On Afghanistan, Obama Should Take Page Out of Eisenhower Book
Politico's Mike Allen has the attendance roster for President Obama's big Afghan pow-wow today:
At 3 p.m., the President will participate in a THREE-HOUR meeting with his national security team on Afghanistan in the Situation Room. . .Expected manifest for today, with those overseas participating through the secure video teleconference system (SVTS): Vice President Biden; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command; General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan; Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence; CIA Director Leon Panetta; Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan; Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan; and General James Jones, National Security Advisor.
Despite the firepower in this Principals' Meeting -- there are other approaches the Obama team should consider.
General McChrystal's views are known. Joe Biden's alternative take on the Afghanistan situation is known.
However, what would be good for the President and the country is to have their views and a number of other serious approaches floated and thought through systematically -- much the way that President Dwight Eisenhower did when coming into the Presidency in what was called the "Solarium Exercise."
Eisenhower came in to office with a bunch of Republican hawks like John Foster Dulles and Curtis LeMay in his national security apparatus -- and the general view that Ike's advisers had was that "containment" of the Soviet Union as articulated by George Kennan and adopted by Harry Truman was a hybrid of weakness and appeasement.
Eisenhower, however, was more cautious and circumspect than his team.
Ike ordered a five week review of policy -- assigning three teams with very different perspectives on how to deal with the Soviet threat -- and compelled them to work through a total systems analysis of the long term costs and consequences of the policies each team proposed. In other words, they had to pay for their world views -- and had to put on the table the back end consequences of their actions.
In the end, Eisenhower presided over a session during which the three groups offered their findings before 80 national security officials, generals, and various policy advisers to the President. This meeting was classified for decades.
In the end, Eisenhower chose to continue a "containment strategy" -- but got in the open the policy alternatives to that and educated his entire team about the benefits and negatives of each approach.
Obama would be wise to consider a similar approach.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
I think you make a good point, Steve, and I believe Obama agrees with you. As I understand it, he sees no need for an immediate decision on the request for more troops, because the troop buildup already in progress will take time for completion. In the meanwhile, he can assess not only the military situation, but also alternatives to full dependence on the corrupt Karzai government to help (and eventually replace) NATO forces in ensuring stability within Afghanistan and preventing a takeover by the Taliban. I believe Richard Holbrooke is already beginning to explore some of those alternatives.
Politically in the U.S., Obama presumably wants to avoid a contentious debate on Afghanistan while healthcare, and then climate change will provide enough controversy to satisfy even the most rabid fight fan.
September 30, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
While Eisenhower was President of Columbia University, the academics despaired at his insistence that memoranda be reduced to a single typewritten page.
But there is merit in getting down to the most important facts, the best alternatives, the most cogent arguments, and the clearest conclusion.
October 1, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The health care initiative does indeed seem to have put the Afghanistan issue on the proverbial back-burner for the time being, much to the chagrin of the Republicans (who are chomping at the bit to engage the issue).
When McChrystal announced over the weekend a change in "philosophy," namely, that the goal of American forces is no longer necessarily competing with the Taliban over winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan citizens as much as it is instilling confidence in these citizens that their government can and will work, it leaves one wondering whether this is some kind of stall tactic?
Either way, Obama is apparently in no hurry to adhere to, or reject, McChrystal's request for more troops.
I'm not a military commander, but from everything we've been reading about Afghanistan lately the situation seems to be deteriorating in a hurry. This request for troops is by all accounts NOT McChrystal pulling a George B. McClellan during the Peninsular Campaign...
October 1, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did somebody mention . . .
Old jello?
~OGD~
October 1, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
McChrystal's:
"the goal of American forces is no longer necessarily competing with the Taliban over winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan citizens as much as it is instilling confidence in these citizens that their government can and will work, it leaves one wondering whether this is some kind of stall tactic?"
Providing good honest government to the Afghans would go a long way toward winning over their hearts and minds.
.
October 1, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Obama because he appeared to have a good measure of common sense. I take heart in the fact that he is not just sending another forty thousand troops to Afghanistan immediately, but is still considering his options. It is my strong hope that he will not be bullied by the republican (and Lieberman) into making an unnecessary commitment that our young people will have to fulfill. So far I still trust him.
October 1, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not well-educated and graduated from the Navy as an E-4. Therefore not wise nor a military tactician. From the day we started the buildup for the 2nd Iraq invasion I have questioned the expenditure of life and treasure committed to the democratization of a region that isn't, nor ever will be, receptive to the homogenization required for such an endeavor. We can speak of oil, womens' rights, conversion to Christianity, Sadam, Iran, Iraq, Israel and every other b--l s--t excuse ever proffered by the neo-cons, but history (if not sooner) is going to show that we just destroyed what little infrastructure Iraq once possessed...for nothing. In the days of Al Capone the, so called, successful purge was termed "going to the mattresses." I call it hunkering-down. It's a prelude to "getting the hell out of Dodge."
The situation in Afghanistan is worse, for Gods' sake! The potential for success is less. Yes, I'm aware of Pakistan and India, etc. We can deal, as we must, with the many negative outcomes of a pull-out, but can't we take lessons from history?
October 1, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink