Posts tagged richard holbrooke
Steve Clemons: US Strategic Opportunity in Pakistan Flooding Relief
Aug 30th
George Soros is working hard behind the scenes to help the Obama administration realize that a billion dollars spent now, carefully, and in a structure that could create a systemic improvement in Indus River water management helping India and Pakistan would be greatly welcomed by the currently besieged victims in Pakistan of historic-level flooding and help preempt a greater tilt towards instability in South Asia than already exists.
I won’t go into the detail of the Soros plan as it would be best if it became the Richard Holbrooke plan, or the Hillary Clinton plan, the Kerry-Lugar plan, or the Singh-Zardari plan, but I am satisfied that in contrast to so many schemes I hear in which people advocate a billion being thrown here or there — the critical need ‘now’ combined with a unique opportunity for the United States to constructively improve the lot over the near and long term of people who don’t think well of America makes great sense.
Now that we are spending monthly figures in Afghanistan that surpass $100 billion per year, it seems to me that a well-managed $1 billion investment in Pakistan would do much to improve the political environment in Afghanistan and Pakistan — large portions of the peoples of which respectively mistrust the U.S.
Read More…
More on Barack Obama
Top Taliban Commander Arrested, C.I.A. Played, ‘The New York Times’ Reports
Aug 23rd
by David Gura
August 23, 2010
Audio for this story from All Things Considered will be available at approx. 7:00 p.m. ET
Aamir Qureshi/AFP
U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke in Islamabad, on Feb. 18, 2010, after a joint operation with Pakistan that captured the Taliban’s top commander.
In The New York Times today, foreign correspondent Dexter Filkins revisits the arrest of Abdul Ghani Baradar, shedding new light on the apprehension of a top Taliban official:
When American and Pakistani agents captured Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s operational commander, in the chaotic port city of Karachi last January, both countries hailed the arrest as a breakthrough in their often difficult partnership in fighting terrorism.
But the arrest of Mr. Baradar, the second-ranking Taliban leader after Mullah Muhammad Omar, came with a beguiling twist: both American and Pakistani officials claimed that Mr. Baradar’s capture had been a lucky break. It was only days later, the officials said, that they finally figured out who they had.
Now, seven months later, Pakistani officials are telling a very different story. They say they set out to capture Mr. Baradar, and used the C.I.A. to help them do it, because they wanted to shut down secret peace talks that Mr. Baradar had been conducting with the Afghan government that excluded Pakistan, the Taliban’s longtime backer.
In an interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel, Filkins said that, at the time, American intelligence officials claimed to know they were “going after a bad guy,” but they “had no idea how bad he was, or how big a fish he was.”
Pakistani officials told Filkins that, in early 2010, they faced “a technical problem,” claiming they didn’t have the wherewithal to narrowly pinpoint where Baradar was hiding. In other words, they knew he was in Karachi, in a particular neighborhood, “but they couldn’t find him inside that area of a couple of square miles.”
According to Filkins, Pakistani officials solicited help from the C.I.A. which dispatched a couple of agents to help, bearing “fancy equipment,” “and within a couple of ours they took us right to Baradar.”
“It’s a very strange thing,” he said. “It’s a hard thing to get your mind around, but you have stand way back here to look at what’s really going on, and that it’s a double game.”
On the one hand, the Pakistani government is an ally of the United States. We give them a billion dollars a year, and we have every since 2001. On the other hand, there is an enormous body of evidence to show that they, also, at the very same time, support the Taliban, and of course, these are the same guys that are killing American soldiers every day.
Pakistan-Afghanistan Trade Deal: Clinton Seeks More Cooperation
Jul 19th
ISLAMABAD (Associated Press) – Pakistan and Afghanistan sealed a landmark trade deal Sunday as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed the two neighbors to step up civilian cooperation and work together against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Shortly after kicking off a South Asia trip aimed at refining the goals of the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan, Clinton looked on as the Afghan and Pakistani commerce ministers signed the trade agreement. It was reached only after years of negotiation with recent and very active U.S. encouragement.
