On Afghanistan, a Decision Comes Slowly

Analysis: Obama's Series of Meetings has led to Accusations of "Dithering," But Uncertainty Over Karzai Is Key to Delay

(CBS)  This story is by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

On Friday, President Obama will have the latest in a series of meetings on his strategy going forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan - this time with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The White House says a final decision on the new war strategy and possible increase in troop levels will be announced in the coming weeks. That's not soon enough for the president's critics, who complain that the president's review process has been unnecessarily drawn out. The harshest among them say that it has emboldened the enemy and left troops without a clear mission.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and others have suggested the president is "dithering," with Cheney arguing that "signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries." Mr. Obama's former presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, shied away from that language but argued a similar point on CBS' "Face The Nation" Sunday, stating that "the sooner we implement the strategy, the more we will be able to ensure [American troops'] safety."

It's not just Republicans making that argument. CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Lara Logan said earlier this month that America is, to some extent, "lost right now" in Afghanistan - though she added that she believes the president is doing everything he can to make sure the strategy he comes up with is the right one.

"This time that he's taking is very frightening, especially to the soldiers on the ground," she said, adding, "what appears to be a wavering in U.S. resolve is the smell of victory to Al Qaeda and the Taliban."

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

The White House has a simple response to this argument: The president has a "solemn responsibility" to get the decision on Afghanistan and Pakistan right, and he's not going to rush it.

"I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," the president told troops in Florida Monday, vowing to make sure there is a "clear mission" with defined goals for U.S. forces.

Yet the president doesn't have the luxury of simply looking at a well-defined problem, weighing all the options, and trying to come up with the best possible answer. The situation on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan is far from static, and any decision is complicated by the fact that the landscape in both countries continues to shift on an almost daily basis.

In Afghanistan, revelations over the past few months about election fraud and widespread corruption by allies of President Hamid Karzai have prompted serious concerns among American officials, who pushed a reluctant Karzai to accept a runoff election on November 7th.

The headlines about vote-rigging and corruption have raised questions about the degree to which the U.S. has a "credible partner," as White House officials like to say, leading the country and assisting in the American mission. The runoff is meant, in large part, to allay some of those concerns and confer upon Karzai a renewed stature if he is the victor.

But even a hastily-organized runoff - and this one certainly qualifies - cannot take place immediately. (It's set for ten days from now.) The president has an incentive to wait until the election, and keep his fingers crossed that it goes well, before committing the United States to a course of action.

And it may not go well. The same election officials involved in the fraudulent first round of voting will be, for the most part, overseeing the runoff; there is debate over whether a fair election is even possible in Afghanistan. Widespread Election Day violence also remains a distinct possibility. For American officials, the best hope may simply be enough of a reduction in fraud that they can plausibly work with a leader with whom the U.S. is now perhaps inexorably linked, as evidenced by a report Wednesday that the Central Intelligence Agency has been paying Karzai's brother, a suspected opium dealer, for years.

With October now officially the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began, however - and a Foreign Service officer resigning over doubts about the U.S. mission - these sorts of considerations are not something the White House is eager to spotlight. The administration, which likes to talk about its commitment to transparency, has repeatedly insisted that a decision could come at any time, suggesting that the president is simply taking the necessary steps to make the best possible decision.

Still, Mr. Obama seemed to acknowledge the situation in an interview with NBC last week. He said that while "it is entirely possible that we have a strategy formulated before a runoff is determined," the administration "may not announce it" until after the results are in.

Obama Eyes Smaller Afghan Troop Option

The situation next door in Pakistan, meanwhile, is no more clear than it is in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government has been engaged in a bloody offensive into Taliban territory even as militants stage violent attacks in Islamabad and Peshawar. How things will look if and when the dust settles is far from certain; observers have little sense of whether the Pakistani military will be able to hold the territory it has seized or effectively clamp down on insurgent attacks.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit this week, officials hope, will help both improve the relationship between the two countries and serve a similar function as the Afghanistan runoff, effectively making a very messy situation somewhat less so before the administration announces its course of action.

The back and forth between the administration and its critics has rarely taken these realities into account. Cheney, in his accusation that the administration is "dithering," ignores the fact that complex and changing considerations have given the administration reasons to wait to announce a decision.

The White House's suggestion that Mr. Obama and his team are simply taking his time to get things right, meanwhile - as though they're working on a particularly difficult math problem - glosses over the fact that they are incentivized to wait in announcing a way forward until they can do so in a more stable political and military environment.

[PoliticalCommentator]

In http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/duplicity-in-international-affairs-subterranean-deals-made/ , I argue that the US Government might have had more of a role than we think in Abdullah's announcement and the subsequent cancellation of the runoff.

[WellReadAussie]

I am never surprised by the number of "armchair" generals and strategists who are very willing to commit more troops in the belief that superiority in manpower will win the war in Afghanistan. John McCain says Your President should move quickly, but then as a very average naval aviator, why is he such a damm expert on guerilla warfare. Perhaps just being a Republican is the only prerequisite for warmongering. Three cheers for President Obama for giving due diligence to the decision only he can make.
Obviously your President values American lives more than most Republicans

[stuart-johns2]

Afghanistan and Pakistan are corrupt governments. If we MUST have a mission there, it should be a humanitarian one with our soldiers there for training purposes ONLY. This will take the least amount of time to accomplish and will require the Pakistani and Afghan armies to defend themselves.

