When will the White House move?

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:21am

My book researcher, Kyle Flynn, a two-tour vet of Afghanistan (with extra points for duty in Oruzgan, the Pashtun answer to Arkansas) and now a graduate student at Georgetown University, offers this interesting analysis of three reasons for the likely timing of the White House decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan:

  1. President Obama wanted to see if Pakistan was going to take seriously its operation in South Waziristan, which it advertised publicly for the last six weeks.
  2. Nov. 7 upcoming run-off elections in Afghanistan (COIN, credible partner, host-nation, blah, blah, blah)
  3. Last but most importantly: Nov. 3, gubernatorial elections in both Virginia and New Jersey. The latter of which is my reasoning why the decision was delayed this long. Corzine is in the fight of his life and Obama is going to piss people off either way. Important special elections also in California and New York.

Kyle concludes: "Let's bet the decision comes early next week after the domestic political issues are settled."

Mario Tama/Getty Images



Advertisement

 

Stick it in your ear, Flynn

The most important reason for the delay in an Afghan decision is two governor races? WTF! You are basically accusing Obama of being amoral. Can you seriously put yourself in his shoes and arrive at your speculation? I sure hope not.

And Tom, where are the quotes from people who have done two tours in the diplomatic corp or with NGOs? How about even the DEA? Please - show me you listen to somebody from outside the military.

re: Stick it in your ear, Flynn

Obama wouldn't be the first president who allowed his concern for domestic policy dictate decision making in foreign policy. In 1964 LBJ chose to postpone any major decisions on Vietnam while he pursued the "Great Society" and his bid for president in 1964. Check out McMaster's "Deriliction of Duty" for more on LBJ.

Currently, Obama has health care reform, the economy, cap and trade, and a host of other domestic issues on his plate and he does need to satisfy his base.

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight on either side. I just wanted to point out that there are justifiable similarities.

Your examples are all self-serving

Not for you, Chris, but for the politician involved. Flynn claims Obama is waiting for two gubernatorial elections. Not similar at all to your examples.

How about considering opportunity cost?

Nicholas Kristof says "for the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there."

The column

was about the stupidest argument I have read in a long time.

Right, don't send more troops, instead build a school... that either gets blown up, filled with young boys who are indoctrinated with a twisted version of Islam into killing innocents, or at best does not allow girls to attend.

If we don't send more troops we sure as hell can't build anything new. Not that we should send more troops, just that this sort of guns vs butter argument is so juvenile as to be laughable. High school essay quality logic.

Kristoff always seemed smart to me. He is a fool.

back it up rpm

Give me a story about one school built by NGO's that suffered one of your speculated fates. Based on Kristof's long history of being smart in columns, isn't it more likely you're being foolish on this one?

huh?

Your challenge is nonsensical. The schools built by NGOs are more than likely in regions/valleys/villages secured by NATO/US forces. And girls are still afraid to attend.

And who exactly did the Taliban target this week in Kabul - the evil military forces of the occupiers? No, they killed UN workers. The very type of people who would built Nick's precious schools.

The real question is what would schools be like in a country dominated by the Taliban?

Double huh??

So you want schools built in unsafe locations, so that your speculations would be true? As to girls, just from today's news: 2.1 million girls attend Afghan schools.

Using the UN attack is specious. Are they the #1 target in Afghanistan? Or even in the top ten? Does the UN actually build or operate schools?

The real question is would the Taliban dominate the cities if we left, say 20,000 troops in cities and abandoned the countryside.

again...

The real question is what would schools be like in a country dominated by the Taliban?

Fine...

My first point is, it is extremely unlikely that the Taliban will ever control any population center besides Kandahar, and even this is unlikely. So far no one is advocating pulling out all foreign troops, so they will continue to occupy the population centers for the foreseeable future.

Second, in the areas the Taliban currently control or could control in the future, schools will be exactly like they've been for a long time. Fundamentalist madrassas that exclude girls. The rural Pashtunwali culture underlies even the Taliban. If the Taliban dissappeared tomorrow, schools for girls would not spring up in areas they had controlled unless they were created by foreigners.

my original point stands

"...this sort of guns vs butter argument is so juvenile as to be laughable."

If we cannot improve security Afghanistan will get worse. If it gets worse, the political pressure will eventually force us to withdraw - handing the nation to the Taliban.

Now, that may be the right calculus. I am not convinced we can 'win' this fight. But the idea that we need to build schools, not send more troops, in order to succeed in Afghanistan is laughable.

yeah - wouldn't be the first time

This wouldn't be the first time a President timed a military/ foreign policy action or decision around an election. In 2004, the Bush administration didn't launch the second battle of Fallujah (the one that cleared the whole city) until after the presidential election was over.

