So you're saying one book didn't make you an Obamaniac ? <bg>

I grant you Obama had goals very different from Bush in Afghanistan. But I also think the public pronouncements - primarily to "not lose the Democratic Party" - were, like many Obamaisms - designed to have it both ways and be perceived one way while acting another. In this case I think that is a good thing. To the degree that "counter-insurgency" involved nation-building I am not sure Obama is incorrect that this is not a viable option. A distinction has to be made between counter-insurgency as defined today and counter-terrorism.

I also applaud any recognition that the real problem is Pakistan. My only real interest in Afghanistan is maintaining two public airbases and whatever secret stuff they have on that side of Waziristan and whatever they are really doing up in Helmund.

All that said, the two most important parts of both the policy and Woodward's handling of explaining it, that stand out to me in the case of Bush and of Obama are these : in the book about the Iraq surge Woodward made reference - very briefly and obliquely - to the surge allowing stepped up activity by JSOC - i.e. McChrystal's covert action teams involved in serious counter-terrorism. There is reference in the most recent book to what is really going on without spelling out things that would be considered revealing sources and methods. Remember Woodward's access level - and understanding of intelligence issues - is waaay beyond what is common in reporters.

Obama doesn't seem to believe in Karzai, the possibility of getting the Afghan security forces to 400,000 before we can ramp down, or changing the governmental culture there. Fortunately he does seem to believe in Predators, the CIA covert army, and JSOC - in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also does not appear to be wobbly in letting them do what needs to be done.

Going just by Obama's public statements, you would not get this impression. Those statements are geared toward his goal of "not losing the Democrats" - which was said to Graham in the context of needing to keep his own party in the tent so the 30,000 could get funded.

My point is that any President is going to look at national security very differently from a campaigning politician once he is faced with the realities of the office. I don't think we can sustain perpetual war - or perpetual 100,000 + troop deployments in Afghanistan. The message of declaring June 2011 as the beginning of a unspecified draw down ( subject to conditions on the ground ) was both to satisfy the Dem base ( who wanted complete withdrawal announced on Jan 21, 2009 ) and to put a little sense of urgency into Karzai and his cronies.

I still believe most of his political wing are weazels, and his AG should go into very private practice with Janet Reno. I'm not saying I'd vote for him for anything (other than any Nobel Prize he wants ... I'm not a racist )

But I am encouraged that he may just be cold-blooded and calculating enough to do what is necessary over the next year - especially regarding Pakistan - and understands the value of not announcing publicly his every thought on some issues that are best handled sub rosa.


>Charles, as much as I respect you, I see this very differently.
>
>(And by the way, I've read Woodward's newest book, and have also read the Washington Post's coverage of the book)
>
>Woodward's book shows that, if anything, the view of Obama as a procrastinator in Afghanistan is false - Obama only ever wanted 1 thing. A withdrawal.
>
>Despite telling the American public that the war in Afghanistan was a "war of necessity, as opposed to a war of choice", Obama repeatedly told the armed forces to send him a plan for withdrawal....and the armed forces kept sending him plans for troop buildups and wider operations. The months of reported "indecisions" were, in fact the military trying to push Obama away from a plan of withdrawal.
>
>Since you read the book, then you're familiar with Obama's six-page "terms sheet" for getting out of Afghanistan, which included specific instructions on what the military WASN'T supposed to do. When the Pentagon kept trying to re-open the decision and kept asking Obama new questions, Obama kept replying, "Why do we keep having these meetings?" The Pentagon and McChrystal kept pushing for their 40,000 troop option as part of a broad counterinsurgency and Obama continued to balk.
>
>The book paints a clear picture of Obama wanting to withdraw from Afghanistan to retain support for party loyalists in 2012. Direct quote to a fellow Democratic senator..."I can't lose all the Democratic party".
>
>From your comments, I'm not sure you're aware of just how many readers of the book are concerned about Obama as a commander-in-chief.
>
>So I ask you - what kind of commander-in-chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war, while also announcing a fixed date for withdrawal? Here's the answer - one who doesn't have his heart in it. One who is more interested in making a political gesture than winning. One who wants to be perceived as trying, but is actually preparing the ground (or "political cover") for failure. One who doesn't want to take any action that might be perceived as supporting Western values in a non-Western world.
>
>As for your statements about Bush - remember that when Bush ordered the surge, the military kept handing him plans only intended to keep a lid on the violence in Iraq so that a settlement could be negotiated...and Bush insisted on a plan for winning....and Petraeus gave it to him. By contrast, from the minute Obama entered the White House, he did a near-180 on his campaign rhetoric on Afghanistan.
>
>And if anything, Obama may be letting what we achieved in Iraq (which he initially opposed, and then took some credit for) slip away. At the rate Obama has lost U.S. leverage in Iraq, the next Woodward book might be about Obama losing the winnable war bequeathed to him.
>
>Notice how Obama has barely lifted a finger to try to get al Maliki to step down or to deal with the stalking and murders of the Iraqiya party. 4,000 American servicemen and women died to help the Iraqi people establish a republic....and seven months after the first election, our new commander-in-chief stands by while a political syndicate tries to nullify the results. It's just like when Obama ignored the Green Movement's uprising in Iran.
>
>And finally, regarding the Taliban (which, even by conservative accounts, is getting their asses kicked right now) - this concept of them wanting to negotiate only works if we are committed to staying around (and not rushing for the exits). This is where (gasp!) I wish we still had Bush around - he would likely say to the lower-level Taliban, "we'll let you live and join the Afghan govt and put yourself in the political process - so long as we're there to supervise you and hold you to the terms of your surrender".
>
>One wonders if the timing of the Taliban wanting to negotiate with the Karzai govt is only because they are royally losing - or also because they know that the U.S. is on its way out, and that the U.S. has a leader who will engage in diplomatic surrender. It wouldn't be the first time our enemies took full advantage of our weaknesses.
>
>All I can hope for is that the damage will be limited, by the time this coward and fool is voted out of office in January 2013.