And the key words I will listen for in this speech are "victory," and "win."

This is war, no matter the nuance. War is bloody, violent, and filled with unforseen turns and twists. The only way to win a war is through victory.

Now, the president can frame the parameters of what is a victory, but we must have a strategy to win, not a strategy to withdraw at some future date. The nation will need to hear these words to buy what the president is selling, and most of all, soldiers and marines need to hear these words to know that their sacrifice is for a cause - not merely to carry out the most politically-expedient method of withdrawl without seeming weak.

...if this is a war, then it becomes time to get the rest of America out of the malls, get them to do something like let's pay for it instead of using the Chinese credit card. Ask those in the Senate and House who believe in security to impose a tax necessary to fund a war effort.

And speaking from West Point, the President might remind the Navy that keeping the sea lanes free of pirates would be a contributing factor for national security - equal to the cost of maintaining those large carrier groups.

Petreus was everywhere in 2007 - promoting the "surge" in Iraq and shoring up W's tattered credibility.

Where is he now, Tom? - you've posed exactly the question on my mind.

What are Petreus' thoughts about the failure in Iraq to achieve any of the goals the "surge" was supposed to afford.

Petreus is a bright guy - you've put it out that Obama should clean up or at least curtail corruption in Afghanistan. Doesn't Petreus have ideas about how to do that?

Or...is Petreus playing a more cautious game? There are no easy answers - we all know. Maybe Petreus is quitting while he's ahead, and dropping out of sight to secure his "success in Iraq" legacy.

Or...is Petreus playing an even deeper game? He seemed very, very close to W.'s political people, all his medals aside. Where will the GOP turn in 2012, assuming they decline hari kari a la Beck/Palin/Limbaugh? Could he be trying the sound of...

PRESIDENT PETRAUS?

If so, his silence now may be very wise. Leave McChrystal to play pit-bull, and wait for the moment to step in and Save America.

Am I crazy?

Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason.

There is NO "VICTORY" possible in Afghanistan-- especially given the unwillingness of Americans to sacrifice for a true "war effort."

Americans fed a lifetime of media portrayals of U.S. totally subjugating the enemy refuse to admit that "winning" in Afghanistan means getting out with the least casualties and leaving a government that won't support terrorists.

Mr. Ricks, you really disappoint me.

Re Pakistan, PM Brown offered the best question of recent days; 'How is it that Pakistan is STILL providing UBL and Zawahiri safe harbor, eight years after the Tora Bora fiasco?'

A year after his election, the question in my mind remains whether Team Obama stands at the 1965 crossroads, or the 1969 one? Both were paths of escalation, but very different in their handling of international boundaries.

U.S. offers new role for Pakistan
By Karen DeYoung (WaPo 11/30/09)
snip>:
"Obama called for closer collaboration against all extremist groups, and his letter named five: al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Pakistani Taliban organization known as Tehrik-e-Taliban. Using vague diplomatic language, he said that ambiguity in Pakistan's relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored.

Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, was more precise in conversations with top Pakistani government and military leaders, U.S. and foreign officials said, stating that certain things have to happen in Pakistan to ensure Afghanistan's security. If Pakistan cannot deliver, he warned, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's western and southern borders with Afghanistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902934.html?sid=ST2009113002007

So staying waist deep in the Big Muddy assures reelection but a prudent departure after strong effort will tear down the Commander in Chief?

Tom, help your friend back to sobriety...

The WH and Pentagon floated 14K in early 2007. The GAO said 'get real, you're talking about at least 20-30K'. I recently heard Gen. Keane (talking on C-SPAN) give 35,000 as the actual 3rd Qtr 2007 balloon number, with the equivalent of an MP and an aviation brigade thrown in. (I presume he knows what of he speaks. Did I read in "The Gamble" that Keene was pushing for 7 brigades in the first place?)

So multiply the AfPak 'surge' number floated times 2.5, when the deployment extensions kick in. That's our COIN strategy on the escalator.

(PS "...hear him look Congress in the eye..."? Sounds like something I could have written. ;)

Well Tom, your pal might be right in that Obama may be a one termer but certainly not because of an early exit from Afghanistan. There are numerous other scenarios closer to home that could thwart his chances for another term. How about rising unemployment, which may stubbornly refuse to come down even if the economy can put together 2.5-3.0% GDP growth over the next two years?

My sense of Afghanistan is that the American public is mildly bearish to ambivalent on fighting a larger war there. Of course if casualties explode (unlikely) then that could change for the worse for the hawks. America’s casualty tolerance while low is still pretty much off the radar since without conscription it is ‘somebody else’s kid’.

I recall someone mentioning, “we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years. One year at a time. Maybe at the least, we’ll finally receive a strategy that will allow us to fight a little longer then another year, but for less than eight more years.

And speaking in years: if President Obama’s presidency only lasts four years, it won’t be due to Afghanistan Tom, it will be his handling of the economy and the creation of jobs.

