In the early years of the US Civil War, after some initial disasters, Lincoln appointed George McClellan as the commander of the Army of the Potomac (which was to the main front of the Civil War as CENTCOM is to the main front of the War On Man-Made Disaster War On Terror today.
McClellan was a popular general with a long track record of military excellence, first as an engineer, then as a logistician – both of them vital jobs. He also did something very few other Union Generals managed to do in the early years of the Civil War – won some victories. His invasion of the Union-leaning parts of Virginia (which created what we call West Virginia today) was one of the very few successes the Union could point to in the early years of the war.
And so Lincoln appointed him commander first of the Army of the Potomac,and then of the entire Union Army.
He then spent his entire time in command “polishing the cannonball” – seeing to training and logistics (which were, to be fair, vitally important to the Union’s eventual success, in a long-term kind of way). But his actual job – engaging and defeating Robert E. Lee – was another matter altogether. Terrified of the consquences of defeat, he spent months dithering, seemingly avoiding battle, overestimating Lee’s force to the point where it paralyzed him.
It came to a head at the Battle of Antietam, where Union forces stemmed Lee’s first attempt at invading the North. Indeed, they perched at the verge of defeating him…
…but McClellan dithered again. The situation called for aggressiveness, for taking the battle to Lee. McClellan instead hesitated, afraid that Lee’s force was vastly larger than it really was. And so Lee escaped – turning what could have been a crushing defeat into bloody tactical draw.
Antietam has kept armchair generals busy for over a century, now. But the lesson was fairly clear; there is a time to think, and a time to act. Exactly what that time is isn’t always clear to theman on the ground, but it exists.
President Obama’s decision not to decide yet on what to do in Afghanistan is such a situation, and some people know it:
The president’s long decision-making process has led to accusations of “dithering” by his Republican opponents. The White House says the decision is too important to hurry, but the wait is causing growing exasperation in London and other European capitals.
One British source said that the absence of a clear strategy from the US, the largest troop contributor in Afghanistan, is hampering the British Government’s attempts to maintain public support for an increasingly unpopular conflict.
“The truth is that until we have some clarity from Obama, it’s going to be hard for us to explain to people what we’re doing there,” the source said.
Britain is urging Hamid Karzai to send more Afghan forces to Helmand province to support British troops there.
Mr Karzai was returned for second term this week after an election widely agreed to have been flawed and corrupt.
“We need the Americans to have a clear message for Karzai about what he has to do, but that’s just not there at the moment,” said the British source.
The private frustrations of British ministers and commanders were echoed by General Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who said the American deliberations had brought the Afghan mission to a pivotal moment.
“It’s a tipping point because of President Obama’s delayed decision on whether to send more troops,” Lord Guthrie said.
McClellan was terrified of defeat; Obama is terrified of the political ramifications of defeat (on his watch) or pursuing victory (among his base).
I’m no general. I’ve never even served in the military. But you don’t have to be George Patton to read George Patton; when your troops are in harm’s way, you either get them out of harm’s way, or you commit to win the war. You either do what it takes to make the sacrifice in blood and treasure worthwhile, or you get out of it.
Bush did the former in Iraq – while the Administration botched the Iraq War from 2004 through 2006, he risked the political capital it took to win the war afterwards (allowing that defining “victory” in a counterinsurgency is a bit of a moving target – something that the American left has always had trouble with).
Obama’s definition of “win” seems to be a different thing altogether.
The left is going to try to spin this…:
It’s easy for me to imagine the right calling Obama a coward over this, or an America-hater, or any one of the sundry attacks reserved for our President. But to me, this is Obama doing exactly what we hired him for — weighing all of the options with a critical eye, and demanding that his advisors give him some outside-the-box solutions.
…as a sign of “intelligence”, as if second-guessing McChrystal for purely political reasons is a sign of military genius, or – as Jeff Rosenberg did above – paint Obama as a victim.
But the real decision is fairly binary; win, or leave.
