From the very beginning, sensible leaders have noted that it was counter-productive to tell the enemy that there would be a drawdown before Our Troops even arrived to the battlefield. The current administration announced a drawdown at the same time that it finally announced a decision to half-heartedly provide some of the resources the battlefield commander stated he needed to turn the War in Afghanistan around. We later learned from Bob Woodward that retreat from Afghanistan was his desire from day 1. All the campaign rhetoric about making Afghanistan his number one priority was just that: campaign rhetoric.
For the last year, battlefield commanders have noted that it is difficult to attain the trust of local leaders with the millstone of withdrawal pending in July 2011. It seemed last week that the Administration had finally acknowledged that the July 2011 drawdown was untenable. Secretary Gates (Defense) and Secretary Clinton (State) sat together while they stated that such a drawdown would be foolish thinking on the part of the enemy. Today, Holbrooke states the Retreat will begin in July of 2011. He calls it a "Turning Point" for Lisbon's NATO Meeting.
In August, President Karzai told a Congressional Delegation that the looming drawdown was "boosting enemy morale" and General Conway said it was probably "giving the enemy sustenance." At his June confirmation hearings for his demotion, General Petraeus noted that it caused a compressed timeline, that Our Troops were working extra hard to get more done in the shorter timeline, and that the enemy likely interpreted it as a chance to "wait us out."
Last week, the Council for Foreign Relations, a liberal organization tried to give the effort "non-partisan" support by claiming that whether the Surge has been a success or a failure, it is an excuse to retreat.
Perhaps, the most established position of this administration is defined by Holbrooke in testimony to the Senate when he stated that the drawdown will proceed in July 2011, based on conditions on the ground. Of course, he also noted that we have serious National Security concerns in Afghanistan. It was the kind of political doublespeak that noted that no matter what happens, the administration will claim "conditions on the ground" warrant a drawdown as promised by the POTUS in his half-stepped support of the General that voted for him and that he fired for words he didn't say.
Secretary Gates is a politician who does the bidding of his boss. As far as politicians go, he's more honest than most, but he's still a politician. He probably believes what he's saying, that July 2011 is not the start of the drawdown. Despite his own advise, he seems to be a "yes man."
Secretary Clinton is a die-hard politician. She's more honest than her husband and she seems to be one of the most level-headed members of the administration (which isn't saying much), but she's also a politician. Holbrooke is her subordinate, and she's not known for taking kindly to dissent by subordinates. This presents a number of possibilities:
1) He's saying what she's told him to say. He was a big-wig in her husband's administration.
2) He's saying what the POTUS has expressed to him. He does seem to be more aligned with the administration than is his boss. In the early days, they sent her on errand runs while putting him in the spotlight.
3) There is as much confusion inside the administration as in their official statements.
4) The POTUS is telling everyone what they want to hear.
Holbrooke is a pompous idiot that has done great damage to relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan from day one, while believing himself the smartest man in the State Department. His position itself is an afront to Afghanistan, as it implies that Afghanistan is nothing more than a part of Pakistan. It undermines the Ambassadors of both countries as well as the Secretary of State. He has continously made public demands that the two nations obey his dictates, which undermines their ability to claim sovereignity to their own people.
Eikenberry is an equally arrogantly ignorant idiot with no clue how to lead nor how to be a diplomat. He failed as a General in Afghanistan and he has failed as a diplomat. He has consistently undermined the General in Command of Afghanistan and is as much of a source of the problem as the POTUS and Holbrooke. Eikenberry has claimed that this war needed to be handed over to civilians. He has touted the tripling of civilians in Afghanistan since 2009. Indeed, they now number in the thousands, rather than hundreds, during the same time that the Military deployed tens of thousands and demonstrated operational successes.
A source who knows Karzai tells me that the President often expressed frustration with the various delegations (diplomatic/military) that visited him demanding opposite things. Based on what this Administration is telling its own subordinates and the media, one can only expect that Karzai is even more frustrated with the American delegations alone, not to mention the other internationals that parade through his office.
It is long past time, that the POTUS clearly articulates his actual positions on Afghanistan. I don't think he's ever said what he actually intended, not from day one on the campaign trail, when he told us that his opposition to winning in Iraq was that Afghanistan was the "just war" and that he would make it his number one priority.
Mr President, it is time for you to come clean with the American People. It is time for you to get your subordinates on the same page. Telling the enemy when we are going to leave is just as wrong in Afghanistan as it was in Iraq. It is time for you to take your political aspirations out of decision making of the lives of Our Troops. It is time for you to listen to your Generals. It is time that you place defeating America's enemies higher than defeating your political enemies. Ask the Military what they need to achieve Victory in Afghanistan, and give them the tools and your political backing to do it. Karzai is NOT your servant, but Holbrooke is.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama chose to disregard the situation on the ground in favor of a 4 year plan of retreat, announced at the Lisbon Meeting of NATO.
Stumble It!
