warning: I will not post about the World Cup, but you will have to bear with me because sadly I am seeing everything in football terms these days and analogies or parallels may slip into my writing.
Last week, after suffering an embarrassing loss to what seemed as an inferior Mexican team, France seemed to plunge itself into a little football soap opera when coach Domenech sent top player Anelka back home after the latter had a moment of insubordination. Much like Anelka, General McChrystal was caught in a moment of grandeur (as perhaps being in charge of Afghanistan might lead one to do?) and decided he would be superior to his superiors. Ah, but coach Obama is no angry Frenchman, and while I believe he should be firing the General right about now, I agree with his current response of "let's hear him out". At this moment, CNN is confirming that the General is traveling to the White House tomorrow with his resignation in hand. That is perhaps his best move thus far! In the case of the French football team, the quarrel between team leader and coach went beyond themselves, it was an example of serious problems in the French team. Sadly, I can't say this isn't the case for team Obama's war in Afghanistan. Let's face it, team Obama is not playing a good game.
A year ago, the president performed two contradictory tasks: announcing a withdrawal date for Afghanistan and hiring McChrystal. Back in college, two years ago, in a class called History of Terrorism my professor gave us his little speech about how he was an advisor to the Obama campaign. This announcement mattered because he wanted to make a point about Afghanistan. In class, he taught us the differences between the new school of counter insurgency and the then positional warfare strategy that Bush was employing. The counter insurgency method was one that involved not just bombing enemies, but also reconstructing the country. The theory is that insurgencies live as they have popular support, so according to this method: to kill the insurgency, you have to kill the popular support. In other words, you win by winning the hearts and minds of the people by providing good governance, goods, services, and most of all: security. This meant that the military would have to take tasks that they wouldn't ordinarily do: building a government, building schools, or just pretty much rebuilding the country. This is not something that can be achieved in six months, one year, or two. This is quite a long term effort. So when Obama announced that he would be withdrawing troops in 2011, I was perplexed! This is not in congruence with the assumed new strategy. So, one would think that Obama was resuming the war in Afghanistan, but then, he hires McChrystal, who according to the damming Rolling Stone article is himself a convert of counter insurgence. What? this makes no sense! What makes perfect sense is why McChrystal would talk some smack about Joe Biden, because Biden is part of the liberal faction that wants us out of Afghanistan ASAP.
What seems obvious is that the objectives and goals of the Obama team in Afghanistan are not clear. This is pretty bad. I suspect part of what is causing the friction between the administration and McChrystal is precisely this perceived indecision on what direction Afghanistan should go. Such indecision does not rest only with Obama, this is a problem of Democrats - one that started at they transitioned to power. The question of what to do with Afghanistan divided the party. The more moderate side wanted to stay committed to try this new counter insurgency plan, while the more liberal side wanted to get out and turn isolationist (the usual Democratic doctrine). What I don't like about the administration is that it did not make a choice. Instead, they have tried to maneuver themselves somewhere in the middle, setting a date of withdrawal to pacify one side and committing to the counter insurgency to pacify another.
Unfortunately, this is not the environment for the administration to be placing itself in the middle because this is a war and at the end of the day they will get no results. Having people like McChrystal in charge is only going to delay the withdrawal that the liberal fringe wants and withdrawing sooner is only going to kill the counter insurgency efforts that the moderate side wants. Meanwhile, nothing changes in Afghanistan. Either you leave the country or you stay and try to fix it, but playing both games is only wasting American lives and squandering taxpayer dollars.
After the French coach sent Anelka home, the team revolted and boycotted practice. The coach punished them by removing their team captain from today's game against South Africa - a game they went on to loose embarrassingly. The standoff between player and coach opened a can of worms and France got themselves eliminated, after they had finished second in the last World Cup four years ago. One can hope that Obama's team does not fall apart too, but a lot will depend on the solidity of their game plan. Can Obama appoint someone that he can trust? can they get more clarity in their policy?
more importantly and plainly: will they get their act together?
