Subscribe to The Spectator

Saturday 26 May 2012

Latest issue

Buy the current issue

Jobs at Telegraph

Sunday, 30th May 2010

War, Statesmen and Soldiers

Daniel Korski 11:46am

Fifteen days ago Newsweek had an extract, no not from Alistair Campbell’s diaries, but about something that actually matters – Jonathan Alter’s book about President Obama’s AfPak strategy. I have only just read it – apologies -- but a soggy May weekend is just the time to snuggle up on a sofa and read about warfare.

Alter charts the discussions in the ten meetings on last year in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House when the Obama administration settled on a new strategy. Three things spring to mind when reading the passages. First, that the maintenance of civilian control over the military is not automatic; it is a constant struggle, particularly in a media-lacked environment. There is a lesson for David Cameron here, as the MoD will be asked to make serious cuts in defence programmes and senior officers will be tempted to use the media to win favours. Apparently Liam Fox has told the Service chiefs to keep schtum – a wise move. 

The second thing is how thorough a review of policy the US president undertook. I hope that the Conservative-Liberal government does the same – takes time, consider all the options and delivers a strategy that is genuine theirs. Finally, and perhaps most depressingly, the passages in the book show that even when the brightest people, with the best information spend time on an issue, what they decide can quickly come undone. I was particularly struck by this passage:

'When he spoke to [General Stanley] McChrystal by teleconference, Obama couldn’t have been clearer in his instructions. “Do not occupy what you cannot transfer,” the president ordered. In a later call he said it again: “Do not occupy what you cannot transfer.” He didn’t want the United States moving into a section of the country unless it was to prepare for transferring security responsibilities to the Afghans. The troops should dig wells and pass out seeds and all the other development ideas they had talked about for months, but if he learned that U.S. soldiers had been camped in a town without any timetable for transfer of authority he wasn’t going to be happy.'

But nine months after the conversation, it is hard to see the kind of hand-over that the US president had in mind. The operation in Marjah was supposed to be the first blow in a campaign to oust the Taliban from Kandahar province. But visiting Marjah and the Nad Ali district recently, General McChrystal seems to have done exactly what his Commander-in-Chief, according to Alter, did not want. In the words of a visiting reporter, the visit drove “home the hard fact that President Barack Obama's plan to begin pulling American troops out of Afghanistan in July 2011 is colliding with the realities of the war.”

Filed under: Afghanistan (339 more articles) , Armed forces (104 more articles) , Barack Obama (257 more articles) , Foreign Policy (318 more articles) , General McCrystal (10 more articles) , International politics (738 more articles) , US politics (319 more articles)

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Melanie Phillips | Faith Based | Cappuccino Culture

Actions: Email to a friend  |   Permalink   |   Comments (5) | Subscribe

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments Post comment

King Prawn

May 30th, 2010 12:39pm Report this comment

If Obama wants to win this war then he has to show that Afghan populace that the US and its allies will be there for the long term. That way they will stick by the coalition and not go to the Taliban.

Move in and then transferis not going to cut the mustard.

Augustus

May 30th, 2010 1:13pm Report this comment

I don't think Obama & Co. has ever cared that much about winning the war at all. They care about how they look. How they are perceived. In Obama's world he succeeds if the world loves him, and he won't change course from that. One of the great qualities
in George Bush was that he didn't give a damn about how he looked or how the polls were turning. He knew he had to win and gave the experts what they needed. The White House now has the exact opposite: An administration with no real commitment to succeed.

porkbelly

May 31st, 2010 12:00am Report this comment

Surely the goal should be to first defeat the enemy and then worry about power transfer? Surely our forces should be digging graves the enemy instead of wells, and passing out shrouds instead of seeds? Alas Obama is so keen to get out of Afghanistan he has made it clear to the Taliban they have only to fight on and in the end, as they always do, the foreigners will turn tail. He (and the rest of NATO) seem to have an ideological aversion to the very concept of victory.

maddy1

May 31st, 2010 6:14am Report this comment

Who needs enemies when we have the Red Cross and the UN!

Cormac Lucey

May 31st, 2010 12:54pm Report this comment

Afghanistan just cannot be shrink-wrapped to permit an easy withdrawal as Obama thinks. It's too large, too fractured and too divided.

The Iraq surge strategy - win enough ground militarily to permit a politically sustainable retreat - will not therefore work.

The broad options are (i) stay and bleed or (ii) cut and run.

The likely outcome in reality is be that Obama will adhere publicly to his enunciated strategy of mimicking the surge but prepare privately for a cut and run after he has been re-elected to the White House.

Post comment

Back to top

Cartoons

Tag Cloud

Coffee House archive

sponsored links

Spectator recommends

Spectator classifieds

THE PRESENT FINDER

1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk

OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS

Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844

RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings

62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk