Update: I’ve had it pointed out that a large part of the proconsul problem is a function of State’s weakness, and that Gates wants that ended. That’s a big plus in his column and indicates he may be able to handle the proconsul problem better than I indicate below.
Gates is staying on as Defense Secretary. What this means is simple enough, a continued draw down in Iraq and a surge ™ in Afghanistan. Gates was, in effect, Bush Senior’s man at Defense, cleaning up another one of Junior’s messes.
This also raises the question of whether generals who have gotten too big for their jobs, are going to be reigned in as they should be. Petraeus has been acting as proconsul, doing high level diplomacy and effectively running US foreign policy in a big chunk of the world. This was a function of Bush’s weakness, his need of someone popular to carry his corpse around, as well Condi’s complete sidelining from serious decision making. Irrespective of one’s views on Petraeus’s competence and integrity, however, it’s not a healthy situation, and the Obama administration should take back the roles which don’t belong to any general.
Gates seems unlikely to be the man to do that, but it’s hard to imagine Clinton, for example, allowing anyone to usurp her perogatives, so we shall see how it plays out.
Meanwhile the question in Afghanistan is whether a troop surge can "work". Throw in Karzai’s request that the US leave, which I view as his realization that he needs to cut a deal with the other factions in the country and that the US isn’t going to "win" in any meaningful sense, and the question has to be raised as to why the US should commit more resources to yet another country that doesn’t want it there.
More dangerously, Pakistan is being destabilized by the Afghan war.
There is now a Pakistani Taliban seeking to overthrow the government, the economy is on the rocks and the loyalty and morale of the army is in question. Since the primary base for Afghani insurgents is actually in Pakistan, no solely Afghani strategy can work, but every US incursion into Pakistan destabilizes that country further, in an eerie and unsettling echo of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Since Pakistan is far more important than Afghanistan, and the collapse of Pakistan, with its nukes, would be far more disastrous than terrorists being able to have training camps in Afghanistan, it’s unclear to me that the correct decision at this time isn’t to just get out of Afghanistan and let Karzai cut his deal so that the destabilization of Pakistan dies down to a level where the government can patch it over.
But keeping Gates onboard says that’s unlikely to happen. Instead it’s going to be double down time. Work or not, it’s going to be an expensive and deadly gamble. Casualties will soar and so will the price tag. Iraq was George Bush’s war. Afghanistan will be Obama’s.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Once again, Obama needs to announce the strategic objectives in Afghanistan & Pakistan, in terms that are achievable and affordable. He has never done so, so far as I know. Otherwise, that area will be the graveyard of his Middle-eastern ambitions.
Bob in HI
can someone explain to me how this is an example of pragmatism of any kind or definition?
Well as I said earlier, Obama style pragmatism means defense of the status quo.
Digg
Dugg your Digg Neuro!
13 seconds behind ya Neuro(:>))
i agree.
and since change != status quo, is it now ok to at least tentatively conclude that obama is a gd liar? that his whole campaign was based on a lie?
or must i wait another friedman unit?
bama may have to rethink going after osama. cost will be high with little or no gain in stability there.
The allure of another big “campaign” deeper into Asia seems indeed to be shaping up for the Pentagon and Imperial WashingtonDC.
What the Afghani’s want,what the Pakastani’s want or what the neighborhood wants likely getting the shove aside from Imperial WashingonDC and the lucrative,open ended,bloating Pentagon spend-a-thon of the past seven years.
Nevermind the idea of killing lots of Asians and outspending the “enemy” in scales that dwarf most peoples ability to comprehend sounding far too much like another echo of the American War in Old Anam.
Good luck on that Americans. The money is running low if not out. Killing lots(hundreds of thousands if Pakistan implodes and is engaged by the Pentagon)…American airpower will prove unable to do it. Massive troop layins will prove untenable and surely a logistics train first rank nightmare. The Soviets tried it and they surely were as ruthless as any could be and did not “win it”.
Good luck Americans. Afghanistan will swallow Americans and pushing Pakistan into the enemy column will surely prove a very big Gateway Into HellWorld.
since it is a highly specialized position, wouldn’t you want to bring someone up to speed before a change in defense?
Doubling down in Afghanistan seems like a very dubious idea at this point. There is no end in sight which is probably why Karzai is asking for a date. It is a smart thing to do from Karzai’s point of view. I think Obama should be thankful for it and use it as an opportunity to drill down and define the mission and a reasonable timeframe in which to accomplish it.
