Ambassador Eikenberry Dissents from Troop Surge Consensus
Before being appointed U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry was a Lieutenant-General in the Army. That gives him perhaps an unusual sense of his own ability to make recommendations about military policy in the country. Recommendations that Greg Jaffe, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung are at odds with the idea of sending more troops:
The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week 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.
Spencer Ackerman reports that there’s considerable anger at the way this got leaked to the Washington Post but at the same time Eikenberry’s concerns are being taken seriously and the process seems to have been a bit derailed:
Despite the dissatisfaction with Eikenberry’s apparent leak, according to the staffer, Obama “demanded” an exit strategy for the war “after Eikenberry’s cables.” Certain members of the NSC dialed into the conference from the Fort Bragg, N.C. headquarters of the Joint Special Operations Command, which is playing a large if underreported role in shaping Afghanistan strategy. It would appear that much remains fluid in the administration’s strategy debates.
Helene Cooper has a good piece in the New York Times on the related issue that unless the United States is prepared to withdraw under some circumstances we have little practical leverage over Hamid Karzai. I think you can make the case that the alleged need to have Karzai clean up his act is overstated, but I think it’s true that if it’s genuinely necessary to get him to clean up his act then an unconditional commitment to pour more resources into the country is a poor way to produce that outcome.
15 Responses to “Ambassador Eikenberry Dissents from Troop Surge Consensus”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Why do they assume that Karzai has the ability to clean up corruption in the Afghan government? He may sit on top of the system, but that doesn’t mean he can bend it to his will.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“classified cables”? How quaint.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:26 am
How much of a consensus could there have been, if it doesn’t include the president and vice-president?
I think this “consensus” was one of those things that get made up by “sources” who pretend to know more than they actually do, and journalists who believe them.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:27 am
…sort of like Obama’s long-assumed (in some quarters, anyway) sellout on the public option.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Now THIS guy is a guy to call a patriot. Matthew Hoh, on the other hand, is a quitter. I thought Marines didn’t quit.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Oh I get it. It’s OK if McCrystal regularly leaks his Occupation Forevah! strategy, with some light slaps on the wrist, but the WH gets really angry if someone dissents from the more-troops line and tells the press about it. Alrighty then!
November 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Obama plays everything close to the vest.
Like his desire to keep hidden rendition bases and the state secret defense. Who knew?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Considerable anger at how this got leaked? That’s coming from the people who leaked McChrsytal’s report. I guess hypocrisy is alive and well. It’s all a textbook case of how leaks work.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Well, he doesn’t actually have to tackle the corruption, he just needs to do a little dance, maybe appoint a commission, that would allow surgebackers to claim that this time Karzai has really committed to being on the ball. (How’s his brother doing?)
November 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
1) I think that the most important thing Obama needs to keep in mind is that sending US soldiers to their deaths is only justified if it is necessary to defend the United States.
2) So he needs to focus on defining the threat to America, defining what is needed to subdue that threat, and defining what is needed to accomplish that task. Including hitting the sweet spot between lower risk versus higher costs (in lives and money).
3) Afghanistan is a hopeless shithole and has been fractured among various factions for centuries. It is hard to see how it could ever be a significant threat to us. All we need is a few bases that let us got out and bitchslap the remments of Al Qaeda on occasion. We will always be able to buy off at least one faction in Afghanistan to do that.
Kinda like how we keep our inner cities under control. If we can’t control corruption and crime in the Washington DC government, what makes us think we are going to do it in Kabul? In reality, we don’t even try –because there is no profit in reform past a certain point. We just keep the lid on.
4) Plus our armed occupation and support of Karzai is just going to recruit MORE support for Al Qaeda in other areas of the world that we are neglecting in the meantime.
Meanwhile, the Chinese laugh their asses off at us as they grow stronger year after year.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Do we really use ‘classified cables’? Really? Or is this some journalists inner cold-warrior/noir fiction writer coming out?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Do we really use ‘classified cables’? Really? Or is this some journalists inner cold-warrior/noir fiction writer coming out?
Really.
Although it’s just a fancy way of saying ‘classified message traffic’ and is normally distrubuted as an email to your Outlook.
The distiguishing characteristic between it and just plain old email is that it’s serialized and only certain people have release authority (similar to military record message traffic – and that too goes via the (classifed) internets and email as much if not more than ‘radio’)
November 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Great to see one leaker waging a leak war- on the side of the angels- with another (the insubordinate Gen. McWarCriminal). Unilateral disarmament isn’t a good idea where leaks are concerned, either.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I like to quote A.J.P. Taylor on this kind of situation:
When one state is completely dependent on another, it is the weaker which can call the tune: it can threaten to collapse unless supported, and its protector has no answering threat in return.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:03 am
[...] the dose and mix of military intervention is a prescription to do more harm on a massive scale. Matthew Yglesias | I think you can make the case that the alleged need to have Karzai clean up his act is [...]