Incidentally, the picture of Gen. Petraeus throwing-out a ball reminds me of an old barracks phrase, taken out of context from an old reenlistment poster, of my days of yore in the Corps, "Mac Marine says, play ball with me and end up with the bat stuck up your butt." I hope that isn't an omen? :|

You know it looks more and more like we'll be seeing Petraeus run in 2012. He's the kind of star the GOP thrives on and might be why he's been so silent.

Also it should mentioned that it was often two term Republican Administrations who withdrew from Vietnam, Lebanon, and sign the SOFA agreement with Iraq.

Our war on al Qaeda is like trying to eliminate conservatism by wiping out the Republican Party.

Our sledgehammer-to-a-beehive methodology is clearly counterproductive, and in fact the enemy is an ideology rather than an organization.

The best way to fight Islamic or other extremism is to use the whole toolbox - political, economic, diplomatic, legal, forensic, law enforcement, military, religious, and ethical.

And we’re not serious about fighting terrorism if we don’t address the world’s injustices and help resolve its conflicts, so that terrorists cannot gain legitimacy by acting in the name of redressing valid grievances.

(but don't expect to):

1. Be honest about the cost, both in casualties and in spending. Tell the American people that casualties will increase in the short run (as they did in the Iraq surge). Bush did this in several speeches exolaining the surge that were quite straightforward, jettisoning the previous happy talk and cheerleading.

In terms of spending, Obama's inability to prioritize (one of the main tasks of the Chief Executive of the US) means that it would be pointless to start talking about cost at this point -- ten months into his Presidency and following a series of budget-busting agenda items like cap/tax and healthscare, it's a little hard to suddenly tell the American people that we're going to have to spend more in Afghanistan and less at home.

2. Get your own Petraeus!
Bush gained a great deal of credibility and support through his choice of Petraeus to lead the surge. This was by no means an obvious choice, though it may seem so in retrospect. Petraeus needed another star to assume command, as I recall, and he had his critics as well as admirers. In return, Bush gave Petraeus unprecedented direct access and spent his remaining political capital shoring up domestic support for the mission. This relationship was key to the success of the surge, and Obama needs to introduce McChrystal and explain why he is entrusted with this mission.

Why does Obama have faith in him, what does he expect, etc? This is another of the duties of the Chief Executive --delegating-- and it's another where Obama has failed. At this point we have no idea of the relationship of these two men. After the brutal firing of McKiernan (even Casey and Westmoreland were given the soft JCS landing after they had screwed up) and the selection of McChrystal, there have been signals of distancing -- the cold shoulder, the leaked undermining -- that have to end.

Obama could benefit, again, from the example of GW Bush and Petraeus, who held detailed weekly videoconferences (this process well described in The Gamble) and whose staffs worked closely. Ideally the speech would explain why McChrystal, how they work together, and why Obama is investing his political capital(less depleted than Bush's) in this officer.

3. Say a few kind words about your predecessor. He was faced with some unprecedented problems (to use one of your favorite words) and he faced decisions that only a President faces.

(I know, I'm dreaming. This would be the classy move, and this is a classless administration. I doubt it would occur to any of them). Still.

You understand now what Harry Truman meant when he said "The buck stops here". He meant the President got the tough decisions -- the easy ones were decided lower down the food chain. Or when Bush less felicitously boasted "I'm the decider" -- like Truman, he revelled in the role, in a way that annoyed and infuriated people.

You have the opposite problem. You avoid decision-making. However, you understand that that's the job -- maybe the only part that matters. That being the case, how about saying that you understand the difficulty that Bush faced after 9/11, and again in the fall of 2006 when he was trying to decide the route to take in Iraq. How about saying that we may not agree with the decisions, but they were undertaken with the same degree of seriosusness that you did?

Because frankly, your vacillating and dithering over the past few months is making Bush look pretty good, decision-wise. Also, continuity in war is important. If you can't bring yourself to speak graciously about Bush and his policies (and I seriously doubt you can) at least drop the idiotic rhetoric about smart wars and dumb wars and eight years of neglect.

(Above all distance yourself from the kind of dumb Bush-bashing evinced by Swifty Kerry in his committee's release today of the umpteenth account of how Bush had Bin Laden corned in Tora Bora but let him go. Hamhanded much?) Yes, it got you elected President, but you need to move beyond the campaign rhetoric. You're President now.

Also, you're going to need Republican support, because you're not going to have support from your own party. Try to think ahead a little.Toss a bone to McCain while you're at it -- a man who has forgotten more abut war than you will ever know.

"Perhaps most importantly, is his heart in it, and can he bring along a good portion of the American people, especially part of his base? Or is he gonna say we're giving it 12 months and then we're outta here?"

The only ones with their hearts in it are the war mongers and the arms industry.

Not to be cynical, but wouldn't Petraeus be more concerned with his health right now rather than war effort PR? Even had he successfully finished his treatment in spring/summer, it still takes some recovery time.

Robert McNamara warned Johnson in 1965 that the decision to double troop levels in Vietnam would probably only delay the real decision, whether to stay or go, by a couple of years when the stakes would be much higher.

