There can be little doubt that President Obama’s decision to claw back the surge forces by the end of next summer had a political dimension — the only question is to what extent did those political exigencies override military considerations? Robert Kagan thinks the answer is quite a bit:
The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chancethat the mission will not succeed. It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.
This may prove a disastrous political calculation, too, however. If the war is going badly in the summer and fall of 2012, it will be because of the decision the president made this week. Everyone will know he did it against the advice of his commanders. Everyone will know he did it for political reasons. So if the war is going badly a year from now, whom do you think the American people will blame? There will still be 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, but as part of a losing effort. Will Americans reward Obama at the polls under those circumstances?
I quite agree the decision could backfire on the president should the war take a turn for the worse. Fatigued or not, the American public will trace the causal chain from POTUS’s decision to more dead Americans and a Taliban resurgence. And he’ll pay for it.
He'll be accountable? Too bad no one held Mr. Bush accountable for neglecting Afghanistan to pursue a war of choice in Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're right, everyone was 100% behind Bush.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou don't consider an approval rating in the low 20's and providing Democrats with a super majority in Congress and the White House holding Bush accountable?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna: the last line of the post says "He'll pay for it." That implies to me personal accountability, not election losses. If that's correct, I don't see that Mr. Bush has suffered personally, and he probably thinks he did a good job overall despite the 2008 losses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chancethat the mission will not succeed."
What is "the mission" again? And who decides what it is? That would seem to be the proper role of the civilian authorities and not the generals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And he’ll pay for it." Yes, he may lose the 2012 election, and move on to the lucrative "speech" circuit and amass millions as did Bill Clinton. Sadly, the poor marines, soldiers, and airmen killed in action won't have that option. All because of "political" considerations. Please don't tell me that Obama deserves any respect as Commander in Chief. He doesn't. He deserves only scorn for this action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it is time for Republicans and Conservatives to start listening to George Will. Staying in Afghanistan and maintaining 100 thousand troops there at untold cost does not have the support of the American people and you can't go to war (or continue a war) without the support of the American people. It is time to get out of Afghanistan and Libya and stop getting involved in every country where in the Middle East. We can't afford to be the policemen of the world. Let's get our act together before our country collapses because of all of this debt that we have incurred over the past 10 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand what you're saying, but if America doesn't police the world, who will? Knowing the answer to that question, it won't be pleasant to live in a world where terrorists are free to attack innocent civilians and brutal dictators and tyrants are allowed to flourish because there is no one to challenge them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseturtle: you seem to have forgotten Mr. Bush, living in his gated community and starting to "fill up the coffers", as he said. Plenty of blood on his hands from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePres. Bush does not quite live in a gated community. The 'gate' was put up after he bought the house in an upscale Dallas neighborhood, it wasn't there before. The same privilege will go to The Won when he's outta here. By the way, there are far more affluent areas in Dallas that Pres. Bush could have chosen to live.
Pete
Pete: OK, but still doesn't put him in a different category.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there's a political component to Obama's decision to draw down there's surely an equally poltical component for those who want to stay.
Afghanistan was a failed state before we got there and it will remain a failed state for decades after we leave. If it becomes a haven for terrorism beyond its borders it'll be dealt with at that time, and that's the best anyone can hope for.
Just another murky 21th century military outcome to throw on the pile.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou mean the "drawdown" where Obama continues to keep twice as many soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen in AfPak than were deployed on the day of his inauguration? Man, this guy is all cut-n-run.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe mantra never varies, does it?
Keep leaning forward.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWatertight, do you deny that President Obama greatly increased troop strength in Afghanistan and even with the "drawdown" has more than doubled our commitment to that war? Or are you just being snarky? How much content-free snark is necessary to win a gold star on NRO?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne other big point: I remember when Prince Harry went other there for about 6 weeks before cover was blown, he spent alot of time with the US troops and did alot of training and soldiering amongst them.
If God forbid, something was to happen to him (he's supposed to be headed back there within the next 6 months to a year)while obama is doing his political draw down, I would not want to be in obama's shoes
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmericans are inconsistent in their approach to war. They support it, then they grow weary of it, then they complain it costs too much and then they want to throw in the towel and move on. But even though many Americans are anxious for the war to end, few want to increase the risk to our troops, sacrifice the gains we've made in the war on terror or negatively impact national security. It's not necessarily rational, but it is the way it is and President Obama could pay a price for ignoring that reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to External Link
"In October 2002, there were approximately 9,500 troops [in Afghanistan]. A year later, in October 2003, that number had increased slightly to 10,400.... In Afghanistan, the number of U.S. troops stayed below 20,000 for all of 2003, 2004 and 2005. In 2006, it hit a high for the year of 23,300 in April..... in 2007 ... U.S. troops in Afghanistan hovered between 10,000 and 11,000. In 2008, the number of troops in Afghanistan started increasing to between 16,000 and 18,000. The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan increased dramatically in 2009, the year President Barack Obama took office. By the end of 2009, troops numbered just over 67,000. And right now, there are approximately 89,000 troops."
There has been a steady drumbeat on the Corner since the speech about Obama is solely guided by political reasons, his hasty pullout will be disastrous, we only need one more (ha, ha) fighting season, yada yada yada. You people really need to stop with this reflexive Obama-hatred. The numbers tell a completely different tale from the tall one you've been peddling.
Besides which, if a level of 70,000 troops is deeply misguided, perhaps immoral, what does that say about the Bush-Cheney troop levels?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe were in control of Afghanistan, with far fewer troops and almost no casulties, until Obama's election became a surety. The Taliban, knowing him to be feckless, were then (and remain) emboldened. A president who seeks to win can do more with 10,000 troops than a determined loser can with seven times that number.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We were in control"? By what measure? If we were in control during 2008, wouldn't Mr. Bush have ended the war? Your statement lacks any factual foundation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse