December 1, 2009 9:00 PM

Analysis: Obama Taking Big Risk with Afghanistan Decision

By
Marc Ambinder
Topics
Afghanistan
(AP)
As of tonight, George W. Bush -- his administration and its philosophy -- are no longer responsible for the bloody war in Afghanistan.

Tonight, with his Text of Obama's RemarksCBSNews.com Special Report: AfghanistanMr. Obama's decision leaves them no choice: by setting a firm timetable to begin withdrawing troops, he is urging Americans to form a political judgment about the war's progress at the time the first wave of redeployments begin. This is the question he has brought to the fore: with everything that's going on over here, what the hell are we doing over there?Often accused of choosing the path of least resistance, Mr. Obama's decision carries political risk. Withdrawing troops -- calling an end to the conflict now -- would rouse his base and add fiber to his relationship with Democrats in Congress. Accepting without modification or deliberation the recommendation of General Stanley McChrystal, who envisioned a much longer conflict, would have been suicidal within his party. Still, by twinning his troop increase with a timetable, Mr. Obama pulls off a bit of a trick. He's given Americans and Congress a meter reading, that, once triggered, will close down the conflict. To be sure, Mr. Obama has allowed himself and his commanders room to keep a heavy presence in Afghanistan beyond his firm term, but he has created a strategy and structure that renders that option prohibitively expensive.The slope of the troop decrease after the redeployment of the initial 30,000 troops is up to Mr. Obama -- commander's prerogative -- so he cannot be accused of abandoning the country come hell or high concentrations of Taliban resistance. His timetable all but guarantees that his request for more troops now will be funded by a reluctant Democratic Congress.It also takes a while to digest. "We're ending this. We're coming home. We're sending 30,000 more troops over there now" is a three-dimensional message quandary. It bends the mind a bit, even as it turns out to be, at least according to the general consensus of the thoughtful Afghanistan/Pakistan analysts, a pretty good way to pressure the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.In an hour-long interview today with a small number of political analysts and columnists, Mr. Obama said he was prepared for the political onslaught, particularly from within his own party. Indeed, to activists like MoveOn.org, Obama's escalation amounts to a betrayal of his core identity, which was forged in 2002 when he presciently opposed the impending invasion of Iraq, a choice that opened the door to hiseventual run for president. No matter that Obama campaigned on Afghanistan as the "right war," or that lessons from his experience with Iraq are reflected in modifications to McChrystal's strategy and timeline; the dimensions of the conflict have clearly changed since he was elected president, as has the broad aims of U.S. policy."This has been an entirely transparent process," Mr. Obama said today."There's no Gulf of Tonkin here. We are having a wholesome debate about the best strategy forward and I am being held fully accountable to members of Congress, all of whom I think are going to be interested inholding me accountable and making sure that this strategy works. And if it doesn't, I think there is going to be enormous interest on the part of the American people and on the part of Congress in keeping me to myword that this is not a constant escalation," he added.Charts:Troop Levels in Afghanistan Over the YearsU.S. Troop Deaths in AfghanistanViews on Afghanistan Troop IncreaseAfghanistan War TimelineMr. Obama's strategy at once emphasizes the primacy of the threat from Al Qaeda but does so through the byproduct of creating stable, legitimate governments in the region. This is unchanged from February, when appointed McChrystal to the Afghanistan command. Since Mr. Obama's been inaugurated, Afghanistan and Pakistan are less stable, with their leaders pressed by indigenous and historical forces to resist Western notions of credibility. The majority of the Al Qaeda terrorists we're seeking are in Pakistan, which is, of course, Pakistan's problem as much as ours. Here Mr. Obama has an update from February: the goal is to less passively reorient Pakistan's military-intelligence complex away from fighting a war with India and flip their eyes up North, to border provinces where the greatest threats to Pakistan's stability launch attacks. The type of military aid to Pakistan will change -- at a basic level, the U.S. will be much more likely to provide a piece of hardware if it is suited for fighting in the nowhereland of Pashtunistan than against a major country like India. Another difference from the original McChrystal proposal: there will be less focus on the number of Afghan troops than the quality of them. Will it work? Who knows? Mr. Obama's political team will be satisfied if they can convince Americans that there is no sure victory, maybe even no right answer, but that the decision-making process itself is indicative of the credibility of the strategy. That is, it doesn't really matter whether Americans accept or understand the strategy so much as they accept that Mr. Obama has a strategy, and a well-considered one at that.More Coverage of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan:Obama Announces Troop Surge, Exit PlanText of Obama's RemarksWho Offers the Better Deal in Afghanistan?Liberal Lawmakers, Activists Chastise Afghanistan Troop IncreasePolling Analysis: Afghanistan 2009 Vs. Iraq 2007CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder is CBS News' chief political consultant.