The pact, which eases restrictions on cross-border transportation, must be ratified by the Afghan parliament and Pakistani Cabinet. U.S. officials said they believe it will significantly enhance ties between the two countries, boost development and incomes on both sides of the border and contribute to the fight against extremists.
“Bringing Islamabad and Kabul together has been a goal of this administration from the beginning,” said Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. “This is a vivid demonstration of the two countries coming closer together.”
Despite the agreement, Clinton faces challenges in appealing for greater cooperation between the neighboring nations on the nearly 9-year-old war, pressing Pakistan for more help in taking on militants accused of plotting attacks on the U.S., including the failed Times Square bombing, and stepping up action against extremists along the Afghan border.
Although Pakistan has relented on issuing long-delayed visas for some 450 U.S. officials and Clinton is bringing new U.S. development aid for Pakistan, anti-American sentiment remains high.
In addition, U.S. officials have also expressed concerns about Pakistan’s plans for a deal with China that would give energy-starved Pakistan two new nuclear power plants. Critics said transferring the reactors would violate international nonproliferation agreements.
In talks with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, ahead of Monday meetings with military and civilian officials, Clinton was conveying the message that the U.S. is committed to the country’s long-term development needs, not just short-term security gains.
Clinton is offering a package of about $500 million in development programs, funded by legislation approved by Congress to triple nonmilitary aid to $1.5 billion a year over five years. The aid will focus on water, energy, agriculture and health. The initiatives mark the second phase of projects begun under a new and enhanced strategic partnership.
Holbrooke noted that when Clinton visited Pakistan last October she had “waded into continually hostile and skeptical crowds.” But he maintained that the new U.S. focus is “producing a change in Pakistani attitudes, first within the government and gradually, more slowly, within the public.”
Still, he and other officials acknowledge, mistrust of America runs deep in Pakistan, particularly over unmanned drone strikes. They’re aimed at militants but often kill or injury civilians; to many Pakistanis, they represent an unacceptable violation of sovereignty.
Vali Nasr, a Holbrooke deputy, said overcoming the suspicion remains a work in progress.
“We’re not going to be able to get them aligned over a one-year time period on every single issue and change 30 years of foreign policy of Pakistan on a dime,” he said.
Underscoring Pakistan’s fragility, only hours after Clinton’s arrival a suicide bomber ran past guards at a minority Shiite mosque in eastern Pakistan then blew himself up, wounding several worshippers. The attack, hundreds of miles away from Islamabad, appeared to be the latest in a string by Sunni extremists against other Muslims they consider infidels.
After her stop in Pakistan, Clinton is set to attend an international conference on Afghanistan on Tuesday in Kabul, where Afghan officials will present details on their plans to reintegrate militants into society and outline how they intend to implement reform and anti-corruption pledges made earlier this year.
Security was tightened in the Afghan capital ahead the conference which will assemble diplomats from 60 nations as well as the heads of NATO and the United Nations. Nonetheless, a suicide bomber killed three civilians near a busy market.
American lawmakers and voters are increasingly questioning the course of the drawn-out war with rising death tolls among U.S. and international troops and growing questions about corruption. Last month was the deadliest of the war for international forces: 103 coalition troops were killed, despite the addition of tens of thousands more U.S. troops.
More on Afghanistan
Gwen’s Take: Taking the Candor Challenge
Jul 9th
Let me let you in on a Washington reality game show — the ongoing push and pull between journalists and the people they cover. The prize: simple candor.
By candor, I don’t mean that I expect the people we interview to act contrary to their own best personal and political interests. But in an ideal world, it would be nice if everybody could at least try to play by the same Q&A rules.
To wit: we’ll ask the smartest questions we possibly can, and you will at least take a stab at offering a revealing answer.
