Afghan Escalation: Eikenberry Dissents, Obama Feels Railroaded By Military

By Steve Hynd

Just as it seemed that all was hunky for the escalationists, US ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry has stuck his oar in the works. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post have the leaked story of secret cables from Eikenberry to the White House:

expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said.

...After a top-level meeting on the issue Wednesday afternoon -- Obama's eighth since early last month -- the White House issued a statement that appeared to reflect Eikenberry's concerns.

"The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended," the statement said. "After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time."

There's an easy way to do that. Announce a timetable for a phased and responsible withdrawal. It looks like the White House might get there before the Center for American Progress think tank, which did so much work to say such a timetable was essential in Iraq but hasn't said squeak about it for Afghanistan.

Obama is said to have felt "rushed and railroaded" by the military, and Eikenberry's dissent came at just the right time to ensure Obama would reject the current set of four options leaked by pro-escalationists. He's now apparently told them to go back to the drawing board, although some form of troop increase is still said to be on the cards. McChrystal is "fuming", says the BBC, because Eikenberry has rained on his parade.

Oh, and apparently the review has already decided that the Taliban cannot be defeated outright, simply contained and diminished so that it can't overthrow the Kabul central government. So much for the hawkish rhetoric on that one.

Update: Michael Cohen notes that:

the Times advances the story even further:

General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces.

. . . Pentagon officials said the low-end option of 10,000 to 15,000 more troops would mean little or no significant increase in American combat forces in Afghanistan. The bulk of the additional forces would go to train the Afghan Army, with a smaller number focused on hunting and killing terrorists, the officials said.The low-end option would essentially reject the more ambitious counterinsurgency strategy envisioned by General McChrystal, which calls for a large number of forces to protect the Afghan population, work on development projects and build up the country�s civil institutions.

I'm really not sure what to make of all this; the leaking that is going on here is just ridiculous. It's very possible that this is a trial balloon meant to light a fire under Karzai . But honestly I don't think so. Instead, I think President Obama is taking charge of his Afghan policy in a significant and long overdue way - and more important, standing up to his generals and national security advisors who seem to want to shoot first and ask questions later.

So, probably a smallish surge focussed on training the Afghan national security forces and a timetable designed to get the Afghan government to face the prospect of standing on its own.