The Corner

A Commander-in-Chief & His Lieutenant

The president was underwhelming at West Point.  On one of the gravest strategic issues of our time, the golden orator of our political scene labored through his compulsories to make the case for why we should win a war that if we lose will invigorate the jihadist cause, put untenable pressure on the governments of Pakistan and India (to say nothing of the tragedy for Afghanistan), potentially put al-Qaeda in possession of nuclear weapons, and increase the risk of future attacks on our homeland.  It was not a performance that will give heart to Afghans, countries in the region whose security depends on our success, or allies with forces committed to this fight.  Or, I suspect, persuade many Americans who do not already support his policy.

Most striking was the dramatic mismatch between the dire consequences of failure and the very limited means the president intends to bring to bear.  The goals he has established for Afghanistan cannot be achieved in the time frame he committed to begin withdrawing troops in. Afghanistan fell 2,000 recruits short last month alone in meeting its current goal of 134,000 soldiers and 83,000 police.  The president’s new approach envisions producing additional Afghan forces superior in quantity and quality to the present.  That is wildly unrealistic.

To emphasize in the same breath the importance of increased forces and the necessity of removing them in eighteen months will badly diminish the positive effect those troops are intended to have.  The point of counterinsurgency approach is to protect the population so that they participate in security efforts and change the political dynamic of the war.  The president was silent on what he will do if his objectives are not achieved. 

As in Iraq, the president doesn’t have an exit strategy, he has an exit timeline.  He did not outline the positive conditions that must be met for our withdrawal to proceed.  He did not provide a vision of an Afghanistan that is capable of achieving what we need for our country to be secure.  He provided an absolute withdrawal date that will encourage our enemies to game the timeline, and discourage our friends from helping.

He brushed lightly over election fraud in Afghanistan, saying that despite it, a government was formed “consistent with the country’s laws and constitution.”  I’m not sure what that even means, but I am sure it will give encouragement to despots that the president of the United States is legitimating fraudulent elections by such contorted logic. 

Toward the end of his speech, the president spoke of “might and moral suasion,” which turn out to be the only tools of American power three months of additional review.  We still don’t have a strategy for Afghanistan.  We only have a military strategy for Afghanistan.  Where was the “dramatic increase in our civilian effort” the president promised in March?  There were literally no political, economic, agricultural, judicial, drug enforcement, or educational programs included in the president’s speech.  When he spoke briefly of non-military matters, it was only to press for reforms of the Karzai government. 

And the president asked for no effort from the 99 percent of Americans who are not in our military.  We are still not a country at war, we are a military at war.

On a personal note, it made ring hollow the president’s claims to virtue in the extended duration of his second Afghanistan review in ten months to see a former student of mine at West Point, Lt. Dan Berschinski in the audience.  He is now a double amputee, having suffered his wounds on patrol in Afghanistan during the months the president was methodically considering his options. 

The president kept 68,000 soldiers and Marines in harm’s way while he pondered whether it merited his political capital to pay the ticket price of his grand rhetoric about this good war, this war of necessity, that had been scandalously under-resourced.  Afghanistan remains all of those things, even after the president’s “new” new Afghan strategy.

 – Kori Schake is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and an Associate Professor at West Point. She was director for defense strategy on the NSC and deputy director of policy Planning at State.

Most Popular

Elections

The Democrats’ Disastrous CNN LGBT Town Hall

A few days after Donald Trump committed the worst foreign-policy blunder of his presidency by betraying America’s Kurdish allies in northern Syria, former vice president Joe Biden, the elder statesman and co-frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, was on a national stage talking to CNN’s primetime ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
Elections

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More