Mission Creep

I know there are legitimate arguments against this opinion, but I imagine myself in Afghanistan and weighing the Taliban vs. American forces and finding them both extremely wanting in addressing my major concern, which is can you keep your big Fw#$q^(*&w$ Judeo-Christian-Muslim male equivalent of Alien-esque ovipositors out of my #w#)*($&@#$ life???? I suppose the fact I live in Arizona affects my opinions, but then what the )(*$&# happened to McCain in the last 8+ years?

"The military made a significant mistake in 2009, deploying troops to Helmand province rather than trying to secure the heart of the insurgency in Kandahar. That sort of shoddy strategizing can't happen again in 2010. The details are too complicated for the President to follow on a daily basis; he's got more than enough other problems to deal with. He needs significant help from his National Security Adviser"

In which direction is the pipeline construction "creeping", Mr. Klein?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

I agree joe. All this is way to complicated for a community organizer form Chicago. Actually his whole presidency seems to keep him befuddled.
.
But he does throw a mean party.

the military will be able to argue for more troops and more time.
.
I think that this is a clear objective for the military brass and certain segments of the press. I don't believe that the "plan" is for quick deployment and early termination of operations, rather for a prolonged engagement. Obama needs to stand up to his generals (and press cheerleaders) in order to create a tenable situation of the short-term.

I'm sorry Joe, but how does any of this matter? Have you seen Karzai's latest cabinet appointments? The whole Afghandyland op is just pointless unless and until the govt. situation is addressed. Until it is we're just trying to prop up South Vietnam all over again.

You can't do COIN or stabilization without a legitimate govt partner, it's like trying to do a rodeo without rope. Yeah, there might be some pretty action for awhile, but in the end, it's not going to accomplish anything.

Seasons Greetings to all!

Hopefully some of the Gates 'crew' or advisors read this column.

The case for adhering to the President's plans in Afghanistan in a timely and effective manner, could not have been elucidated in a more crystal clear manner than has been done in this article.

Shoddy delivery and lack of cohesiveness is not an option in implementing the Obama plan on this matter otherwise it will fail woefully!

The Afghan issue will become much much worse if it is not decisively handled in the manner the President posited in outlining his plan for Afghanistan.

Mr. Klein is read by many, so lets hope someone either reads this piece,or at least is able to make as deft an analysis as this one!

This article is a breath of fresh air and illuminates the problems with the implementation of the Presidents Afghanistan strategy so so clearly.

Thanks.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

He needs significant help from his National Security Adviser and Defense Secretary. If they can't keep the military on plan, he's going to need to find advisers who can.

Sorry Joe but that is absolutely Bass-ackwards. It's not up to the civiilian leadership to make sure the generals follow their orders. It's up to the Generals to follow thier orders as written or else find Generals who can.

There's a reason our milutary reports to a civilian leadership. Otherwise there's little to differentiate us from Pakisatan.....

"Already the military is beginning to slow-walk the deployment schedule: Obama wanted all the troops in by August, now the last units aren't scheduled to arrive until November."

Although it's always fun and cred-building to rail about those who opposed escalation as know-nothing granola-eating, DFH quislings, the fact is a lot of them opposed escalation because no matter the time, place, or circumstances, historically the military always seems to have a way of putting presidents in the position of having to commit more and more resources, ad infinitum. Mark my words, these guys are sooner or later going to create a major problem for BHO.

I won't pick sides here. Nor will I discriminate. The generals and Obama are both wrong. Misguided, elusive strategies in both cases. The religious insurgency will march on by whatever name and in whatever form. Concentrate on Kandahar rather than Helmand? Just let the corrupt "national" government ride and hope for the best? All the more complicated by the confused roles of our own leadership, civilian and military. I have an idea. Let's just pull out and let the chips fall where they may. And keep the drones on standby for strategic strikes when the cockroach population gets a little too high in a given tribal area.

Time to read Seven Days in May again.

Dirks is right, the generals sound thisclose to insubordination.

Of course a 4 page article without a single named source should be taken with a grain of salt.

Obviously Joe, you must not have served in the military, like so many of your pencil pushing colleagues, or you'd know how the military works. But then that's not the media's calling card, they and you are more interested in sensationalism and gloom and doom than anything else.

Since when did the Washington Post "staff writers" become experts on military matters or policy? They were part and parcel, along with other war-mongers and sucked in media types, pushing for the Iraq War. Some staff writer's by-line would be the last person I'd be relying on for a lede to my story.

Hang on, the militrary drags its feet and would then ask for MORE troops and MORE time? If that's the case the answer seems obvious... We just say no and bring them home. I can't imagine that the military actually wants a more prolonged engagement in Afghanistan, it would either want overwhelming force or withdrawal. Lets give them withdrawal and we done with it.

It takes a long time to move an army -- you can't just stuff 40,000 people onto a place and send them in. Taking less than a year to put the 40k additional troops in place means that you're going to be sending in soldiers who have not been adequately trained for Afghanistan.

I don't think any of the brass are deliberately slow-walking this out of some nefarious plan to justify a longer commitment, generals just have a strong bias towards ensuring that those they send on a mission are adequately trained and prepared for that mission.