It'll cost the US the least amount of money and the least amount of lives. But to fight for a people who are coddling the terrorists is insane.

If Obama is taking his time, as he is, that is wise. The political, intelligence, and military of ours need to all be on the same page - the mission needs to be clearly defined and doable with resources in hand or it'll fail again as it did under Bush and the republicans.

The republicans want an extended presence of troops there. America does'nt. Nation building has been a failed foreign policy for too long. We must respect these countries autonomy's. Obama is doing the right thing on this issue.

[SunDog8259]

I find it ironic that most any average internet peep or Joe on the street knows what we need to to do in Afghanistan or what was needed during Viet-Nam. We know what needs to be done to control health care costs, and get all Americans insured. Most of us know what is causing the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in this country. We know what caused the financial crash. Yet none of this common knowledge seems to trickle up to Washington where the major decisions and laws are made. Why is that? I believe lobbyists and special interests must be to to blame! The defense contractors, big insurance, big pharma big Ag, big food -- you name it, the clear thinking of most of our representatives in Washington has become clouded.

[stuart-johns2]

Absolutely right on target post. Good job if ya ask me.

[amacd385]

This unusual and unexpected 'anti-war' Op-Ed allowed by the NYT may be the 'Walter Cronkite moment' for the Afghanistan War.

Much thanks to the NYT for publishing this compelling lesson of Soviet EMPIRE history today:

Op-Ed Contributor
"Transcripts of Defeat"

By VICTOR SEBESTYEN
Published: October 28, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?ref=opinion

Such advice and sanity today is better than waiting for the NYT to have to print the "Pentagon Papers 2.0" later --- disclosing that our deceitful ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE knew the truth about the Afghanistan War's trajectory all along.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

PS. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

[AOCGUY]

Thanks for the post - a very good read

[jefleshman]

Yes very good quick point of view comparisons, as many can "draw" similarities to many conflicts throughout history. I will provide a very good source that offers not a different opinion but a different way to come to multiple facts left out in the NYT article such as:

1. The Soviet Union was "drafted" just like Vietnam (we are all volunteer as is the Afghan Nation Security Forces)

2. The Soviet Union used very brutal tactics to so call when hearts and minds of Afghans(1.3million Afghans killed and another 5.5 million Afghans fled the country)

3. The Soviets fought not as a coalition but as a single country with little to no external support (we have 42 Troop Contributing Nations and another 80 Donor Country Nations committed to Afghanistan's citizens)

The list can go on and on and highlighting similarities and differences can also go on and on.

Yes we have learned from history as we are also a very intelligent military; it is not only the officers that study culture, military tactics and military history...All of our service members in the US Army receive the training...The Senior Enlisted and Officers may see more training designed for Commanders and Staffs, but the cultural and historical training goes a long way to common understanding)

Just my 2 cents, Thank you for reading.

SOURCE: "The Bear Went Over the Mountain", you can read it for free at the below site.

http://books.google.com.kw/books?id=yOtThPNqKP8C&dq=the+bear+went+over+the+mountain&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=fokO5umTWa&sig=244VXBCugpiFvz-TXEfHUjHRHng&hl=en&ei=7-LpSsfUJZLInAP1t62ODw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[erich_1-2009]

During the campaign President Obama, and Senator Kerry, made it very clear that the course of action that the Liberal Democrats would follow is to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan. It was also made clear that they would send troops in Pakistan, (against the wishes of the people and government of Pakistan), to get Osama "Dead of Alive."

Now that was a cowboy idea if I ever heard one. Now he has cold feet.

We need to get out of Afghanistan. To bring back Obama "dead of alive" is not a justified reason to keep our troops there. A correct reason for the troops there is to bring freedom to the people of Afghanistan. The present Administration's vision is blurred, and one can see that President Johnson had more of a vision to escalate the war in Vietnam than President Obama has to escalate the war in Afghanistan...and crazily, Pakistan.

[Surelyoujest]

To bring back Obama "dead of alive"




Freudian slip?

[BillyBonebrake]

Obama wishes he could just keep voting "present" ... but those days are over.

[chonder2]

It's impossible to hold all of Afganistan.Especially the mountains.

[bubbadubba]

"UNITED NATIONS (AFP) ? US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said."

Looks like the UN still thinks Bush and his chicken Republican lawyers are still running the US.
LOL

[1notrub11]

Yeah, I wonder how the UN feels about the "summary executions" of its staff this week in Afghanistan?

[bubbadubba]

What makes McCain an expert on Afghanistan or Iraq?
Nothing.
As for troops dying while Obama takes his time to make the right decision, compare that statement to Bush's stupid actions and us being in Afghanistan for 8 years.
I admire Obama for not rushing to make a stupid decision like Bush and the Republicans.
But then again, the Obama haters are just parroting their masters Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck who are super combat veterans with years of experience in the military who promote killing and wars because they get high on it.
Obama haters are very strange people.

[jefleshman]

BTW: I do not agree with a hurried decision howvere to address you "what makes him an expert" question, I thought you should know what Sen. McCain is part of in the US Senate:

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services
Member, Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Airland
Member, Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Member, Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Personnel
Member, Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Member, Ex Officio, Subcommittee on SeaPower
Member, Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Member, Subcommittee on National Parks
Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power
Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member, Subcommittee on Children and Families
Member, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security
Member, Subcommittee on Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
Member, Subcommittee on Investigations
Member, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
Ex Officio, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence