High Expectations Are Good

This is an interesting discussion at Danger Room regarding the 60 Minutes revelation that General McChrystal and President Barack Obama had only spoken once prior to today's meeting. Read the Danger Room article and come back...

I think Professor Mark Grimsley is wrong, and I think both Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Michael E. O’Hanlon are right.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said:

“I agree with President Obama in his approach — strategy first, then resources,” Mr. Rasmussen told reporters in the Oval Office. “The first thing is not numbers. It is to find and fine-tune the right approach to implement the strategy already laid down.”

Mr. Rasmussen is exactly right, but the question is what kind of strategy is being examined. This is war, so the answer should be military strategy. The revelation that President Obama has not talked with General McChrystal leaves the impression the President is treating the situation as political strategy. That perception of political strategy for Afghanistan instead of military strategy for Afghanistan being the focus of the President is the first reason why Professor Mark Grimsley's analysis is off. When it comes to leadership, particularly political leaders, perception matters a lot - as the talks with Iran today will prove.

Michael E. O’Hanlon said:

“I don’t think I can defend him for being out of touch with his commander,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. “He has other people who advise him. But there’s no one else with the feel on the ground that McChrystal has.”

Exactly right. We live in the Information Age, so there is no excuse for anyone with resources and responsibility, like the President of the United States in wartime for example, not to be the most informed person in the room. Talking to the folks on the front lines would seem a logical approach to being informed about a war. Professor Mark Grimsley attempts to make a comparison between being informed and micro-management. I think these are apples and oranges comparisons.

I also don't think President Obama is in danger of being accused of micro-managing any policies so far in his presidency. In fact, the legitimate criticism he appears to be taking from all sides, including his base on health care, is that he doesn't give the impression he is engaged enough. I think the criticism is very legitimate. We should have high expectations from our political leaders.

I also want to add one last thing here. Do you sense the real debate regarding Afghanistan? I do. To COIN or not to COIN... isn't that the question? This is the discussion that never happened before Iraq in 2003. It feels icky and looks ugly, and the Presidents political opponents even call it political dithering... but taking a bit of time to debate the war is a very good and healthy thing for America, because I think it helps insure everyone has a clear picture of the consequences and commitment that comes with each of the choices the President must make.

This isn't dithering, it is what it looks like when you don't make haste of decisions regarding war. Dithering would have been legitimate criticism had the President not bought time with an Afghanistan surge up to 60,000 troops earlier this year, a surge that btw has yet to hit the battlefield in full yet.

Pashtun rebels and the Taliban have been fighting in the same ~200 districts of Afghanistan all summer. The fighting has not expanded out of those ~200 districts. That suggests we now have a better understanding of the limits of Pushtun reach in Afghanistan. The summer has defined what the battlefield terrain in Afghanistan is. I think that is an important detail in the development of a military strategy for Afghanistan.