The perspectives offered Tuesday in reporter Lily Gordon’s “Weighing In: Local former military leaders give their thoughts on Afghanistan” reflect a debate inevitable in a republic where the military, by the Founders’ design, answers to civilian authority.
The soldiers understand, and generally agree with, the soldiers’ points of view; former Fort Benning Commander Lt. Gen. Sam Wetzel no doubt spoke accurately and for many when he observed that “the commander in the field, he knows what the hell’s going on better than the politicians in Washington.”
From a military standpoint … absolutely. But policy and tactics are not the same thing. The field commander’s concern is the former; the president and Congress must concern themselves with both.
What is in question is not the ability or judgment of Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, who in August proposed a strategy requiring an additional 40,000 U.S. troops. President Barack Obama is surely aware — or surely ought to be — of the lingering consequences of the previous administration’s failure to heed recommendations of another general concerning troop strength and clearly defined objectives in Iraq.
Rather, what Obama is having to decide is just what U.S. objectives in Afghanistan should be. This might have been President George W. Bush’s war when Obama was a candidate, but it’s this president’s war now.
Another former Benning commander, Maj. Gen. Kenneth Leuer, sounded a note of, if not caution, at least discretion when he said the president must determine what such a troop increase could achieve. Leuer also noted that the delay probably had a lot to do with waiting for the outcome of the just-completed Afghan elections, and an assessment of whether that country itself will “unite in an effort to defeat the Taliban and rid itself of terrorists.”
Yet another former Benning commander, Carmen Cavezza, raised the issue of other factors at work in the president’s decision, such as seeking troop support from NATO.
Eight years of engagement, first in Afghanistan and then Iraq, have left Americans understandably weary of the dreadful human and economic toll of war. Many are impatient not just for resolution, but for the president to make a decision. Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently accused Obama of “dithering” on Afghanistan, and many agree. Yet commentator George Will, in a column otherwise harshly critical of the president’s handling of foreign policy (the column will appear in these pages on Monday), credited Obama for “rightly ignoring those who cannot distinguish thinking from dithering.” There’s a lot for the president to think about, and the stakes, it should go without saying, are huge.
The so-called Powell Doctrine should be invoked here: A clearly articulated objective, a timetable and an exit strategy. Another open-ended war is more than most Americans can bear.
— Dusty Nix, for the editorial board
E-Mail
Print
@Nyx.CommentBody@