PBS Frontline "Obama's War"

[Battlefront.com]

ASL Vet,

So what could Obama be deciding here? The only thing Obama can be deciding is whether he wants to stay in Afghanistan at all.

There is another possibility, which I've heard from some of Obama's advisors. And that is that by some calculations we would need to have about 600,000 total forces in Afghanistan to adequately source a successful COIN strategy as McCrystal has advocated. Of course there's no way that is possible, even with a huge infusion of US forces and pulling tons of Afghan forces out of thin air. The other nations there are definitely not going to put in more forces on balance.

The decision, therefore, is similar to the economic stimulus arguments... put in too little and you make things worse, put in too much and you waste resources that could be used for something else. You need to hit a sweet spot between the two. Therefore, one needs to first figure out what that sweet spot is before making a decision. Otherwise you're pissing away resources (and in this case lives) for nothing.

If it appears that 40,000 troops is not enough, or can't be committed (for whatever reason), then clearly a different strategy needs to be considered because we've had 8 years of using the wrong strategy for the resources available. It would be really nice if that stopped happening.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

McChrystal has a war to wage so otherwise can't see past the end of his nose. He asked for 40,000 because he figured we could perhap eek out 40,000 without breaking the military entirely. If we had 200,000 fresh troops available he would've wanted 200,000. One commander in Afghanistan suggested 600,000 would be the ideal number! Commanders aways want 'more', whether its McClellan, Montgomery, or Schwarzkopf. Two years ago they were begging Cheney for more troops for Afghanistan. Eventually the Marines shifted theaters.

About "delaying the decision until after the election is finalized". You've got to admit that got Karzai's attention! One fresh runoff election on the way. Any other president, the neocons would now be applauding it as classic "hardball negotiating" with the regme.

It seems unlikely to me that McChrystal’s process of selecting the 40,000 figure was to simply figure out how many troops he could get from Obama and then to just ask for that many since that’s what he thinks he could get. He has to actually do something with the troops he gets or there is no reason to ask for them. In other words his strategy recommendation has to actually use them in some way so his method had to be more complicated than picking a number out of a hat. He has to fit the troop requirement to match the strategy. You are also making an assumption that getting any specific number of troops from Obama and the democratic controlled congress is something that’s not only assured, but that the number of troops that Obama and congress would approve is known in advance by McChrystal so that he can match his request to what he knows he can get. I think it’s safe to assume that when McChrystal was creating his strategy that those variables were unknown to him since they aren’t known to anyone right now. He therefore must be matching the troop requirement to the strategy he is advocating. Nothing else makes any sense. David Obey is an important congressman with regards to funding and you may want to read this article here before making any assumptions about the inevitability of a troop increase in Afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/62271-obey-questions-wisdom-of-sending-more-troops-to-afghanista#

To follow up on your second point – sure it’s got Karzai’s attention but do you honestly believe that after the election Afghanistan is going to be corruption free regardless as to who is in charge? In what way does the election actually alter the situation on the ground for NATO in such a way that the strategy is dependent upon it? There is also the issue of who is doing the ‘arm twisting’ Does anyone doubt that a president like Harry (duke nukem) Truman, Lyndon (Tonkin) Johnson, or John (Baywatch) Kennedy would hesitate to send more troops into a combat zone after twisting some arms? You are right, there would be no doubt that it was hardball negotiating prior to a troop increase if any of those three were coming down on Karzai. In the case of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Obey it may very well be hardball negotiating but who knows if a troop increase will follow. If the troop increase follows then I’ll call it hardball negotiating. If no troops follow then I’m calling it dithering and finger pointing on the way out the door. Feel free to drag this thread back up when we know the answer and I’ll give credit if it’s due.