Right now for all we know it is just as open ended as Iraq which is not only unsustainable but really quite nuts.
Our military keeping the pressure on all over the world sure makes selling US Treasuries that much easier.
And the Reptiles continue looting MSA.
i nominate you fer sec of def.
whatever the rationale for status quo (and i’m not saying there isn’t one), status quo does not equal change. and the voters chose change.
This post reminded me of a really good but long comment I’d read a few years ago at John Robb’s Global Guerrillas
THE HISTORIC ROOTS OF ISLAMIC MILLITANCY IN PAKISTAN, THE REGION AND CURRENT SCENARIO.
BY AMICUS
PART I
http://globalguerrillas.typepa…..nt-5884629
I think somebody should include this in Obama’s PDB’s
Using the same reasoning shouldn’t we keep Mukasey at Justice?
only 52% chose change. change for change sake is just foolish, imo.
nope.
New post upstairs
1. Obama must send Petraeus and the New Undersecretary of state for political affairs to Pakistan and work out a deal with this struggling new democracy which includes elimination of rocket attacks on Paki villages unless Paki military intelligence concurs (make sure the room is comm secure, and no one has a cell phone until the attack is launched and Pakis leave); a trade deal (preferencial entry of Paki textles and garments (piss off South Carolina)); training for border forces; and if you behave … a visit from Obama!
2. An agricultural deal with the poppy growers of Afghanistan — buy their dope (for medical purposes or burn it) — agronomists to assist them to grow wheat, maize, potatoes, chickens, … try to help Afghanistan become self-sufficient in food, or they will starve to death when NATO moves out.
3. Better trained officer corps, NATO pays salaries.
4. Timetable for withdrawal –
5. Coopersation with Iran on security issues (nuclear Iran is another issue, but I urge you not to forget that India and Pakistan and Israel built their bombs w/o U.S. assistance or adherence to NP treaty.)
6. If Afghanistan and Pakistan do not eagerly cooperate, kiss them goodbye and good luck. No country can occupy another without consent or insurrection.
7. Afghanistan has no strategic significance to us and is a threat to no one.
8. Pakistan is only a potential threat to Iran and India – it will never be self-sufficent except in opium and opiates unless and until it industrializes, which it won’t.
So why keep Gates at Defense?
I guess we are all just supposed to drop our anti needless war positions and praise Obama for not appointing Lieberman as Sec Def.
One more military day in Afghanistan is just as wrong as one more day in Iraq.
At least Osama, Blackwater, and the poppy industry will be happy to hear this.
again, putting aside the merits of the arguments for status quo. what it sounds like you are suggesting is that it’s ok with you if a politician sells themselves as someone who is going to do the opposite of what they actually do.
in my book that’s called a lie.
bc he is benign. it is not the miltary’s fault. they are just paid killers, after all. they do what they are told. he will be there until bama figures out what he needs. i give gates 6 months.
i know you want massive change. ain’t gonna happen that way, i’m afraid.
the risk players in deecee understand that pakistan is threatened by india and wo our presence will look to china to provide some balance against india. the idea of china having such a relationship between china and pakistan throws them all into a state of panic over their ability to control the game board.
Ummm, I do take umbrage at the ‘Paid Killers’ line, I served 20 yrs proudly, M’dear…!
In an interesting way, Pakistan is actually much more advanced towards Democracy than Afghanistan is, and Pakistan is also a nuclear power. Also, Pakistan is where the lawyers took to the streets to demonstrate against Musharraf. I think our focus should be on Pakistan, not Afghanistan. And lets spend our money on schools and textbooks rather than bombs and tanks, please.
Pakistan is strategically important. Afghanistan is a diversion.
Bob in HI
I do like the fact that Karzai is asking for a timeline to end the war…!
sorry, sir. no offense to you. it’s all voluntary and highly trained is what i should have said. i live near the first mef in oside, ca. great guys. don’t want to see any more killed. you ask them they say they are killers. they are good at it. it’s reality. peace.
Gates kept the Iraq war going for another 2 years. He’s supposed to be big on accountability but just today there was the story about how the military is still trying to screw wounded soldiers out of disability payments by redefining what a combat injury is. At the same time, the Pentagon is nickle and diming these wounded veterans it is wasting billions on poorly managed, overpriced, and mostly unneeded weapons procurement programs. I don’t see this as benign at all.