This springs to mind because of three interview segments which aired on the PBS NewsHour during the past week or so. I interviewed U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke about the fallout from the Gen. Stanley McChrystal firing and its implications for U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Jim Lehrer interviewed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the state of the troubled U.S. economy. And Judy Woodruff interviewed Republican Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah and Jim DeMint of South Carolina – who find themselves at war within their own party.
When I asked Holbrooke about widespread criticism (as chronicled everywhere from Rolling Stone to Foreign Policy) that relationships among the administration’s top war leaders was dysfunctional, he professed surprise that anyone would think such a thing.
“I’ve worked in every Democratic administration since the Kennedy administration, and I know dysfunctionality when I see it,” Holbrooke told me. “We have really good civilian-military relations in this government.”
I am sure Gen. McChrystal, relieved of command 24 hours after his staff suggested otherwise, would have an interesting opinion on that, were he to be candid.
Was Holbrooke saying what he truly believed? Perhaps. Was he being candid? Unlikely.
Then, consider Secretary Geithner’s NewsHour visit. Listening to him during the interview left me puzzled. But reading the transcript afterward cleared everything up.
No matter what Jim asked, whether about the jobless recovery, the jittery stock market or slippery housing prices and foreclosure rates, Geithner did what he came to do – predict better times ahead, acknowledge that people still feel bad because the original scars were so deep, and praise the president for avoiding an even deeper hole.
He used one of the president’s favorite words – “confident” or “confidence” – nine times in the course of the interview.
“What you can say today with confidence is we’re in a much stronger position today than we were 18 months ago, a much stronger position to deal with our challenges ahead,” Geithner said. “And we’re going to continue to work to make sure we make progress and restore – repairing what was damaged, restoring a basic sense of confidence to American businesses and American families.”
Now, contrast these two interviews with the candor the Republican Senators shared when talking about the challenges facing their own party.
For Bennett, those challenges hit home earlier this year when he lost his bid for reelection to a fourth term in the nation’s most Republican state – a victim of a wave of anger from his most conservative constituents.
“The concern I have about the anger that we’re seeing that’s being fed by talk show hosts and others,” Bennett told Judy, “is it will be like a wave that comes in and smashes on the beach and destroys everything there, and then recedes back into the ocean, and leaves nothing behind it but empty sand.”
No half measures in that language. The same went for DeMint, who has embraced the libertarian Tea Party movement and will openly admit that any other party label is not working for him.
“It is very difficult to work with the Democrats because they’re not working for the good of the country,” DeMint said – candidly. “And the Republicans have been partially guilty of that in some ways, but not nearly to the degree. I think this idea of we have got to work together doesn’t work anymore.”
How to explain the candor from Bennett and DeMint versus the caution from the two administration officials?
Part of it is the setting. Both Holbrooke and Geithner sat down for live interviews with firm time constraints that can allow interviewees to be only as forthcoming as they choose. DeMint and Bennett sat down for more open-ended interviews that were taped and woven into a larger story.
The other reason is the stakes. Administration officials have to answer to the White House for everything they say on television. If you doubt that, look no fiurther than Jim’s July 8 interview with Rahm Emmanuel, where the White House chief of staff spent a full five minutes sidestepping questions about when and how the President makes decisisons. It doesn’t seem complicated to describe the actions of the chief executive, but Emmanuel obviously sees it differently. “The less said the better,” he said.
And when Jim continued to press: “I feel like I’m dealing with my children on their homework,” he added.
Now there’s candor for you.
But I remain forever the optimist. Sometimes, when we least expect it, someone actually answers the question. Or, alternatively, the non-answers tell us exactly what we need to know.
This entry is cross-posted from the Washington Week website. Tune in on Friday as Gwen and her panel discuss delicate negotiations between Washington and Moscow to trade 10 alleged spies, a meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and remarks by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.
The New York Times Wonders Why General McChrystal Was Fired
Jun 29th
In a photo in the last issue of Rolling Stone, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is seen on board a C-130 aircraft over Afghanistan. (Navy Petty Officer, U.S. Navy/NATO / June 24, 2010)
McChrystal’s Quality Time With Rolling Stone: Impertinent? Check. Insubordinate? Maybe Not. — New York Times
You could say General Stanley A. McChrystal was a victim of his own hubris – the archetypal field commander who got too intemperate with the suits back at headquarters.