[ASL Veteran]

There is another possibility, which I've heard from some of Obama's advisors. And that is that by some calculations we would need to have about 600,000 total forces in Afghanistan to adequately source a successful COIN strategy as McCrystal has advocated. Of course there's no way that is possible, even with a huge infusion of US forces and pulling tons of Afghan forces out of thin air. The other nations there are definitely not going to put in more forces on balance.

The decision, therefore, is similar to the economic stimulus arguments... put in too little and you make things worse, put in too much and you waste resources that could be used for something else. You need to hit a sweet spot between the two. Therefore, one needs to first figure out what that sweet spot is before making a decision. Otherwise you're pissing away resources (and in this case lives) for nothing.

If it appears that 40,000 troops is not enough, or can't be committed (for whatever reason), then clearly a different strategy needs to be considered because we've had 8 years of using the wrong strategy for the resources available. It would be really nice if that stopped happening.

Steve

This article here is directly on point to what you are discussing so it may be helpful to glance at it before reading the rest of my post

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/there-middle-way#

Reasonable people can disagree about strategy. I am utterly and completely in no position to judge the merits of the “McChrystal Plan” so I’m not going to do that. I am also in no way endorsing or advocating the “McChrystal Plan” as the ‘right’ plan. I am also currently ambivalent about whether we should remain in Afghanistan or not. The specific strategy though is not really even the issue as far as I’m concerned because it is currently not a strategy issue but a political issue. Why do I say that? Let’s review: Obama announces in March that he is going to adopt a ‘new’ strategy in Afghanistan. He fires the old commander in Afghanistan and installs McChrystal – his choice to lead the new ‘strategy’ that he just announced – and presumably whom Obama considers as a trusted ‘expert’ in military matters who can get the job done (or one would assume because he probably wouldn’t have replaced the old commander with McChrystal if he didn’t think that).

So, McChrystal does his study and creates a strategy in order to make his recommendation to the president (who replaced the old commander with McChrystal to do exactly that). Now we will go deep into speculation land. There are ‘reports’ out there that Jones and others did not want McChrystal to request more troops yet McChrystal includes in his report a request for more troops anyway. There are also ‘reports’ that after Obama found out there was a troop request within McChrystal’s recommendations that he didn’t really want to see it. We know from McChrystal himself that Obama barely met with him. We know that his recommendation was leaked to the press – probably by McChrystal himself or someone associated with the strategy recommendation. Why would McChrystal leak his report to the press? Maybe he felt it necessary because Obama was not responsive and he felt the only way to get Obama to act would be to put public pressure on him. If the report was never leaked Obama could have just ignored his recommendations indefinitely with no consequence. This leads me to the conclusion that when Obama finally looks at McChrystal’s recommendation his response was “This is not the plan I’m looking for”. The leak of the 500,000 or 600,000 men by the White House in response to McChrystal’s release of his recommendation would be for the purpose of discrediting the McChrystal plan in the hopes that people would respond the way you just did (600,000 men? That’s not a strategy that’s just crazy talk!). By discrediting the McChrystal plan with that leak it makes it easier to discard that strategy and not approve any troop increase at all. However, I think it’s probably a safe assumption to make that McChrystal thinks that he can ‘make it happen’ if the resources are provided to him as he requested – even if you and others may have their doubts based upon a white house leak. McChrystal also doesn’t seem to be scheduled to appear before congress any time soon and until he goes in front of congress we know that Obama isn’t trying to push the McChrystal strategy because Congress has to fund it. The only way to get congress to fund the new strategy would be for McChrystal to testify about it before congress or for Obama to do a deal when nobody is looking and announce the troop increase with a memo on a Friday night so it misses the news cycle.