What do you expect from a bunch of Jarheads…? ;-)
Fortunately, in my twenty years in the Army I never had to fire my weapon in anger…! I came close to being deployed to GWI and II, but, lucked out with orders to Korea and then had my retirement papers go through in the nick of time…! A lot of my friends weren’t so lucky… They don’t consider themselves paid killers, tho…
You probably recall that to keep the death count down, the Pentagon didn’t list soldiers who died en route to or after reaching Germany as having been killed in Iraq. I don’t believe that policy changed under Gates.
the dept is a disaster under the shrub. i see no reason to shoot him until a replacement is found, imo. ymmv. i learned that from you.
I was never a “paid killer.” That denotes a sociopath.
Call me naive if you will but IMHO the most effective two things we could do in Afghanistan at this late date are 1-stop killing wedding parties & 2-start removing landmines & cluster bomblets on a massive scale. It all comes down to ‘hearts & minds’. Dammit.
It’s typically the civilian leaders who qualify as sociopaths.
It’s actually worse than that…
Agreed.
It has been completely shameful. I seem to recall that guard members wounded in Iraq were getting shafted even worse than regular military.
The military is trying to save money by that nonsense, simple as that. Schizophrenics were denied disability because the military was in the habit of classifying them as having “a pre-existing condition” while at the same time giving personality disorders a disability rating when they washed out of basic training. Those particular examples have been rectified but what we’re seeing now is strictly a dishonest and dishonourable money saving device.
True and it’s despicable all the way around… Even Sen. Levin chimed in…
But, Bushco has to screw the troops one way or another… I was incredulous with Shrub’s appearance at Ft. Campbell this morn…
Jane’s on Rachel right now…!
Amazing how they find the money to award all those no-bid contracts to their friends with one hand while screwing the troops with the other.
Keeping Gates in position for about a year or so is a pretty smart move. I disagree with some of the comments above about accountability; Gates has fired two service secretaries, the Chief of Staff of the air force, and the head of Walter Reed in the past few years. The Central Command Commander, Admiral Fox Fallon, was arguably fired as well. He has held people at the highest levels accountable. In an organization with an enormous budget and millions of people, you can certainly find people/areas that have been slighted, but gates has held more people accountable than most SECDEFs in recent memory.
Having Gates in place for a period of time gives Pres-elect O some breathing space to get his nat’l security council established and start setting objectives. The rest of the NSC will be new administration appointees, so there is little doubt that the President will have a wide range of voices/views to help his decision making. Having a known quantity on board at Defense also allows Obama to focus on his domestic agenda, which is first and foremost on the minds of most Americans at this point, no?
Someone wrote that Gates “kept the Iraq War going another two years”; come on! What authority does the SECDEF have to start/stop wars? The President opted to continue the war, and, perhaps more importantly, the Congress has continuously voted to fund the war in Iraq.
Gates DID support the change in strategy in the war, however, and it is hard to argue against the fact that conditions have improved there. This very post talks about the continued drawdown of forces in Iraq.
A few random notes:
In the comments, a few people brought up problems with military health care; I am glad people shine a light on anyone getting slighted in terms of military Medical treatment, that has always been an area of weakness for the military, and the more it is out in the open, the better chance Soldiers have of getting taken care of. It would be interesting to compare/contrast the care received by Soldiers/families now and that of 4 decades ago. I am an active duty Soldier with 17 years experience/family/kids, and I am pretty happy with the care we receive, fyi. I have taken time to visit friends at Walter Reed who have been wounded in combat, and have been happy to see the care they are receiving. I know that walter reed was pretty jacked up awhile back, but it seems that the quality of care has improved there.
I agree with some of the commenters that the “killers” moniker denotes sociopaths and as a Soldier I find it demeaning.
I hope that Obama and his intended SECSTATE do take actions to reform the DOS and make it more effective. The reason that the Combatant Commanders (like Petraeus at CENTCOM) assume so much responsibility in much of the world (especially the underdeveloped parts of the world) is because there is a vacuum of U.S. influence there. This isn’t a Bush administration issue, the problem existed during the Clinton Administration as well. Back then, Zinni was the Petraeus! DOS needs more Foreign Service Officers, and they need to be in places where the U.S. is most engaged and trying to make an impact (ie not in Brussels or Paris!Will Hillary Clinton focus on reforming the department itself to adapt it to the 21st century? Jury’s out. . .
Cheers!
Bob W
http://www.acreofindependence.com