Obama At War: The Candidate Vs. The Prez

By: Charles Cooper
Topics: In The News

(CBS/iStockphoto)

When it comes to reducing United States troop levels in the Middle East, President Barack Obama is discovering that candidate Barack Obama may have promised more than he could deliver.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama has had to balance supporters' demands for a speedy troop drawdown with the advice of his military advisors about the realities on the ground. Increasingly, though, it looks like the latter will trump the applause lines heard on the campaign trail. But to paraphrase Foreign Policy's Mark Lynch turn of phrase, Mr. Obama faces lots of tough decisions for which there are not very good answers.

Consider Iraq, where the president has taken a half step away from his campaign pledge that getting out would be his first priority in office. During his 2008 presidential run, Mr. Obama promised supporters the immediate withdrawal of one to two brigades of combat troops from Iraq every month, with an eye toward finishing the pullout by the end of this year. The new plan envisions the end of combat operations by September 2010. The U.S. will still keep a 50,000-troop "transition force"

What's troubling to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is the seeming appearance of an open-ended commitment. Digby offers a representative critique:

"For me, this one is easy. Afghanistan is the most unlikely place to win a war on the planet. To apply the lessons learned in Iraq (such as they were) to this country seems insane to me --- especially the concept of "counter-insurgency," so beloved by the McChrystalites, which is being bizarrely misapplied. But more important than that: whenever you hear people saying that the primary purpose in continuing a war is because "to leave would send the wrong message" and declaring that "perceptions" are the reasons for continuing a slaughter, you know you are in Pentagon NeverNever land."

Even after the U.S. finishes the bulk of its withdrawal from Iraq, it's still possible -maybe even likely? - that a sizeable number of U.S. troops will remain in the region. Earlier this year, Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey suggested that the U.S. might need to keep combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Asked by the Army Times about the prospective size of any U.S. force, he answered, said that a "reality scenario" would encompass "10 Army and Marine units."

He'll first have to sell that plan to the commander-in-chief, who knows the risk of blowback from disappointed liberal supporters if they conclude that his campaign promises won't be kept. We're already seeing coming something of the sort in the debate over U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama pledged to send over another couple of brigades, or 7,000 troops, to better take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The president has since signed off on a plan to ship roughly 21,000 soldiers by the end of the year, which would increase the number U.S. personnel to 68,000.

But the U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he does not believe that's enough to do the job. In a wide-ranging assessment prepared for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. Stanley McChrystal warns that the U.S. courts mission failure unless more troops get sent Afghanistan. (The existence of the memo was originally published Sunday evening by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward. An interesting side debate: who leaked the memo and why.)
Since European NATO allies are in no mood to dispatch more of their soldiers, any new troop commitments will involve the deployment of more Americans. None of this means it's a slam dunk. During his Sunday blitz of the airwaves, President Obama told NBC's Meet The Press the following:

"I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way– you know, sending a message that America– is here for– for the duration. I think it's important that we match strategy to resources."

"What I'm not also gonna do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question. Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there-beyond what we already..."

For the record, Gates last April was quoted by the Associated Press telling an Army audience at Fort Drum, N.Y. that he did not expect "a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000, at least probably through the end of the year. Maybe some increase, but not a lot."

Charles Cooper is an executive editor at CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years, working at CBSNews.com, the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.
Follow on Twitter »

11 Comments +

Add a Comment See all 11 Comments


by noloyalisti September 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT: This whole thing was about the neocon/oil corporation plot to put an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. So we put in our typical right wing, corrupt government to sell out the country to Exxon, Unocal, Shell and Chevron.; Reply to this comment

by jxknowles September 22, 2009 1:50 PM EDT

The Candidate Obama promised to flexible and admit when he was wrong. No more 'stay the course' just to be consistent. The President is showing signs of flxibility. No word on being wrong. I'm okay with a change in policy on Afghanistan.

Things are not great. They could be really bad. Let's hope it gets better before it gets worse.

Reply to this comment


by noloyalisti September 22, 2009 2:00 PM EDT: It has been 8 years since we invaded and turned the people against us. Now we realize this is an un-winnable quagmire that never had an exit strategy. All we have to do is convince our "smart President and Congress". Get out NOW, before it is too late.

by spiritwalk September 22, 2009 1:31 PM EDT

People actually believe campaign promises?

Reply to this comment


by jefleshman September 23, 2009 5:39 AM EDT: Great point spiritwalk. Simple and to the point.Yes the ignorant do.

Ask a person why they support a person running for an office and the responses are so funny. Sounds like a sound bite off the slogan trail.

BUSH Sr. said NO NEW TAXES. Ummmm People are so dumb they believed the POTUS was the one that controls taxes.

BUSH Jr. said NO NATION BUILDING this of course is pre 9-11 but even still I thought to myself. That is not realistic giving todays global issues.

OBAMA stated CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. yes the POTUS was changed out but what did you mean by change? What can the POTUS change anyway that is in his power and authority. He can veto but then what if the percent on the revote is met? Yep The POTUS is over ruled. Our founding fathers did not want one man to be the end all be all. Thank goodness.

Pres Obama is in my opinion is doing what every other POTUS did before him. The very best he can!

People are faulting the wrong person this guy as was the guy before him trying to WIN an election. Of course they are going to tell the people what they want to hear. They want their vote. Politics 101.

Just like these blogs. People are so stuck on their PARTY they do not believe in compromise. No matter who is POTUS and who has the Majority in Congress. Lets face it. YOU CAN NOT PLEASE EVERYONE. I want our elected officials to work together toward an agreeable solution. And That my friend is a solution I could live with even if it is not what I wanted but the solution supported the majority of good citizens and addressed their concerns.

Just my thoughts. Tahnk you for reading.


by noloyalisti September 22, 2009 1:20 PM EDT: This is a quagmire and the longer we stay in there doing our state-sponsored terror campaign, the closer we are to being kicked out. So we might as well get out ASAP. Or sooner.; Reply to this comment


by rocketjl September 22, 2009 11:04 AM EDT: Candidate Obama = I promise.

President Obama = I was just kidding.

Gotcha; Reply to this comment


by rhs648 September 22, 2009 10:21 AM EDT: Surprise! Did people really believe that President Obama could deliver on his promises? He now knows what President Bush knew all along. The problem is we chose to believe in a myth. Now we pay dearly.; Reply to this comment


by rightbehind September 22, 2009 9:37 AM EDT: The problem is some of his troops in the senate lack a spine. We need to clean out the yellow dog reaganomic democrats.; Reply to this comment


by payasyougo September 22, 2009 7:09 AM EDT: "Barack Obama is discovering that candidate Barack Obama may have promised more than he could deliver."
----
Who are you trying to kid. This was known all along that people voting for hope and change get nothing concrete.; Reply to this comment


by californiadreaming September 22, 2009 3:57 AM EDT: America is in big trouble on the home front. People are still losing jobs in droves, and we are financially wallowing in what will be our new "normal" for quite a few years. The Obama administration is spending unprecedented amounts of money on these wars, projects for bailouts, pollution control, and renewable energy - to name a few.

At some point we need to look at saving ourselves - rather than democracy in regions that do no want it. We have no business being there anyway. And, frankly, we can no longer afford it. When push comes to shove we need to save ourselves. I know that wounds heartless, but we really do need to save what is left of this country. We can do just so many things and spends so much.; Reply to this comment