Obama Mousetrapped By Pentagon

By Steve Hynd

President Obama spent much of the day on TV talk shows telling America that he was skeptical about troop increases in Afghanistan and that the strategy there wasn't set in stone.

Then, just as everyone was talking about that, the Pentagon gave the Washington Post an exclusive copy of the unclassified version of General McChrystal's report [PDF]. In it, he says that he needs more troops or the mission “will likely result in failure”, and that the new mission is quite definitely "Focus On The Population". I'll have more on that tomorrow but for the moment the domestic internal politics of the exclusive leaps out.

Way to make the President look clueless on what his commanders seem certain about!

Our good friend Siun at FDL called it McChrystal's Power Play earlier today, noting that his team have been issuing not-so-veiled threats about the General telling Obama to either do it his way or face McChrystal's resignation.

In a companion piece, the WaPo team of Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung points at the tension between the military and their civilian superior at the White House:

Some officials charge that the military has been trying to push Obama into a corner with public statements such as those by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the situation in Afghanistan is "serious and deteriorating" and "probably needs more forces." One official questioned whether McChrystal had already gone beyond his writ with public statements describing the protection of the Afghan population as more important than killing Taliban fighters.

When Obama announced his strategy in March, there were few specifics fleshing out his broad goals, and the military was left to interpret how to implement them. As they struggle over how to adjust to changing reality on the ground, some in the administration have begun to fault McChrystal for taking the policy beyond where Obama intended, with no easy exit.

But Obama's deliberative pace -- he has held only one meeting of his top national security advisers to discuss McChrystal's report so far -- is a source of growing consternation within the military. "Either accept the assessment or correct it, or let's have a discussion," one Pentagon official said. "Will you read it and tell us what you think?" Within the military, this official said, "there is a frustration. A significant frustration. A serious frustration."

Here's the thing - I don't for a second believe McChrystal is acting alone, any more than General Odierno in Iraq was acting alone when he kicked up his heels earlier this year about US troops staying beyond the time alloted by the SOFA agreement. Both are too closely orbiting the career fortunes of their mutual; commander. We may well be looking at the first moves in the Petraeus 2012 campaign as well as at the usual military/civilian rivalry..

Meanwhile, McChrystal's report doesn't actually say how many troops he thinks he needs to possibly, maybe, if the wind is right, save Afghanistan. That's to follow in a subsequent report, doubtless also to be released at an inopportune moment.

Comments

[Meteor Blades]

Good work, Steve.

[Blue Girl]

Excellent work, Steve. Linking your work when I write my post.

[Steve Hynd]

Thanks folks.

Regards, Steve

[Jeff Huber]

Good work, Steve. No, Stan the Man is not working alone. The entire long war mafia (Petraeus, Gates, Mullen, Odierno, etc.) is trying to shoe horn Obama into an unlimited Bananastan escalation.

[call me the breeze]

Our good friend Siun at FDL

that person ( the photo icon with the posts look like a female but cannot be certain ) you refer to as Siun has been doing OUTSTANDING work at FDL for quite some time / years now. Quite the keen eye and really sharp analysis.

and how is Siun pronounced ?? is that Irish ?? or Oriental ??

[Steve Hynd]

Female, and I believe the name, derived from Siobhan, is the shorter Irish version of Susan. I've always pronounced it in my head in the Irish fashion, as "Shoon".

Regards, Steve

[Dave Schuler]

As I noted over at OTB, Steve, I think you're cutting President Obama too much slack. President Obama appointed Gen. McChrystal as the commander in Afghanistan; his pursuing COIN was a foreseeable consequence of that. His requesting additional resources was, in turn, a foreseeable consequence of the decision to pursue COIN. Now President Obama has little choice but to give the general what he wants. If the president is in a box, it's a box of his own making.

[Steve Hynd]

Dave, I wouldn't disagree with you. But if the President wants to now climb out of that box, his generals shouldn't be trying to stuff him back in.

Regards, Steve

[jz]

Steve - I don't think the generals are trying to stuff the President back into his box - they just don't want to get locked in the box by themselves. The President either needs to commit the troops to execute his current strategy (as defined last March) or he needs to tell the generals that there is a new plan. What is not acceptable is to put US soldiers in the field without the resources to be successful.

The President has a difficult choice to make. Let us hope that he chooses well, and then stands behind his decision.

[rob fletcher]

I don’t know, can he say no to General McChrystal? If he needs to say no, I hope he does, but if he says yes, I hope he does what he needs to for the continued protection of our country and the USA.

[Steve Hynd]

jz, the trouble is that the current strategy has been moved, by both the administration and the generals, over the months since March.

Rob, of course he can say no. He'd have to pay a political price when the GOP crows that he's no longer listening to the commanders on the ground - but that's surely why he gets the seal and the funny-shaped office.

Regards, Steve