Then again, you might not.
Let’s stipulate that allowing a reporter from Rolling Stone with a skeptic’s view of the war in Afghanistan unfettered access for a month was not the best career move. But those who’ve read the full piece by Michael Hastings — as opposed to just the juicy bits being tossed around cable news — might be forgiven for wondering what exactly got him whacked so quickly. Or at least, you might wonder if it has less to do with what the general said and more to do with the relentless velocity and recklessness of the modern media ecosystem.
Read more ….
My Comment: The paragraph that caught my eye in this New York Time’s report was the following ….
…. The general is not quoted at any length in Mr. Hasting’s piece, but from my close reading, here is what he did: said that Vice President was prone to unexpected public statements, moaned audibly when he got an incoming mail from diplomatic envoy Richard Holbrooke, and complained that the White House took a long time to review his war plan. That’s it. The rest was all atmospherics and innuendo ….
Wow …. I never expect critical or objective reporting from the New York Times on any issue that involves President Obama. But this article is a zinger …. and the reporter is 100% right in his analysis. Read also the comments on this New York Times piece …. opinion is split on both sides.
Unfortunately, the NYT reporter does not examine the question on why General McChrystal was fired. If it was not for insubordination …. why was he let go so quickly?
My guess …. a few days before being fired, General McChrystal had issued a bleak assessment on the pace of the war in Afghanistan. I am sure that President Obama (and his aides) …. when reading this negative assessment …. recognized how large of a mess (and quagmire) Afghanistan had become for his Presidency.
I do not know if President Obama gets mad at these things, but if I was him I would be steamed at General McChrystal for convincing me (last fall) that this was the strategy that should be adopted. A few days later …. with parts of the Rolling Stone’s article being leaked and then published …. President Obama had the opening to get rid of the General that got him into this losing situation …. which he did in a very effective and astute manner.
Lincoln Mitchell: After McChrystal
Jun 27th
President Obama did the right thing this week in firing General Stanley McChrystal. Allowing McChyrstal to remain in office after the Rolling Stone story in which McChrystal belittled members of the Obama administration would have allowed his rather outrageous insubordination to stand unchallenged. It also would have encouraged further insubordination in the military which can ultimately threaten the notion of civilian control of the military. Obama is the Commander in Chief; and he acted accordingly this week. Similarly, Obama’s choice of General David Petraeus as the man to replace McChrystal is also politically a good one because Petraeus, the military man associated with whatever success we have had in Iraq in recent years, is well respected among most political elites and opinion makers.
Obama’s actions were a necessary response to an immediate problem, but they also raise bigger questions about the future of the war in Afghanistan. The firing of McChrystal brought the effort in Afghanistan back into reasonably sharp focus. John McCain, for example, questioned the wisdom of Obama’s withdrawal deadline of mid-2011. Criticisms like McCain’s will likely grow stronger over the next twelve months as it becomes increasingly, and predictably, clear that the US will not meet its goals in Afghanistan before this time.
More notably several respected analysts including Tom Ricks have suggested that President Obama use this moment to clean house in Afghanistan, firing US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and Special Representative to the region Richard Holbrooke as well. The ostensible reason for this would be to give Petraeus the opportunity to choose his own team. However, a shakeup of this scope would be something of an admission that things aren’t going as hoped in Afghanistan. Although this may be obvious, it is probably not an admission that Obama would want to make at this time. That the idea has been bandied about by some of the punditry, however, suggests that there is growing awareness of the problems we are facing in Afghanistan which cannot be easily ignored.
Obama spent much of 2009 seeking to determine an Afghanistan policy before deciding to send more troops. The latest round of events in Kabul and Washington demonstrate that policy is still not resolved. Regardless of whether or not Obama continues to change the leadership in Afghanistan, the sense that things are not going well there is not going to go away. The McChrystal firing provides Obama with an opportunity to revisit much of his Afghanistan policy. While radically changing course there because of McChrystal’s interview with Rolling Stone would be a mistake, using this moment to lay the groundwork for a policy shift would be wise.
