Politics Vs Afghanistan Surge

Commander In Chief Decision Watch: Day 76

.

Why, has President Obama still not decided what to do about Afghanistan?

The President appointed General Stanley McChrystal to be commander of the Afghanistan Theater.  On August 30 Gen. McChrystal completed an assessment that Obama ordered, and submitted his 66 page report.  The exhaustive, brutally realistic review includes McChrystal’s plan for a counterinsurgency operation to:

• destroy violent Taliban and Al Qaeda elements,
• stop production and export of ilicit drugs,
• train the Afgan army and police, and
• help Afghanistan become a functioning democracy and American ally.

McChrystal’s believes 40,000 – 60,000 additional troops will be required to accomplish this mission.

Yesterday was Obama’s eight “war council meeting” and the media are buzzing with speculation as to why he won’t either approve or veto McChrystal’s strategy. The answer may be found in Obama’s own Presidential campaign tactics and his fear that others might use the same tactics against him and the Afghanistan operation.

Early in his campaign Obama exploited the fury his party’s virulent anti-war, anti-military base to make himself a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.  He became known for vitriolic attacks against America’s efforts in Iraq, especially against the “surge” that began in January, 2007, and ultimately succeeded.

The political-media establishment was almost unanimously negative when President Bush ordered the surge.  Candidate Obama could have seized the  opportunity to be an idealistic, visionary leader in the cause of Liberty, and American success.  Instead, he deferred to the cynical dogma of those in his party who wanted failure in Iraq, to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster. Then-Senator Obama fell back on the simplistic chants of the anti-war Left in a TV interview:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

A few days later he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force in Iraq, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

Obama repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in high stakes, daily combat.

Fortunately for the troops and for America, President Bush prevailed over Senator Obama and his allies in Congress and America is now positioned to withdrawal from Iraq in victory, leaving behind a new, functioning democracy and U.S. ally in the heart of the middle east.  Sadly, a continuing grudge against George W. Bush prevents Obama and most of the Democrats from celebrating, or even acknowledging the success achieved by courageous American troops in Iraq.

Today, it’s inevitable  that a “surge” in Afghanistan will generate another round of defeatist attacks from the Democrat party’s base.  We’ve already heard the all-too familiar slogans and arguments:

• “Don’t escalate,” as if there were some benefit in hanging on with insufficient resources to succeed, or the enemy might be sympathetic if we’re less effective;
• “We don’t have an exist strategy” as if accomplishing the mission was irrelevant to the “exit.”
  

A surge in Afghanistan could generate support of another upstart opportunist who, like Obama, would be eager to indulge in the easy pessimism of the anti-war left to score an upset victory in the 2012 primary.  Thus, while courageous soldiers continue to struggle in Afghanistan, wondering if they’re risking everything for nothing, President Obama and his team continue to struggle with political calculations.