It's Time for Obama to Listen to his Military Instead of Complicating Its Job

The New York Times, followed by the rest of the media, are reporting that President Obama some weeks ago signed a new Afghanistan order that allows American forces to continue to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, and not just al-Qaida as ordered earlier by the President for the year 2015. The new order gives the US military a broader mission than Obama described publicly earlier this year, according to administration, military and congressional officials. It also once again frees American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troop combat missions. Obama administration planning for the US post-2014 mission was slowed by the political stalemate in Afghanistan earlier this year, when it took months for the winner of the country's presidential election to be certified, delaying the signing of the bilateral security agreement needed to keep US forces in the country after December. That is now behind us. ~~~~~ In the White House Rose Garden in May, Obama said the American military would have no combat role in Afghanistan next year and that the missions for the 9,800 remaining troops would be limited to training Afghan forces and hunting for the “remnants of al-Qaida.” The White House is trying to stay ahead of today's breaking story, saying that little was altered by the new Obama order. But, clearly, President Obama has decided to change the Afghanistan mission, after a long debate among White House and other administration factions. The two competing positions were the campaign promise Obama made to end the war in Afghanistan and the demands of the Pentagon that American troops be able to successfully fulfill their remaining Afghan missions. Obama had to make a decision because he had set the 13-year mission, Operation Enduring Freedom, to end on December 31. The internal discussions also had to reckon with this year’s collapse of Iraqi security forces in the face of the ISIS advance, and, according to the Times, the mistrust between the Pentagon and the White House caused by Obama’s 2009 decision to “surge” 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan, which the President’s civilian advisors say was made only because of excessive Pentagon pressure, while some military officials say it was half-baked and made with an eye to domestic politics. ~~~~~ Some of Obama's top civilian aides argued that American lives should not be put at risk in 2015 fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and that their role should be limited to counterterrorism and training Afghan troops. But, according to the Times, the military pushed back, and generals both at the Pentagon and in Afghanistan urged Obama to define the mission more broadly to allow American troops to attack the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other militants if intelligence revealed that they were threatening American forces. The President’s order would, under certain circumstances, also authorize American airstrikes to support Afghan military operations and permit US ground troops to accompany Afghan troops on operations against the Taliban. According to an American official who spoke to the Times : “There was a school of thought that wanted the mission to be very limited, focused solely on al-Qaida,... [but] the military pretty much got what it wanted.” ~~~~~ Yesterday, a senior administration official insisted that American forces would not carry out regular patrols or conduct offensive missions against the Taliban next year. “We will no longer target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban. To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to al-Qaida, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.” However, it seems likely that President Obama’s decision will, in effect, extend the current US military role in Afghanistan for another year. ~~~~~ The US military’s Afghanistan role and troop size in 2015 has been the subject of much debate, but recently two new factors appeared. First, there was the advance of ISIS forces across northern Iraq and the collapse of the Iraqi Army, resulting in criticism led by the GOP and Senator John McCain that Obama's 2011 Iraq troop pullout left Iraqi troops ill-prepared to protect Iraq by themselves and caused the rise of ISIS. It also intensified criticism of Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, which Republican and even some Democratic lawmakers have said presents an unrealistically compressed timeline that would hamper efforts to train and advise Afghan security forces, leaving them vulnerable to attack from Taliban fighters and other extremists, in a repeat of the Iraq mess. While Obama's new order could end that criticism, it is also likely to be attacked by some Democratic lawmakers who will say that President Obama allowed the military to dictate the terms of the endgame in Afghanistan. Second, with the transfer of power in Afghanistan to President Ashraf Ghani, there is far more acceptance of a larger American military mission in his country than was offered by his predecessor, President Karzai. According to a senior Afghan official interviewed by the Times, both President Ghani and his new national security advisor, Hanif Atmar, have requested that the US continue to fight Taliban forces in 2015, as opposed to being limited to operations against al-Qaida. Ghani also recently lifted the limits on US airstrikes and joint raids that Karzai had imposed, Afghan officials told the Times. And, the new Afghan president has already developed a close working relationship with General John F Campbell, the allied commander in Afghanistan. "The difference is night and day," General Campbell said in an email about the distinction between dealing with Ghani and Karzai. “President Ghani has reached out and embraced the international community. We have a strategic opportunity we haven’t had previously with President Karzai.” American military officials note that the easing of the limits on airstrikes imposed by Karzai is especially significant, even if the restrictions were not always honored. During the summer, Afghan generals occasionally ignored Karzai’s directive and requested American air support when their forces encountered trouble. Now, such subterfuge will not be necessary. One senior American military officer said that in light of President Obama’s decision, the Air Force expects to use F-16 fighters, B-1B bombers and Predator and Reaper drones to go after the Taliban in 2015. “Our plans are to maintain an offensive capability in Afghanistan,” he said, adding that he expects the Pentagon to issue an order in the next several weeks detailing the military’s role in Afghanistan in 2015 under Operation Resolute Support, the new name for the Afghanistan war. The Pentagon plans to take the lead role in advising and training Afghan forces in southern and eastern Afghanistan, with Italy also operating in the east, Germany in the north and Turkey in Kabul. ~~~~~ But by the end of next year, half the 9,800 American troops are still marked to leave Afghanistan, with those remaining consolidated in Kabul and Bagram and marked to leave by the end of 2016, allowing Obama to say he ended the Afghan war before leaving office. ~~~~~ Dear readers, it appears that President Obama has been saved from yet another major foreign policy/military blunder -- this time by new Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani. Obama's Afghanistan troop withdrawal decision has been characteristically reviewed for some time, but the US drawdown of forces and transition to an advice-and-support role has never been embraced by either the US military or congressional military experts. And now that the President has twice raised US troop strength in Iraq - officially at 3,900 - and indicated that circumstances could raise that number even more, we have to wonder if Obama's last remaining "legacy" imperative of ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is also in a shambles. Will President Obama take the sensible decision and let his successor make this critical call, unhampered by Obama's imposition of political goals into what is a vitally critical military-world order issue. The political component was for Obama a game of one-upsmanship over a man who was never his opponent or enemy - President George W. Bush. George Bush was right about keeping some troops in Iraq, as he was right about weapons of mass destruction. It is time for Barack Obama to make one last effort to be non-vindictive and unfettered by politics. In short, to be presidential. The future of the Middle East - and perhaps of the world - could depend on Obama's finally making one 'adult' decision as President -- by passing the Afghanistan decision-making to the next US President.