the Democrat party in Texas was enthusiastic supporters of Bush while he was governor. He had more support from the Hispanic community than the Hispanics did

But once he got to Washington that all disapeared. maybe it was the Rumsfeld Cheney neocon influence that pulled him off track