The central problem Obama faces in Afghanistan is the same one he faced when he made his speech at West Point in December, or for that matter, when he took office in January of 2009. It is difficult to get out of Afghanistan today, but it will be more difficult to get out tomorrow. Thus the decision to get out requires the foresight to understand the real likelihood of things getting worse not better, as well as the wisdom to take the political consequences for getting out now rather than postponing them until later when those consequences will be greater. Given that a decision to withdraw troops will lead many on the far right to deem Obama a quitter, appeaser, soft on terror or other ad hominem attacks, there is added pressure on Obama not to withdraw from Afghanistan.
By postponing that decision, however, Obama will only create a more difficult dilemma later. The chances of Petraus turning the war around to the point where it will be possible to begin substantially drawing down troops beginning in mid-2011 is quite small. The problems in Afghanistan are not the kind that can be solved simply by changing American military leadership. Moreover, if this were the case, then McChrystal should have been fired months ago and not simply as a response to his recent poor media judgment.
Thus, it is likely that as the withdrawal date approaches, Obama will be faced with the same tough decision about whether or not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan which he confronts now. However, by mid-2011, this decision will be more difficult because failure to honor his commitment will raise the ire of many who opposed the initial buildup. They will argue, not without cause, that not only has Obama pursued the wrong policy in Afghanistan, but that he has broken his promises regarding the war as well.
Firing McChrystal was a relatively easy decision for Obama. Had he not done it, his authority, and that of the entire civilian government, over the war effort would have been brought into question. Unfortunately, the other decisions the President faces regarding Afghanistan are not as easy, but postponing them will only make those decisions harder.
More on Afghanistan
Afghanistan War News Updates — June 26, 2010
Jun 26th
Top U.S. Military Officer Visits Afghanistan After McChrystal’s Ouster — CNN
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — America’s top military officer was in Afghanistan on Saturday in a scheduled visit that took on new significance after Gen. Stanley McChrystal was removed from his position this week as commander of the Afghan war.
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said that he plans to discuss the shift in leadership with Afghan military and civilian officials.
Read more ….
More News On Afghanistan
US Military Chief to Reassure Afghans — Voice of America
US chief-of-staff in Kabul after McChrystal sacking — RFI
NATO reports foreign soldier killed in Afghanistan — AFP
NATO says three foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan – Hindustan Times/AFP
Military: Taliban commander, disguised as woman, shot dead — CNN
Senior Afghan Taliban killed: NATO — AFP
Blast Rocks Kabul’s Diplomatic Area — FOX News
Taliban Kill 9 Members of Minority in Ambush — New York Times
Afghan Questions Arise as Petraeus Takes Over — CBS News
Petraeus will review controversial rules of engagement — Stars And Stripes
Petraeus to Face Soldier Complaints Over War Rules — New York Times/AP
Petraeus will face complaints over rules to protect civilians — Boston.com
What Afghanistan lawmakers want General Petraeus to do — Christian Science Monitor
Afghanistan regrets McChrystal’s departure — ABC News (Australia)
Karzai Speaks Out vs. Drug Smuggling, Profiteering — New York Times/AP
Karzai Pressed to Move on Luring Low-Level Taliban to Lay Down Arms — New York Times
Why Obama Won’t Fire Richard Holbrooke—Despite a Growing Chorus Against Him — Newsweek
New Australian PM Reassures US on Afghanistan — Voice of America
UK’s Cameron wants Afghan pullout within five years — Reuters
Afghanistan’s only golf course: Bring your clubs and AK-47 – Christian Science Monitor
Afghanistan vows no corruption over mineral riches — Yahoo News/AFP
Afghan minerals mean ’self sufficiency’ in 10 years — BBC
Afghanistan Pledges ‘Transparency’ in Minerals Contracts — Voice of America
Now What?Can a new commander improve the dire situation in Afghanistan? — Fred Kaplan, Slate
Petraeus is a master tactician, but his greatest strength is on the political battlefield — Patrick Cockburn, The Independent
In Afghanistan, Petraeus will have difficulty replicating his Iraq success — Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post
Worse Than a Nightmare — Bob Herbert, New York Times
Afghanistan War News Updates — June 26, 2010 is a post from: News Updated Frequently
Afghanistan War News Updates — June 26, 2010
Jun 26th
Top U.S. Military Officer Visits Afghanistan After McChrystal’s Ouster — CNN
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — America’s top military officer was in Afghanistan on Saturday in a scheduled visit that took on new significance after Gen. Stanley McChrystal was removed from his position this week as commander of the Afghan war.