Add a Comment See all 26 Comments
by rykatspop December 2, 2009 5:31 PM EST
If anyone really believes that this is about Islamic terrorists and Bin Laden, then consider this. We have the most powerful, sophisticated, wealthiest govt capable of funding espionage and war anywhere in the world--for as long as we want. If we wanted to get Bin Laden, if we were really serious and truly committed to that end, we would have by now. No, something else is a foot. No one can match us for our military and spying capabilities. Our govt has "tools and weaponry" Americans have never heard about; things we have no clue exist are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We should really be knocking the crap out of Iran and N. Korea. Funny, how we don't push in those arenas. Funny, we don't do more to help Africa in terms of genocide, the Congo. But we continually brag about our love of human rights. We'll fight for the suffering and downtrodden. Well, if there is a corporate angle in it somewhere we will.
Reply to this comment
by rykatspop December 2, 2009 5:19 PM EST
Our enlisted already think of this as a type of Vietnam War scenario. They are afraid of facing article 15 charges for any combat actions they perform that could lead to bad "PR" for the commanders. They are right, you can't go into a fist fight with your hands tied behind your back. The troops have no intention to ever do evil acts on the Afghan people and fighters, but we shouldn't be telling them to fight throwing half punches. This info was from an NPR segment about our troops fighting a war like this one. Yep, chase the bad guys to Pakistan (who will do nothing), then fight the same jerks a week later at the same border region. No Vietnam scenario? Yeah, right. Let's not forget the likelihood of endless deployments, stop-loss orders, too. This war is not about Bin Laden or evil axis. It's about capitalist markets. It's the agenda to provide big corporations more customers and workers on the cheap. It's another slap in the face for American workers. Walmart will be able to provide us even cheaper furniture, clothes and toys because China, Vietnam will have to compete. We are being played for suckers. But, America will have a great market for more bombs and missiles--as we rotate the stock on hand. Nothing but lies and distortions about the need for this war, and Iraq. Bring the troops home. Fix America's big problems--such as inner cities, jobs and health care.
Reply to this comment
by jab232 December 2, 2009 2:13 PM EST
Suppose politics didn't play a big part in this decision. Suppose President Obama did this because he thought it was the right thing to do for this nation. Suppose he did this knowing it would not please the right OR the left. Suppose he is trying to be what presidents are elected to be--leaders who use their best judgment for the good of the nation regardless of the politics.

Why is it so hard to for ABC to visualize a president who actually functions as a president is supposed to function, who makes decisions on the basis of what he thinks is best for the USA?
Reply to this comment
by RegVoter December 2, 2009 2:18 PM EST
ditto! That is why he is president and no one else is.
by yd372801 December 2, 2009 12:56 PM EST
The East has been to do delicate and Al-Qaeda were bridle on the territotory Afghanistan so simplly doesn't lightly. Because Al-Qaeda is
many-tentacle Hydra, which if We wold chop off tail in Afghanistan; then
will be regeneration its body in Pakistan,Turkish,Russia,Europe,Pfillipin,Somalia.... In fact Al-Qaeda be conducted a propagandize main Islamic under strong by sauce is Global Jihad among of poor layer a population, where have been joung men, which were not know of reading and writting, but already to keep one's own hands is a submachine-gun Kalashinikov. Exactly had been protracted to
more10 years of War by USSR were uncover of religious and polotical the conflicts between by the grouping among Taliban ..., but yet more hatred
by Military Army USSR to be now already United States and United Kingdom.There is no time very powerful of Military Army USSR was keeping ofkeys - position by the mountain pass, but attached a local of population. A Military Army USA has been an idea of ocupation Afghanistan on this a case, when would showing a Foundamenatl Islamic to be itself own value are the American and Europe of civilisation: education among young men inthe school and theuniversity, by the gumanitas helping the foodstuffs,agricultural techical, the cars....
At any case the long times USSR were bearing hard burden of War and fall to pleces.
Reply to this comment
by Oregon_State_OSU December 2, 2009 12:41 PM EST
No matter who was Elected as President in 2008, Obama or McCain.