So Obama doesn’t like the strategy – what’s the problem? The problem here is that McChrystal is Obama’s hand picked military expert who he tasked with developing the new strategy that he announced back in March. A second problem is that the military establishment including Gates and Petraeus appear to be in lock step with McChrystal. If he rejects McChrystal’s plan then Obama either looks like he is a poor judge of military talent, he is taking military advice from someone who is not part of the chain of command, or he is making a political decision and not a military one. The fact that Gates and Petraeus seem to be in lockstep with McChrystal seems to rule out the incompetence factor so Obama’s judge of military talent is probably fine unless Obama replaces McChrystal, Petraeus, and Gates sometime soon. If Obama is taking military advice from someone who is not part of the chain of command then he could be placing Gates, Petraeus, and McChrystal into a position of having to carry out a strategy developed by someone who is outside of the military establishment and a strategy which they may not believe will bring the desired result. It could also result in embarrassing resignations if someone – say McChrystal – says to Obama that he doesn’t want to put soldier’s lives on the line to pursue a strategy that he doesn’t believe in.

I think the most likely possibility here is that Obama is making a political decision and not a military one. The ‘indecision’ itself is actually a political decision because delay actually helps his cause if it is his intention to withdraw from Afghanistan. The politics involved in this ‘decision’ process are the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obey.

Rereading your post I'm not sure I was entirely on point in my response because there were some nuances in your post that I didn't pick up initially. I'm going to leave it like this for now though.

[Clavicula_Nox]

ASL, I throw my hat in with yours.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You are forgetting the NATO/ISAF aspect. Political support for continuing is crumbling fast. If Karzai was allowed to steal the election without even the pretence of reining him in, the 40.000 US troops hoped for would mostly fill the gaps left by nations leaving. If you thought there was little political will in the US for succeeding in Afghanistan you've not been reading what the US allies think.

Those are having a hard time selling the war at home. For the US to have any chance their Allies need to be assured that:

A)they are supporting a vaguely legitimate Afghan government

and

The US is finally seen to be stepping up to the plate.

If they made those commitment prior to Karzai agreeing to a second round (and possibly the second round going off without a hitch) they'd fail A. If they don't do B, the US will losing thousands of European troops and much PRT know-how. So they delay B until A happens.

To do anything else would seem profoundly short sighted. But then again, the ball is in the Democrat court, and there is nothing they can't self-sabotage.

I am convinced McChrystal is indeed practising Realpolitik with regards to his troop level request. Asking for what Obama can't give him damages both their positions. Obama is seen as weak and politically embarrassed and McChrystal loses influence at the White House as a result. McChrystal knows he needs to play ball or get off the field. You forget, generals of his rank aren't soldiers, they are politicians.

If he thought he could possibly get 100.000 troops for Afghanistan, he'd ask for them. An excess of men is rarely complained about by generals. It's not like things are going well. He could use every soldier he can wring out of Washington. You seriously think that soldier #40.001 would be left playing Patience at Bagram?

[Clavicula_Nox]

You seriously think that soldier #40.001 would be left playing Patience at Bagram?

It's funny that you say that, because thousands of soldiers do nothing but sit around, eat 4 meals a day, watch movies, and play Xbox.

[Apocalypse 31]

It's funny that you say that, because thousands of soldiers do nothing but sit around, eat 4 meals a day, watch movies, and play Xbox.

Yeah. They're called Commo guys

[ASL Veteran]

You are forgetting the NATO/ISAF aspect. Political support for continuing is crumbling fast. If Karzai was allowed to steal the election without even the pretence of reining him in, the 40.000 US troops hoped for would mostly fill the gaps left by nations leaving. If you thought there was little political will in the US for succeeding in Afghanistan you've not been reading what the US allies think.

Those are having a hard time selling the war at home. For the US to have any chance their Allies need to be assured that:

A)they are supporting a vaguely legitimate Afghan government

and

The US is finally seen to be stepping up to the plate.

If they made those commitment prior to Karzai agreeing to a second round (and possibly the second round going off without a hitch) they'd fail A. If they don't do B, the US will losing thousands of European troops and much PRT know-how. So they delay B until A happens.

To do anything else would seem profoundly short sighted. But then again, the ball is in the Democrat court, and there is nothing they can't self-sabotage.

