John Batchelor writes on his blog:
Very Limited Resources
John Bussey, WSJ, reports on the latest hot version from the DoD for the Afghanistan surge. Not eighty thousand, not forty thousand, not even the ten to fifteen thousand with an air fleet of Predator robots sweeping over the Khyber Pass in pursuit of Gunga Din’s heirs.
Instead the new magic number is 30-35 thousand, we are told (above), however the whole of the delivery will not come until the end of 2010. Does this mean that the Obama administration has disappointed the DoD? It does not. The Obama administration is dealing with the facts of an over-extended yet sophisticated military. My information is that General Casey does not want to continue the present rotation schedule of 12 months in the combat zone and 12 months out of the combat zone. The US Army has very limited resources to put into Afghanistan over the next six months to a year. Same for the Marine Corps, which is already heavily in-country.
Bluntly, we are down to the last of the trigger-pullers who are not already in either Iraq and Afghanistan. The redeployment from Iraq is critical, but it is not sufficient. Volunteer armies have natural limits.
Blame What?
AfPakia is a NATO effort with UN assistance, and the facts demonstrate that neither NATO nor the UN are contributing effectively or generously. AfPakia is also not the center of the struggle. In sum, the Obama administration is committing the US to a disproportionate combat role in a non-strategic combat theater. Afghanistan is an extension of Pakistan. The manipulation and bloody-mindedness in Pakistan mean that there can be no solution or even effective management at Kabul and in the Pashtun regions until and if Islamabad is stable and trustworthy. There is the possibility that Pakistan is now in the control of the enemy. By enemy, I mean the Wahhabists of Arabia. The one and only ally the Taliban had back into the 1990s when it overran Afghanistan was the House of Al-Saud. Nothing has changed. It is not an endgame, but it is a strong move to presently blame the wretchedness of Islamabad and Kabul on the House of Al-Saud.
McChrystal
The McChrystal plan in AfPakia was never one thing or another; it is a work in progress for what can be done with the resources available. In the event of a disaster in Kabul or Islamabad (Jihadist coup), nothing will be enough. My information is that this is not about politics. It is strategy.
As long as the US maintains Riyadh as an ally, we will have trouble in Jerusalem and Kabul and Islamabad. As long as the US treats Tehran as a hostile state that can be managed with diplomacy, there will be trouble in Gaza and Beirut and Baghdad and the Gulf.
Surge lite in Afghanistan answers none of the critical questions. It doesn’t even solve Al Qaeda. The road to Bin Laden and his kindred of Cain begins in Riyadh, at Abdullah’s palace, at Abdullah’s desk.
It is being reported today that Obama has rejected all four options given to him re: More troops to Afghanistan.
Waffles anyone?
Alternate headline: “Obama votes present.”
President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That push follows strong reservations about a possible troop buildup expressed by the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
Again, it’s all too easy to make political hay. Seems like an impossible situation for any third party. Pakistan will fall (or has fallen). Pakistan has nukes. Should that be a worry for us? Probably, especially if everything we do only makes things worse all around.
Everything that’s happening would be so much easier if we could just trust our leadership. There’s a difference between marching on Washington on a sunny day, knowing we’ll be back home for supper that same evening, and being just plain afraid – whether we march or not. I don’t think the American people are so much worried about what goes on overseas. I think what they’re worried about is a lot closer to home.
Why is it that we’re so involved in everything? What’s happened to the Russians or the Chinese – or Europe for that matter? What’s happened to Brazil? What’s happened to our great communicator? Why can’t he sit down with any of these others and say, “You handle it. We’ll help if we can. Surely you too live on this planet. Surely you too have a stake in this.”? If I’m not wrong, this is precisely what he campaigned on – and what we voted for.