And in 1942, FDR wanted to get US ground forces into action against the Germans in 1942 (in North Africa) and would have preferred that it occur before that year's Congressional elections so the Democrats would get a boost (turns out the invasion, Operation Torch, didn't go off until Nov 8th, a few days after the election was over).

See above for Bush comparison

FDR is a slightly more applicable, as he had to deal with Congress, but still a far cry from caring about two local elections.

On Operation Torch, I'll remind readers about Tom's article on Obama's decision-making that used it as an analogy.

Tom, this is the dumbest BS i've ever seen or heard you say

I respect you man - but get real. Deeds is toast in Virginia. Corzine and Christie are having a contest to see who can be less popular. The issue in NJ is corruption, btw. Not the taliban.

You're saying that Obama is delaying a major foriegn policy division because of a VA election that's a foregone conclusion, and a NJ election that is all about local issues?

Give me a break, Tom

It's Flynn's BS

But Tom did call it interesting analysis.

Obama's so-called "dithering" . . .

. . . is easily as unpopular as whichever decision he ends up making, so I sincerely doubt he would be so dumb as to delay the decision in the hopes of adding a sliver of support to any state-level candidates.

Occam's razor

What is the simplest explanation?

1) That a president would delay a major FP decision for minimal if any domestic political value? Delaying this will have no impact on the VA race, and it is unclear why it would have any in NJ either.

2) That there are real strategic issues relating to the legitimacy of the regime we are supporting in Afghanistan and the efforts of our allies (Pakistan) in related operations that have serious implications for our decision?

The first two reasons Flynn suggested are plausible, but the third is something he pulled out of his a** and it makes me wonder about his agenda.

Wow

Jeez, you guys make wonder if Kyle would prefer to be shot at by the Taliban down in Oruzgan.
Best,
Tom

This made me laugh (in a good way)

Well, getting shot at has it's advantages in that there are definite things you can do about it and it clears the mind of anything else going on at the time. Further, if you make a mistake in your decision process you may not have to live with the decision. Literally. Yes, this is dark military humor.

I disagree with Kyle on the idea that domestic elections are playing a role in the decision process. Further, neither Karzai nor Abdullah are asking for changes in the status of U.S. forces. The Afghan election is a red herring as well. The Pakistan offensive is something I hadn’t thought of though. Interesting.

It would help

if you 1) said whether you agree with Kyle's assessment, and 2) said what you would think of it if it were true.

It would be best

if Mr. Flynn appeared and defended his comments or admitted his mistake.

Too many Americans who write about politics . . .

. . . are also convinced they're mind-readers.

I'd like to propose we call a moratorium on all "predictions" or "speculations" that aren't grounded in some kind of publicly accessible evidence.

Injecting a little of the rigor scholars demand of each other really couldn't hurt at all.

Anyone can just start blathering. I mean, I happen to believe that at this very moment Obama's in his upstairs bathroom, doing a lotus-head-stand, and talking to his Eight-Ball.

But I don't share that belief with anyone because I have no evidence.

So, let's all become Missourians from here on in.

I think the analysis is quite appropriate

I think the analysis is quite appropriate...and he forgot to mention the timing of the health care bills. I believe those bills (and their price tags) may be even more tied to this decision.

for all those aghast at the thought of linking strategic military decisions to domestic politics, I'd say the fellow commenters have done a good job of giving historical examples.

When Will the White House Move

It is not hard for me to imagine that politics have to play a role in military decisions in a democracy, at least to the extent this country is still a democracy. After all, Lincoln made decisions during the Civil War, from the appointment of generals, the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation, and waiting to remove McClellan from command of the Army of the Potomac until after the off-year elections in November 1862. To sucessfully prosecute a war that at least to some extent depends on the consent of the governed, one will need political support and in Obama's case that means at least bringing along the majority of the Democratic Party as he can't depend on a faction of Repubilcans whose base essentially detests him and views him as a virtual traitor (see the comments of the practical head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh).

Nevertheless, I don't think the current upcoming elections have played much role in this decision. These elections have been dominated by local issues, the economy, and the unease and unhappiness that independents and upper middle class moderate voters have about the taxpayer paid for bank bailout and large Federal Government deficits.

