Barack Obama 'risks Suez-like disaster' in Afghanistan, says key adviser

[Peikko 1,575]

US troops set out on a patrol in Paktika province, Afghanistan. Photograph: David Furst/AFP/Getty Images

A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise.

David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit.

Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.

He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers. The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed.

The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government.

Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics.

"Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," Kilcullen said.

"It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be. The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it."

Kilcullen, though employed by the state department and various Nato governments, stressed he was speaking in a private capacity. A former Australian army officer, he is based in an office outside Washington and has served in various capacities in the US government, including as an adviser to General David Petraeus, the overall US commander. He is coy about the extent of his involvement but, apart from paid consultancies, his views are regularly sought by senior figures at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration.

He said it would be irresponsible to opt for a halfway house in which extra troops were sent in but not enough to secure Afghanistan, which seemed to be the way the administration was headed. He noted that Obama, in a speech to troops in Jacksonville, Florida, a fortnight ago, had said he would never lightly put them in harm's way.

"That's not the situation we are in. As an analogy, you have a building on fire, and it's got a bunch of firemen inside. There are not enough firemen to put it out. You have to send in more or you have to leave. It is not appropriate to stand outside pontificating about not taking lightly the responsibility of sending firemen into harm's way. Either put in enough firemen to put the fire out or get out of the house. That is my analogy of where we are. Either of those approaches could potentially work."

He added: "If you have 40,000 troops it would be do-able. Anything less than 25,000 is throwing good money after bad."

Kilcullen supports the idea, pushed by British commanders, of protecting places where the population live rather than attempting to secure all territory.

There is media speculation in Washington that Obama may divert from his Asian trip to Kabul to confront Karzai. Kilcullen argues there is a need for Obama to exert leverage over the Afghan president by issuing a credible threat to pull out all US troops unless he cleans up corruption.

The White House line at present is that leaving is not an option. But Kilcullen said there was a vicious cycle that began with government corruption, creating the space for the Taliban to expand. There were two ways of getting leverage: one, of having enough troops in the country, and the other threatening to leave, as the US had done in Iraq.

"Our way out is to go to Karzai and say 'We are done here'. We will be leaving in two to five years. If you do not want to be left hanging from a lamppost, like Najibullah [the former Afghan president hanged in Kabul in 1996 when the Taliban took control], this is what you need to do. I think that would work," Kilcullen said.

He was critical of the delay in reaching a decision. "I do think, though, the policy process of this administration this year has been, shall we say, messy and this, the latest incident [the leaked diplomatic cables], underlines how messy it has been, and I think that is problematic.

"It sends a message of indecision and uncertainty which has an effect on allies, and has a huge effect on the British political debate and has huge impact on the Afghans."

Link

[alienlovechild 75]

"It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be. The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it."

"Our way out is to go to Karzai and say 'We are done here'. We will be leaving in two to five years. If you do not want to be left hanging from a lamppost, like Najibullah [the former Afghan president hanged in Kabul in 1996 when the Taliban took control], this is what you need to do. I think that would work," Kilcullen said.

Good article (for once). Obama is more focused on domestic issues than foreign policy issues. It's silly to just play Solomon and cut the number of troops in half and think it will somehow please most people. If he knew what to do, I'm sure could have arrived at some decision faster than he has. My guess is he's waiting for campaigning season in Afghanistan to be over and get his domestic policies through first. Next spring, he's going to have the same problems again.

Karzai can't really control much more than the area around Kabul and without the foreign troops he'll hang.

[Pooky 3,784]

There is media speculation in Washington that Obama may divert from his Asian trip to Kabul to confront Karzai. Kilcullen argues there is a need for Obama to exert leverage over the Afghan president by issuing a credible threat to pull out all US troops unless he cleans up corruption.

If he did this and made public his decision on troop numbers soon after, it might be the first time since he became president that "the media" has come up with decent advice as part of their speculation.

At the end of the day, though, I don't see much choice here. Pulling out entirely will damage his credibility in the one conflict where he was determined that the USA would stay the course, and anything less than a full commitment of 40,000 troops will seriously undermine his commander on the ground, even more than the current delay has already.

[alienlovechild 75]

No comments from the Obama OT brigade?

Now I'm worried.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

[Dan J 277]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

Why? We agree on Afghanistan. After all you said you aren't a liberal at all, just Libertarian.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

LoL, if our goal is to have lasting democracy there, what happens when they democratically vote in the taliban as Palestinians voted overwhealmingly for Hamas?

[Dan J 277]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

LoL, if our goal is to have lasting democracy there, what happens when they democratically vote in the taliban as Palestinians voted overwhealmingly for Hamas?

That's a real possibility. The Taliban does have a lot of popular support in parts of the country. But a real democracy should give the citizens the ability to elect who they want not who we want.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

LoL, if our goal is to have lasting democracy there, what happens when they democratically vote in the taliban as Palestinians voted overwhealmingly for Hamas?

That's a real possibility. The Taliban does have a lot of popular support in parts of the country. But a real democracy should give the citizens the ability to elect who they want not who we want.

If what they want is the government that was in place when we came here, wouldn't that make this whole operation a huge waste of time?

[Dan J 277]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

LoL, if our goal is to have lasting democracy there, what happens when they democratically vote in the taliban as Palestinians voted overwhealmingly for Hamas?

That's a real possibility. The Taliban does have a lot of popular support in parts of the country. But a real democracy should give the citizens the ability to elect who they want not who we want.

If what they want is the government that was in place when we came here, wouldn't that make this whole operation a huge waste of time?

Our original mission had nothing to do with the Taliban or bringing democracy. But sometimes we have to keep our ego in check and realize our mistakes. We don't need another Vietnam.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Dan + Gemvita

[nowhereman 1]

No comments from the Obama OT brigade?

Now I'm worried.

Most of us were sleeping at 12:11 am. I am concerned that President Obama is taking too long to make his decision, as time is critical. If I were Obama I would filter out the comments from the far right & liberals (which is good advice in almost any situation), have a long closed door discussion with SecDef Gates & General McCrystal and then make a decision based heavily on their input.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No comments from the Obama OT brigade?

Now I'm worried.

Most of us were sleeping at 12:11 am. I am concerned that President Obama is taking too long to make his decision, as time is critical. If I were Obama I would filter out the comments from the far right & liberals (which is good advice in almost any situation), have a long closed door discussion with SecDef Gates & General McCrystal and then make a decision based heavily on their input.

They've both already given him their opinions, and he is ignoring them for the time being until he weighs what will look best for him.

[nowhereman 1]

No comments from the Obama OT brigade?

Now I'm worried.

Most of us were sleeping at 12:11 am. I am concerned that President Obama is taking too long to make his decision, as time is critical. If I were Obama I would filter out the comments from the far right & liberals (which is good advice in almost any situation), have a long closed door discussion with SecDef Gates & General McCrystal and then make a decision based heavily on their input.

They've both already given him their opinions, and he is ignoring them for the time being until he weighs what will look best for him.

Gates & McCrystal are level headed & generally non-partisan, so I would listen to them. If they are both calling for 40,000 troops that is what I would do.