Last week, after suffering an embarrassing loss to what seemed as an inferior Mexican team, France seemed to plunge itself into a little football soap opera when coach Domenech sent top player Anelka back home after the latter had a moment of insubordination. Much like Anelka, General McChrystal was caught in a moment of grandeur (as perhaps being in charge of Afghanistan might lead one to do?) and decided he would be superior to his superiors. Ah, but coach Obama is no angry Frenchman, and while I believe he should be firing the General right about now, I agree with his current response of "let's hear him out". At this moment, CNN is confirming that the General is traveling to the White House tomorrow with his resignation in hand. That is perhaps his best move thus far! In the case of the French football team, the quarrel between team leader and coach went beyond themselves, it was an example of serious problems in the French team. Sadly, I can't say this isn't the case for team Obama's war in Afghanistan. Let's face it, team Obama is not playing a good game.
A year ago, the president performed two contradictory tasks: announcing a withdrawal date for Afghanistan and hiring McChrystal. Back in college, two years ago, in a class called History of Terrorism my professor gave us his little speech about how he was an advisor to the Obama campaign. This announcement mattered because he wanted to make a point about Afghanistan. In class, he taught us the differences between the new school of counter insurgency and the then positional warfare strategy that Bush was employing. The counter insurgency method was one that involved not just bombing enemies, but also reconstructing the country. The theory is that insurgencies live as they have popular support, so according to this method: to kill the insurgency, you have to kill the popular support. In other words, you win by winning the hearts and minds of the people by providing good governance, goods, services, and most of all: security. This meant that the military would have to take tasks that they wouldn't ordinarily do: building a government, building schools, or just pretty much rebuilding the country. This is not something that can be achieved in six months, one year, or two. This is quite a long term effort. So when Obama announced that he would be withdrawing troops in 2011, I was perplexed! This is not in congruence with the assumed new strategy. So, one would think that Obama was resuming the war in Afghanistan, but then, he hires McChrystal, who according to the damming Rolling Stone article is himself a convert of counter insurgence. What? this makes no sense! What makes perfect sense is why McChrystal would talk some smack about Joe Biden, because Biden is part of the liberal faction that wants us out of Afghanistan ASAP.
What seems obvious is that the objectives and goals of the Obama team in Afghanistan are not clear. This is pretty bad. I suspect part of what is causing the friction between the administration and McChrystal is precisely this perceived indecision on what direction Afghanistan should go. Such indecision does not rest only with Obama, this is a problem of Democrats - one that started at they transitioned to power. The question of what to do with Afghanistan divided the party. The more moderate side wanted to stay committed to try this new counter insurgency plan, while the more liberal side wanted to get out and turn isolationist (the usual Democratic doctrine). What I don't like about the administration is that it did not make a choice. Instead, they have tried to maneuver themselves somewhere in the middle, setting a date of withdrawal to pacify one side and committing to the counter insurgency to pacify another.
Unfortunately, this is not the environment for the administration to be placing itself in the middle because this is a war and at the end of the day they will get no results. Having people like McChrystal in charge is only going to delay the withdrawal that the liberal fringe wants and withdrawing sooner is only going to kill the counter insurgency efforts that the moderate side wants. Meanwhile, nothing changes in Afghanistan. Either you leave the country or you stay and try to fix it, but playing both games is only wasting American lives and squandering taxpayer dollars.
After the French coach sent Anelka home, the team revolted and boycotted practice. The coach punished them by removing their team captain from today's game against South Africa - a game they went on to loose embarrassingly. The standoff between player and coach opened a can of worms and France got themselves eliminated, after they had finished second in the last World Cup four years ago. One can hope that Obama's team does not fall apart too, but a lot will depend on the solidity of their game plan. Can Obama appoint someone that he can trust? can they get more clarity in their policy?
more importantly and plainly: will they get their act together?
No comments:
Post a Comment