Obama’s big new Afghan plan: Same as the big old Afghan plan
Posted by Bill Dupray
on Nov 24 2009 Filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
A bit of prognostication we ease into Thanksgiving weekend. The big news today is that there will be big news next week about Obama’s big new plan for Afghanistan. The big new plan has been analyzed, scrutinzed, mulled, and dithered for a couple months since Obama’s hand-picked General Stanley McChrystal submitted his report in September.
Mr. Obama, offering a tantalizing preview of what looms as one of the momentous decisions of his presidency, said he would tell the American people about “a comprehensive strategy” embracing civilian and diplomatic efforts as well as the continuing military campaign. . . .
A round of White House meetings on Afghanistan, which concluded on Monday night, included discussions about sending about 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, administration officials said.
Let’s go back and take a look at what we were told about the previous big new plan back in March. Keep in mind Obama’s big critique against George W. Bush’s Afghanistan policy.
His plan comes up short – it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency.
Obama sent in 17,000 troops right off the bat after he was sworn in in January. But that was 10,000 fewer troops than requested by then-commander General David McKiernan. Then Obama ordered a review of the situation, and two months later after a “careful policy review” unveiled the big plan in March.
Shorn of rhetoric, the new strategy actually accepted all the Bush administration’s goals in Afghanistan—defeating the insurgents; preventing Al Qaeda from reestablishing a sanctuary there; working to set up a democratic and effective government; training Afghan forces to take over from U.S. troops; coaxing the international community to give more help. The review even added a new goal: saving Pakistan—or, as the review put it, “assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunities for the people of Pakistan.
President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.
In a war that still has no end in sight, Obama said the fresh infusion of U.S. forces is designed to bolster the Afghan army and turn up the heat on terrorists that he said are plotting new attacks against Americans. The plan takes aim at terrorist havens in Pakistan and challenges the government there and in Afghanistan to show more results.
So 4,000 troops was the new plan in March, which was still shy of the 10,000 McKiernan requested before he was replaced. General Stanley McChrystal was picked by the president to execute the new plan.
But the awesome new plan didn’t work so well (despite the “careful policy review”). So 6 months later Gen. McCrystal submitted his request to increase troop levels by 45,000. Obama has sat on the request for two months while our soldiers and Marines are getting killed, with the deadliest month of the 8 year war occurring in October.
But the White House insists that a lot of smart people have dithered for thought a long time about next week’s big new plan.
The chief White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Tuesday morning that “after completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision, and he will announce that decision within days.”
For two hours on Monday evening, Mr. Obama held his ninth meeting in the Situation Room with his war council.
Should we assume that 9 meetings, capped with a “rigorous” finale, will produce a better plan than the “careful policy review” in March?
Obama already looks hypocritical in critiquing Bush for not putting enough boots on the ground by not giving Kiernan what he requested. But even today, after 10 months as president, that didn’t stop the blame-game.
Mr. Obama said the campaign there had not had sufficient resources for the past eight years, an obvious allusion to the war in Iraq undertaken by President George W. Bush, to the detriment of the effort in Afghanistan, in the opinion of President Bush’s critics.
What if he doesn’t give McChrystal the troops he has requested? Is that Bush’s fault? The March plan was obviously a failure. In another 6 months are we going to have another “super-duper, deeply analyzed, best-ever” plan to really buckle down and teach the Taliban and al Qaeda a lesson?
Count on it.
Related Posts
- Afghan govt not happy with withdrawal timeframe
- Source doc: Obama’s announcement of comprehensive new Afghan/Pak policy – in March 2009
- Obama’s Afghan plan: Going in and getting out at the same time
- Et tu? Republican opposition emerges on Obama’s Afghan plan
- Sens. McConnell and Lamar Alexander’s Statements on Afghan Speech
Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=9014