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said that he plans to discuss the shift in leadership with Afghan military and civilian officials.
Read more ….
More News On Afghanistan
US Military Chief to Reassure Afghans — Voice of America
US chief-of-staff in Kabul after McChrystal sacking — RFI
NATO reports foreign soldier killed in Afghanistan — AFP
NATO says three foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan – Hindustan Times/AFP
Military: Taliban commander, disguised as woman, shot dead — CNN
Senior Afghan Taliban killed: NATO — AFP
Blast Rocks Kabul’s Diplomatic Area — FOX News
Taliban Kill 9 Members of Minority in Ambush — New York Times
Afghan Questions Arise as Petraeus Takes Over — CBS News
Petraeus will review controversial rules of engagement — Stars And Stripes
Petraeus to Face Soldier Complaints Over War Rules — New York Times/AP
Petraeus will face complaints over rules to protect civilians — Boston.com
What Afghanistan lawmakers want General Petraeus to do — Christian Science Monitor
Afghanistan regrets McChrystal’s departure — ABC News (Australia)
Karzai Speaks Out vs. Drug Smuggling, Profiteering — New York Times/AP
Karzai Pressed to Move on Luring Low-Level Taliban to Lay Down Arms — New York Times
Why Obama Won’t Fire Richard Holbrooke—Despite a Growing Chorus Against Him — Newsweek
New Australian PM Reassures US on Afghanistan — Voice of America
UK’s Cameron wants Afghan pullout within five years — Reuters
Afghanistan’s only golf course: Bring your clubs and AK-47 – Christian Science Monitor
Afghanistan vows no corruption over mineral riches — Yahoo News/AFP
Afghan minerals mean ‘self sufficiency’ in 10 years — BBC
Afghanistan Pledges ‘Transparency’ in Minerals Contracts — Voice of America
Now What?Can a new commander improve the dire situation in Afghanistan? — Fred Kaplan, Slate
Petraeus is a master tactician, but his greatest strength is on the political battlefield — Patrick Cockburn, The Independent
In Afghanistan, Petraeus will have difficulty replicating his Iraq success — Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post
Worse Than a Nightmare — Bob Herbert, New York Times
Will President Obama Fire Anyone Else Involved In The Afghan War?
Jun 24th
Who Will Obama Sack Next? — BBC
McChrystal’s gone: who’s next?
In his speech announcing the general’s departure, President Barack Obama also gave other senior colleagues a dressing-down:
“I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation.”
Of course some of Gen Stanley McChrystal’s talkative team will go. But what about those civilians who had so annoyed the general? There’s the notably abrasive special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. And his former military boss, retired Gen Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Afghanistan.
Read more ….
Update: Lawmakers, Pundits Call for Obama to Oust Eikenberry, Holbrooke — CBS News
My Comment: President Obama will not fire anyone else …. to do so would only validate General McChrystal’s remarks that many in his government are incompetent and ill suited to be in the positions that they are in.
However …. even though President Obama and all the pundits are saying that the Afghan policy will not change, I do expect changes, and it will be General Petraeus who will be the instigator of these changes …. both in personnel and in policy. As to what exactly will be those changes …. that is the million dollar question, and one that we will probably learn in the months ahead.