Abolishing slavery, subjugating the Confederacy and reuniting the United States were goals worthy of Grant’s bloody campaign. McClellan’s problem wasn’t that he was too cautious so much as his failure execute the orders of the elected commander in chief. Commanders who don’t do what they’re told get fired, whether you’re McClellan, MacArthur or McCrystal. I know you far-right types prefer to shoot first and ask questions never. But a year ago the country decided they prefer a president who uses smartness and thinking before ordering the deaths of American troops. I know that’s a big disappointment to you armchair general types, but looks like you’re just going to have to suck it up for the next three or, more likely, seven years.
a president who uses smartness and thinking before ordering the deaths of American troops
Objection: Assertion based on facts not in evidence.
Wrong, yet again, Asswipe. A majority of voters, not even a majority of Americans, voted for the color of his skin NOT the content of his character!!! Which, I believe, is Mitch’s larger point. But, there you are flinging pooh, yet again and thinking your clever. NOT!
Obama needs to stop pretending he knows more than McChristy and work with him. Unless McChristy gets the push of troops he’s asking for the war is just going to be prolonged even further, which no one wants.
Define the terms of victory and acheive that victory before we lost all of our momentum overseas.
Lincoln, to be fair, had an easier definition of victory to work with: the surrender of the South. Everybody, on both sides, knew what that meant, and what it was. It could be summed up by “unconditional surrender,” and while it didn’t have to take Grant to focus on that, it turned out that it did take Grant to focus on that, and decide, very cold-bloodedly, that the Union could afford to lose troops at appalling levels to get there.
For Afghanistan, the definition of victory is a lot more complicated. At a minimum, a society in which Al Qaeda and the Taliban don’t operate without restraint isn’t as simple, or an easy sell, and when you add in requirements that the number of casualties be acceptable to the American public, it doesn’t get any easier. Adding in further requirements that the government not be as corrupt as the best governments in that part of the world are (India aside; Afghanistan becoming India-lite just isn’t going to happen), and that the end result somehow deal with or ignore the local spheres of influence (tribes and warlords) that have characterized Afghanistan for, at the least, many centuries, it gets more and more difficult. And then, if you accept the maxim that “you can’t buy and Afghan; you can only rent him,” it’s just not going to happen to an real degree — all you can do is try to sell it as having happened, when it hasn’t.
From this remove, it looks like what Obama is doing is setting up to create reasonable — ignoring the context — requirements for the Afghans, and then pulling out when the Afghans don’t abide by them. Which they won’t.
Just take a look at the elections. By the standards of the Muslim world — consider the elections in Egypt or Jordan, say — they were pretty good. The loser didn’t end up dead, or in jail, and there’s every reason to believe that if his support had been large enough to overcome the margin of corruption, he’d have gotten the gig.
But the flaws and relatively low-scale cheating in the election were used as an excuse to dither for months, up unil this latest round of dithering.
I’m not sure that the US can win in Afghanistan; it depends on what the definition is for “win.” (Cue Victor Davis Hansen, who keeps pointing out that the US interests in Afghanistan are the US interests, not an interest in Afghanistan politics looking like those in Western countries.)
But Obama can’t — he campaigned on Afghanistan as the Necessary War not because he believed in it, but to compare it to what he was selling as the losing, unnecessary war in Iraq. And without an unambiguous win in the near offing (and whatever’s going to happen in Afghanistan in the near term, that isn’t it) he’s stuck. The best he can hope to conjure up is the impression that the Afghans aren’t being totally incompetent in keeping the Taliban in check, and he can’t do that and publicly upbraid them for not doing enough of the work there. About the most he can do, from his base’s POV, is declare ongoing victory and decrease troop levels, and that’s probably the way it’s going to go.
From: President Obama
To: All military personnel in the Afghan theater
RE: Reinforcement
Folks,
I know you all are getting shot at and blown up, but I really need to use some smartness and thinking before I either send in more troops to relieve you or pull you out of harms way. This is an important decision, and I know you support me as much as I support you. Try not to get killed while I do the important job of deciding.
Barry
The surrender wing puts the cart before the horse. They insist on political progress before there is physical security, as in the absurd suggestion by one of the NYT stable of pundits who, with a straight face, suggested that if we just built a lot of schools in Afghanistan, we would do more than by sending more troops. As the Surge in Iraq made clear, there can be no political progress until there is security. Personally, I think Obama is biding his time (notice I didn’t say dithering) until he can pull the rug out. It would look bad, coming on the heels of the Ft Hood massacre, but he’ll find a way, and blame Bush at the same time.
