About That Timeline For Withdrawal Posted by Michael Cohen

Joe Klein picks up what seems to be a new meme about Afghanistan - that President Obama's 18-month timeline for withdrawal is hamstringing the military's efforts:

There are increasing grumblings about the timetable set by Obama, which would begin troop withdrawals in July 2011. "It's like fighting with both arms tied behind your back," a former senior military official told me.

This is a particularly insidious and dangerous argument and its fundamentally wrong on two key levels. First, there is this excerpt from Jonathon Alter's new book about Obama's Presidency:

Obama asked Petraeus, “David, tell me now. I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?”

“Sir, I’m confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame,” Petraeus replied.

“Good. No problem,” the president said. “If you can’t do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?”

Right? I have no doubt that parts of Alter's article might be exaggerated but I'm hard-pressed to believe that there is no kernel of truth to this anecdote. If Petraeus signed off on meeting the president's goal in 18 months no one in the armed forces has leg to stand on in criticizing the President . . . of course General Petraeus is a different issue.

Second, despite these clarifications the military is following through on a strategy that is incredibly time and resource-intensive (population-centric counter-insurgency) and it is sending troops to locales like Helmand and Kandahar that will be the absolute hardest to turn over to Afghan government control by June 2011. Namely it is perhaps the worst possible approach when you are operating under an 18-month timeline for commencing troop withdrawals.

The simple fact is that the military strategy should be predicated on the president's timeline for withdrawal - and if the top generals didn't think it was possible to accomplish that goal in the time frame given . . . well they should have said to. Complaining off the record to reporters is pretty unbecoming. The bottom line is that if the military doesn't like President Obama's June 2011 timetable they have no one to blame but themselves.

Comments

[Rich Ganske]

DA-- Admitably, I normally do not agree with the worldview prevalent of your writers, however, your points do enable a certain level of assessment of my presuppositions. That I have always appreciated and is the reason why I read you. But I was compelled by Mr. Cohen's latest preference for snarkiness over deep-concern, logic, and thoughtfulness.

I do have to say that this is the most puerile publication, by far, I have ever read by your staff. Mr. Cohen is equivocating a certain level of childishness in his points regarding the success of the strategy in Afghanistan. Please let me explain:

First, Mr. Cohen is correct to assume that Gen Petraeus must be held accountable for "agreeing" to this timeline. However, being a professional, if things are not working out -- most would prefer that Gen Petraeus (as Mr. Cohen is apt to prefer him as the embodiment of a whole groupthink full of a unified combatant command) suffer the pains of pride in admission that the timeline is not working rather than allowing the situation to proceed to the further ridiculous. Certainly, Mr. Cohen can see the logic in that! The General may, and in fact should, change his mind if given new information should that affect the practicality of the timeline. After all, short of Petraeus' clone being mass-produced he can't go there and train the Afghan army by himself, can he?

Second, on the population-centric strategy, what other course of action was realistically available? The US/NATO coalition could have chosen an enemy-centric strategy, but considering the limits of our "smart power" in effect to a greater Af-Pak security, that's certainly just as unreasonable! Even if the unprecedented Pak pin-prick RPA-strikes continue, one only needs to have a short grasp of history to remember how an air-only campaign in former-Yugoslavia did not produce the results desired.

More deeply, this is where Mr. Cohen speaks out of both sides of his mouth: he'll criticize Max Boot's praise for the population-centric strategy for the length of time it requires, but Mr. Cohen then also laments the military leadership's unease over the "agreed" (pinky-sweared?) timeline. Well, which would you prefer Mr. Cohen, reassessment of the capabilities/timeliness of the population-centric strategy, or blind yet strict adherence to the timeline? Methinks Mr. Cohen doth protest too much and has tipped his hat. Time to knock the dust off of your copy of McMaster's Dereliction of Duty, Mr. Cohen.

Finally, and possibly even more telling of Mr. Cohen's objectivity is his lament, "[c]omplaining off the record to reporters is pretty unbecoming." How very opportunistic, when the news suits you, you have justified the leaks tacitly or otherwise, but now you wish your Generals to march our Afghan efforts into the darkness of failure.

[Breitling]

With so many games streaming data from the HAZEL on the fly. The methodology for the tests was remarkably straight for ward first from HAZEL DVD, then from hard disk. As the opportunity to install to HAZEL DVD COLLECTION is obviously a compelling argument for upgrading the hard disk.HERE'S LUCY

[r4 card]

Don't you think that Joe Klein is a joke; he endorsed, even participated, in dissent against Bush, but now, teh One is in charge so anyone who dissents is seditious.

[Grand Fantasia Online Gold]

The game is a very fun game and today I want to say elements in Grand Fantasia Online Gold. Grand Fantasia Gold is still planning to come to heap more defenses. It is worth mentioning slugger these magic skills and buy Grand Fantasia Gold, although there are hell, but the injury due to high bursts of high obviously, more anti-artillery elements in the help of Grand Fantasia money. I hope to buy cheap Grand Online Fantasia Gold.

[monday]

This super video converter for mac is developed by Emicsoft Studio, it is currently the best video converter running under Mac os x, comparied by isqunite, Visualhub and other Free video converter for Mac, This video converter for Mac is more stable in converting video files and support more video formats.
thank you for sharing the post!it is good !
Convert VOB to AVI MAC
Convert FLV to AVI MAC
Convert MOV to AVI MAC
Convert WMV to AVI MAC
Convert MP4 to AVI MAC
Convert 3GP to AVI MAC
Convert MPEG to AVI MAC
Convert M4V to AVI MAC

[Jackson]

You are seeking what is it? Happy, healthy, happy, or much, much more! Please come with me, hope this can be found inside you want it!
http://joe060701.typepad.com/