But if I was to put my “prediction hat” …. I predict that the first big change will be the July, 2011 withdrawal date. This is not sustainable, and it only emboldens our enemies to continue the fight while discouraging our allies who now believe that we will cut and run. In the next month or two General Petraeus will make a statement that we will withdraw when the conditions on the ground makes it possible for us to withdraw …. nothing less and nothing more.
Update: Surprise, or no surprise …. Gen. David Petraeus nod reopens issue of withdrawal deadline …. or …. Gen. David Petraeus committed to troop deadline.
Applauding Petraeus Pick, Pundits Suggest Changes To Civilian Af/Pak Team
Jun 24th
by David Gura
As expected, plenty of analysts, bloggers and editorialists opined about President Obama’s decision to accept the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, replacing him with Gen. David Petraeus.
Several pieces center on what the president should do with his civilian team in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here is a sample of what has been written so far:
On his blog, The Best Defense, Tom Ricks notes that. “for the second time in three years, Gen. David Petraeus is bailing out a president.”
Our biggest problem in Afghanistan is the government we are supporting there, and it isn’t clear to me what Petraeus can do about that.
Putting Petraeus in command in Afghanistan is only the first step. Now, what about Ambassador Eikenberry and special envoy Holbrooke?
Ricks also had a piece on the opinion page of The New York Times, called “Lose a General, Win a War,” in which he makes the same point more forcefully:
Mr. Obama should then replace them with a team that has a single person clearly in control, with the power to hire and fire the others. And he should send that new group to Kabul with clear orders that they should get along, or expect to be relieved.
Fred Kaplan, writing for Slate, echoes Ricks. He argues that, “if U.S. policy isn’t going to change, [Gen. Karl] Eikenberry[, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan], too, should go,” adding “Richard Holbrooke should be sent packing, as well.”
He’s the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after he screamed at Karzai at one of their meetings, he’s no longer welcome at the palace in Kabul. (It took a trip by Sen. John Kerry and 300 cups of tea to settle the Afghan president down.) Holbrooke would have been canned a while ago, were it not for special pleading by his immediate boss and longtime friend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But, as Obama said today, “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president.” He should expand the list to include “a special envoy.”
According to H.D.S. Greenway, a columnist for The Boston Globe, “the military has reason to fear that its civilian masters lack its resolve.”
Consider that Obama’s special representative, Richard Holbrooke, said in March that US policy was to peel-off lower levels of Taliban commanders, but not negotiate with the leadership. Recently, however, he said that the policy had shifted and the United States was now in favor of “Afghan-led reconciliation efforts.’’
Arguing “no one is better qualified than General David Petraeus to replace his former deputy and run a counterinsurgency,” the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal said that “the larger questions now are whether the President can exert as much policy discipline over his civilian subordinates as he has on the military — and whether he’s willing to make a political investment in the war commensurate with military service.”
In naming General Petraeus, the President made an astute political and military choice. But there is also a hint here of a last stand, with the General again being put in the unenviable position of having to turn the tide of a failing war. The General might have been too deferential to make this point himself, but we hope he asked the President in return to give him all the support he needs to succeed.
The President could help on this score by deploying a civilian team to Afghanistan that gets along with their U.S. military counterparts and Afghanistan’s leaders. We like Senator John McCain’s suggestion to replace U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry — whose relationship with Mr. Karzai is as poisonous as his dealings were with General McChrystal — with former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Mr. Crocker, who also previously served as a highly effective U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, understands there is no diplomatic mileage to be gained by undercutting the very government the U.S. is seeking to shore up.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board also applauds the Petraeus pick, but wants to see proof that the American military’s strategy is working:
What worries us still is that the government has yet to present Americans with explicit, clearly articulated benchmarks for assessing progress in the war. With a year to go before the U.S. is scheduled to begin drawing down troops, we’ve seen no evidence that the counterinsurgency strategy that Obama endorsed again Wednesday is succeeding.