Good reasoning, Kerm. Funny how the only time you wingnuts even consider casualties in Afghanistan is to argue we need to put more troops in harm’s way.
It ain’t surrender to quit doing something you’re not good at and isn’t worth the effort, golfdoc. It’s the stuff that makes American heroes. Ask Sarah Palin.
With all due respect Clownie, eff you. Funny how you libtards only consider casualties when it suits you political agenda. Kinda like Great Leader.
But a year ago the country decided they prefer a president who uses
smartnesssmartiness and thinking before ordering the deaths of American troops.FIFY; apologies to Colbert.
When Obama took office he had a review or the situation and options going forward. He fired the general running the show over there and replaced him with McCrystal. His hand picked General reviewed the situation and determined what would be required to implement Obama’s policy of last May. We are now on the third month of Obama reviewing HIS generals request with no end in sight. People can spin this all they want but Obama is voting present when a decission was needed back in September, not next month or next year.
His non-decission has embolden the Taliban and made the locals afraid to stick thier necks out because they do not know if we are commited. This will make implementing what ever policy he decides harder to implement and less likely to succeed. Worse it is costing needless casualties to our troops, good Afghanis and is destablizing to nuclear Pakistan. But politics and getting re-elected is so much more important.
I see someone took his douchebag pills this morning, Kerm. As much as you pine for the days when we had a developmentally disabled president, they are over. Once again, feel free to suck on it.
From: President Obama
To: All military personnel in the Afghan theater
RE: Reinforcement
Folks,
I know you all are getting shot at and blown up, but I really need to use some smartness and thinking before I either send in more troops to relieve you or pull you out of harms way. This is an important decision, and I know you support me as much as I support you. Try not to get killed while I do the important job of deciding.
Barry
From: All military personnel in the Afghan theater
To: President Obama
RE:RE: Reinforcement
Dearest Barry,
We signed an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. You may be our CinC but until you give us a reason on why we should be risking our asses over here 8000 miles from home for your sorry ass political agenda we may start defecting. If you can’t call what happened to our brothers and sisters at Ft.Hood terrorism you are a gigantic pussy and we did NOT sign up for that. We will do everything in our power to make sure your stay at 1600 Penn. Ave doesn’t go past 2012. Please show some balls.
f*ck you,
American soldiers
AC, if you want to talk about a developmentally disabled President, let’s talk about the guy who campaigned on fixing Afghanistan, and then ignored the issue once elected until the press shamed him into it.
And now, without as much as a good hearing of the evidence, he’s thrown out all the plans submitted by those heading the effort. I don’t care how smart he is, this isn’t the behavior of a man who knows what he’s doing.
Sorry, AC, we’ve got a guy that’s making thinking people (that would exclude Mets fans, apparently) pine for the competence of Carter and the honesty of Clinton.
I don’t pine for the 90s. In another year we will all be longing for them.
we took over Congress in the 90’s Kerm, don’t forget that.
“You may be our CinC but until you give us a reason on why we should be risking our asses over here 8000 miles from home for your sorry ass political agenda we may start defecting.”
Any McVeigh-type elements in the military who think this way are free to violate their oaths, duty and citizenship. The courts martial await.
Any McVeigh-type elements in the military who think this way are free to violate their oaths
Remember when soldiers questioning the President were great heroes of dissent, which at the time was the greatest of the civic virtues?
No?
Either does AC.
How about Obama AC, he upholding the Constitution like he pleged?
angryclown said:
“I see someone took his douchebag pills this morning”
Glanced in a mirror, did you?
Bergs seventh law makes its daily appearance on the comment board Troy.
Finally, AC got one right.
The United States has no national security interest in Afghanistan. There is no reason for our troops to be fighting there. Obama should pull them all out and bring them home.
Iraq, too. And South Korea, Germany, and Cuba. Bring ’em all home.
And then take away their guns, to avoid more Fort Hood tragedies.
I completely agree.
.
I think I just figured out what “nate” is short for…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl30Rsim2pA
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Obama must rethink rethinking Afghanistan — latimes.com