Using the army to solve the problem without any complementary political or economic initiatives doesn't strike me as a sensible way forward. Holding another half a dozen Godforsaken one horse towns (not 'major cities' as some people have referred to them) in Helmand when there are another 1,000 miles of undefended border to the East isn't going to make any difference.

The Afghans will continue to indulge in their national sports of internecine warfare, robbery, kidnapping and religious fanaticism long after the Americans have left and another 20 or 30,000 more troops won't change that. Put pressure on the Gulf Arabs and Saudis to stop funding Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan and withdraw troops from the countryside.

If you have cast iron intelligence of an Al Queda presence anywhere in Afghanistan by all means take it out but don't hang about afterwards. 'In and out smart' was how one 19th Century British commander described successful operations in Afghanistan. A sustained presence will only invite trouble.

The cornerstone of COIN is the existence of a legitimate government that has the backing of the population. At best, we don't know if that exists in Afghanistan because the election was riddled with fraud. At worst, we know it doesn't exist because of the widespread corruption in the Afghan government. So the first question that Tom posed gets to the core of the problem. It seems that the President is taking the view that we can reform the government by our prodding. But isn't that the same mistake the Kennedy Administration made in thinking it could get the Diem brothers in South Vietnam to reform? Why do we think that we will fare any better with the Karzai brothers? And if you don't believe that the Karzai brothers will change, how can a COIN strategy succeed? Or will the Karzai brothers suffer the same fate as the Diems if a year from now the government remains filled with corruption?

I'd be interested in reactions from Tom and the readership concerning this parallel and its implications for what happens next in Afghanistan.

Good post.

First off, everyone knows that Pakistan is the bigger problem. I read an article today and former Senator Hagel said that this is the more important issue. They're an unstable country harboring some terrorism and possess nuclear weapons. They're bordering the two most populated countries in the world. I am disappointed with the current US response, especially with Pakistan's effort with their recent military offensives. The US can help by giving Pakistan some of the latest military equipment, specifically helicopters. As we have seen, the mountains in this part of Asia make it difficult enough for us (America) to traverse the terrain, so how do we expect Pakistan to do so. What's so harmful by sending them helicopters and gunships. It doesn't need to be the latest and greatest, but it should be sophisticated systems with radar and the necessary equipment. President Obama, you need to respond and communicate with Pakistan.

Your other point regarding the corruption is important. How do we expect to succeed in Afghanistan when our government in power their is corrupt? It's a huge setback that needs to be fixed.

Your third point I pray doesn't happen. Afghanistan is a war that the US needs to win. We cannot just give it a timetable, and leave.

I also wander where General Petraus is. I'm sure that he is busy with his current command, but what's his opinion. The General has a Phd in International Relations, and I would love to hear his opinion.

What Ricks & others NEVER take in to account is how willing is the Pashtun population to take on their blood brothers Taliban or Al-Qaeda for that matter. I am sure it will not be more than a few thousands from their total of 15 Million. One has to add another five million Pashtuns on the Pakistan side. With overwhelming demography weighing against foreign forces, NO counter insurgency or victory strategy is ever likely to succeed in Afghanistan. The only way, Free world can buy peace against Taliban is to keep U.S Air power ready with tactical nukes in the region to bomb the Taliban & Al-Qaeda at very short notice.

You use the 4 seam fastball to throw out the first pitch, not the 2 seamer... unless he was being daring and throwing the deuce.

As of now there are 50 comments on this topic by Tom and by my unscientific reading about 90% of them are dubious or ambivalent or skeptical or unconvinced or just plain fed up with COIN, Petraeus, McChrystal, the Af/Pak war, etc. I find this interesting since most of the commentators seem obviously interested, conversant and well versed on the subject. An interesting paradox since the group here probably has vastly more naval and military experience than the population as a whole translating doctrine and policy into deeds.

Too bad its not a State of the Union Speech, where Obama could have Greg Mortenson recognized. That would mobilize all the left-leaning towns that have adopted it as their book;and every book club in the world that read it. The Mortensen quote here is from the current US News and World Report top 100:"I can say the military in the last two years has gone through a huge learning curve. In many ways, I think the military is far ahead of our State Department and political leaders."

Longer quote below:
"Published in 2006, Three Cups of Tea has sold more than 3 million copies in 39 countries. It is also required reading for Special Forces troops
deploying to Afghanistan and has garnered praise from Pentagon heavyweights like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. This has made Mortenson a valued unofficial adviser to the U.S. military, a development that surprised him. "I was actually fairly critical of the military at the Pentagon after 9/11," he says. Pennies for Peace, founded by Mortenson in 1994 with schoolchildren who used their spare change to help him raise money for his first school, accepts no federal funds "and never plans to" so that it will not be "perceived as an arm of the U.S. government." Mortenson has, however, hosted commanders at his schools and visited dozens of bases to brief soldiers. "I can say the military in the last two years has gone through a huge learning curve. In many ways, I think the military is far ahead of our State Department and political leaders."