That’s a fair point and you are correct that I hadn’t considered it. However I’m going to say that Gates seems to think that there is no need to wait for the election results before deciding on sending additional troops as reported yesterday so he must think you can both pressure Karzai and get the decision on the number of troops done simultaneously rather than sequentially. I would also point out that it’s possible that Obama’s lack of a decision in and of itself creates havoc with point B above so it seems like a potential contradiction to me to say that A must happen before B can happen depending upon whether NATO nations know what the outcome of Obama’s decision is. If NATO nations are as in the dark as we are about what his decision will be then his present indecision would seem to be a more damaging set of circumstances to me than the election results would be. If Obama’s decision is already known in NATO capitals but the decision hasn’t been officially announced yet then I think your sequence makes sense because NATO nations know where they stand. There is no indication at this time that Obama has made a decision or even when he plans on making a decision. Whether NATO stays or goes is largely dependent upon what the US does. Sure, NATO can withdraw while the US stays but there is no way NATO stays if the US withdraws so to my mind the lack of a decision by Obama is the more catastrophic event to NATO governments than the election results are.

I am convinced McChrystal is indeed practising Realpolitik with regards to his troop level request. Asking for what Obama can't give him damages both their positions. Obama is seen as weak and politically embarrassed and McChrystal loses influence at the White House as a result. McChrystal knows he needs to play ball or get off the field. You forget, generals of his rank aren't soldiers, they are politicians.

If he thought he could possibly get 100.000 troops for Afghanistan, he'd ask for them. An excess of men is rarely complained about by generals. It's not like things are going well. He could use every soldier he can wring out of Washington. You seriously think that soldier #40.001 would be left playing Patience at Bagram?

Generals don’t request individual soldiers, they request military units. Military units have a logistics tail which, in Afghanistan, is probably very expensive. Sure, a general probably wouldn’t turn down more troops if he can get more as long as there is a use for them. However, history is full of examples where too many troops in the wrong location creates more problems than solutions. In coming up with the troop request I’m going to speculate that the plan has specific duties and uses listed for every military unit that is included in the plan so that the logistics tail can be coordinated and organized and so that each unit’s operational boundaries don’t overlap or interfere with each other.

I find this troop discussion to be more of a credibility discussion though and that an argument about specific troop numbers is just missing the point. If you think McChrystal’s plan and his ability to carry out the plan is credible then the number of troops he requests is really irrelevant. If you think he lacks credibility or that he can’t achieve the desired result then you will probably be inclined to focus on that aspect of the plan as your ‘foil’ for saying that it won’t work. The problem here is that only the people who have drawn up the plan or who are privy to the plan’s intricacies can say for sure if the number of troops being requested is the appropriate number to carry it out. If the plan has the blessings of the Secretary of Defense then I think it’s also reasonable to assume that the resources that the plan requires is within the capabilities of the Pentagon to meet. All we are doing is applying personal opinions on whether Afghanistan is ‘winnable’ or not to McChrystal’s plan without considering the plan on it’s merits (since we haven’t seen the specifics of the plan or even have the local knowledge required to assess it). So in my opinion a discussion about troop levels is just going around in circles without discussing the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is this: The Pentagon has developed a plan for Afghanistan that they feel will give us a good chance at obtaining a favorable outcome. Do you think a favorable outcome in Afghanistan is achievable? Even if a favorable outcome can be achieved is the required cost worth paying in order to achieve the favorable outcome? If anyone is discussing this issue without knowing the answer to those two questions with absolute certainty (yes or no) then they aren’t participating in an honest debate because they don’t know what they stand for. The reason I am ambivalent about Afghanistan is that I have answered Yes to both of those questions, but if Obama isn’t going to go ‘All In’ by accepting the recommendations of the pentagon then I would just as soon have our military go ‘All Out’ and get the heck out of there. In or Out. That’s where I’m at right now. In or Out.