I know that Tom believes the President is "dithering," as I heard him say on WAMU earlier this week. Perhaps, but perhaps he is also trying to really grasp a fluid and deteroriating situation. I personally found Mr. Hoh's analyis in his letter of resignation persuasive http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/27/DI2009102703143.html and harmonious with the analysis of Andrew Bacevich about why, no matter how many troops we send, and how many dollars we spend, this is a war, an insurgency of the Pashtun Nation, that we cannot win. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/0082687

When Will the White House Move

After looking at my comment, I realized I had fallen into a trap. I think Hoh, as he stated on NPR, has it right when he says that we should move the frame of the arguement from whether "can we win this war" to the question "is supporting the Karzai regime and establishing a central Afghanistan governing authority and suppressing the Pashtuns resistance that authority worth one more American life or dollar?" This is consistent to Lara Logan's anaylsis that prime motivation among Pashtuns and the energy behind the Taliban's comeback has been Pashtuns tribes resentment that they have been shut out and exploited by a regime in Kabul, which is ostensibly an alliance of the Karzai family and Tajik (the other big tribes) warlords. I think the only way a "surge" can be justified in terms of American interests (since economically, this spending of huge sums is one part of the Fiscal dilemna that is ruining us and playing into Bin Laden's strategy to destroy the United States by bankrupting it) is to show that it can strike a crippling blow against Al Qaeda and stabilize the Pakistan government over the next 24 months, and we should work out a withdrawal schedule with the Afghanistan Government just as we have with the Iraqi government to at least neutralize some of the local xenophobia that are presence breeds.

laughable

I hope that type of analysis doesn't find its way into your good writing, Tom.

Kyle should take another hard look at what he describes in reason 2 as "blah, blah, blah". Isn't a credible partner more important than blah blah to the counter insurgent?

Are You Insane?

I grew up in New Jersey. My parents and most of my relatives still live there. My father was the Housing Authority attorney for a city in Hudson County. Anyone who believes that Obama's decision on Afghanistan would affect the gubernatorial knows nothing about New Jersey. (I was going to write that such a person would have to be an idiot, but I thought that might be too harsh.)

Kyle fires back

And he has good aim, so watch out.
Best,
Tom

Further Explanation Yes, Retraction Never!
By Kyle Flynn

In regard to my recent comments on this very blog, I add the following:

While my reasoning has not changed on why I believe that the White House is timing its decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan with, among other things, the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, my initial comments seem to require some clarification.

Foremost, timing the decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan on the Pakistani Amy’s operation into South Waziristan, the Afghan runoff election on November 7th, and the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia is a smart move—-both politically and practically. Testing the rationale behind the assumptions on which I based my reasoning only solidified my initial opinion.

My mistake appears to have been word choice rather than substance: “timed” is much more appropriate than “delayed.” Sorry, my bad. Perhaps I’m too cynical but I believe that timing is everything in politics because administrations have only a finite amount of political capital to spend. Mr. Axelrod, Mr. Emmanuel, et al. are well aware of the degree to which the Afghanistan decision is going to upset likely voters. This is why politicians including President Obama love to take the middle ground on highly controversial issues. I only hope that this position does not inform U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
humor” in my post.

The gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia are of huge import to this White House. I don’t care whether Creigh Deeds is up in by ten points or not in Virginia. Dirty Jersey is where the money is right now because Jersey going Red is much more significant than Virginia or North Carolina reverting back from Blue to Red. This is big picture politics. While I am no expert on New Jersey's domestic issues, I do believe that the Afghanistan decision will weigh heavily on some Democratic and Independent voters and therefore could impact a close race.

There is also a psychological factor here that bodes trouble for the Administration’s allies in the 2010 midterm elections. If the Administration assumes it’s going to lose favor with some voters by making a decision, any decision on Afghanistan, then why not attempt to time that decision after the fate of Governor Corzine has been decided? To me this is smart politics. I was never suggesting that the White House’s decision on Afghanistan had been made four weeks ago and they were waiting until November 4th to proceed. For the record, I have no agenda. Nor do I suggest that President Obama is acting any differently than a Republican Administration would in a similar situation.

Love it or hate it, this is politics—and timing is everything.

still wrong

Kyle,

Your critics seem bothered by your argument that President Obama's decision is "most importantly" influenced by the gubernatorial elections. It's not your word choice on "timed" or "delayed" that is nonsense.

Remember when McChrystal's initial assessment was called the 60-day review in the media? Recall that it was delayed also, beyond 60 days? Were VA and NJ the most important factor then? No. I'd suggest studying your own Reason No. 2.

And it'd be better to admit you may have an agenda than appearing somewhat thoughtless by contributing to the 'Obama chooses petty domestic politics over national security' narrative.

I don't expect a retraction, but an explanation would be nice

Since there is no visible mechanism for the Governors of Virginia and New Jersey to help or hinder President Obama, I believe the default position should be that who wins these races doesn't directly affect him. You have claimed otherwise:

The gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia are of huge import to this White House.

And provided no explanation why. No assumptions, no rationales, nothing. That is my issue.

As for the rest of this follow up, today's zeitgeist of journalism has certainly infiltrated your writing. Inside baseball, split the difference, timing vs substance, 2010 midterms, big picture politics, I have no agenda, this is politics, etcetera. We already have plenty of this stuff.