George W. Bush the COWARD & worst President and most corrupt administration in US HISTORY left 2 unfinished Wars to McCain or Obama & left all the hard work and clean up to the next President.

GWB and the TOTAL IDIOT Donald Rumsfield left Obama a real mess to clean up.
Reply to this comment
by johndevinejr December 2, 2009 12:55 PM EST
They certainly did. If we liberals / moderates can keep the reactionary republican party from gaining power, we have a chance to fix the disaster. If they get power again we can look forward to becomming a banana republic. Because that is where their very misguided policies will take us.
by us_1776 December 2, 2009 11:45 AM EST
QUOTE: As of tonight, George W. Bush -- his administration and its philosophy -- are no longer responsible for the bloody war in Afghanistan.

That is just total nonsense. Bush/Cheney left Afghanistan in an awful situation. And almost no strategy is possible that can "win" in Afghanistan. The best that the President could achieve is to train the Afghans to protect their own government and then we leave Afghanistan.

Bush/Cheney was always own their part of this Afghanistan mess. To assert otherwise is just plain ignorant.
Reply to this comment
by Oregon_State_OSU December 2, 2009 12:49 PM EST
us_1776

I completely agree.

The Bush Administration, George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfiled were MASTERS OF SHIFTING BLAME and Pointing the Finger at somebody else and placing blame on others when it was completely their fault.

Liars, Looser and Incompetents thats what the Bush Asministration was all about.
by zeinali December 2, 2009 11:22 AM EST
what mostly counts in all this political/military global mess in order to achieve a global peace is the good-will. It all starts with the good-will from the bottom up to responsible governments and leaders around the world. President Obama started the peace process with good-will, responsible moral and modern political visions and approaches, it's up to the rest of the world and to anyone's own responsibility which direction they are choosing.
Reply to this comment
by AOCGUY December 2, 2009 11:16 AM EST
I have regularly argued that our reasons for going into Afghanistan were valid but over time those reasons have faded away making our continued presence problematic, and quite frankly I would have been pleased had he decided to begin a phased withdrawal. That said, Pres Obama made good arguments for his decision and I pray that he is successful. I am certain, however, that without a committed Pakistani involvement (Hammer/Anvil approach), we will not be successful.

Biggest challenge I see is that we went in after specific people but we are now having to combat ideals, not easy to do.
Reply to this comment
by velma179 December 2, 2009 10:10 AM EST
Candidate Obama made it clear that Afghanistan was a war of necessity, he NEVER said he wouldn't escalate there. The circumstances that require this move are not under President Obama's control... he is after all, merely a president of one country, not Deity to the world!

He did say we would be pulling out of Iraq. We are.

He did say Gitmo would be closed. It will be.

For those of you that think these complex issues do not require time and patience in order to complete them EFFECTIVELY... I wonder how you run your own life. I guess you do everything without a thought for doing it right.

Sheesh

It would be so wonderful if we could act like a brotherhood, a country, rather than a bunch of spoiled "give ME what I want, NOW" brats.
Reply to this comment
by RegVoter December 2, 2009 11:28 AM EST
ditto!
by bruce789 December 2, 2009 8:49 AM EST
I like his speaking style here, no creating the mr. greatness, hope it evolves. No one has answer that doesn't cause harm, in addressing it, this is the first day of his presidency. Welcome aboard.
Reply to this comment
See all 26 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...