[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: Cutting to heart of Obama's dilemma: 'Can the war be won?' Cutting to heart of Obama's dilemma: 'Can the war be won?' Wed Jun 23, 5:36 pm ET As President Obama concluded his Rose Garden statement revealing that he had replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top American commander in Afghanistan, a reporter shouted an impromptu question. "Can the war be won?" he yelled. The president didn't answer — perhaps because he doesn't know. You can watch the non-answer here. (Video courtesy of ABC News.) The moment comes as the president starts to walk away: [Profile: McChrystal spoke his mind once too often] Obama is trying to stick to a July 2011 deadline to draw down troops in Afghanistan — but the McChrystal flap was the latest setback for an administration trying desperately to regain momentum in a conflict that's grown increasingly harder to manage as it loses public support back home. Obama's choice of Gen. David Petraeus, who is already overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as head of U.S. Central Command, will at the very least contain much of the political fallout from McChrystal's firing. Petraeus, an architect of the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, is widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. His appointment will no doubt buy the White House some time politically as it fends off growing criticism from Congress over how the Afghanistan war is being prosecuted. But with American casualties rising and no clear victory in sight, that breathing spell may prove short-lived. Obama emphasized that his announcement is a "change in personnel but ... not a change in policy." As the president noted, Petraeus is both an architect and a supporter of the strategy the U.S. is pursuing in Afghanistan. [Photos: Gen. McChrystal removed from duty] But continuity at the top may not help the president close ranks among his civilian advisers — a stubborn source of tension ever since the president came into office 18 months ago. Obama has been dogged again and again by the very public squabbling on war strategy among administration officials — indeed, the swipes that McChrystal took in his now-infamous Rolling Stone interview at figures such as Vice President Joe Biden bear witness to that ongoing fractious mood. And all this dissension prompted the obvious question: If Obama can't control his staff, how can he win the war? It's no secret to Obama that his reputation as a leader is on the line. In light of the McChrystal drama, Obama told reporters Wednesday that he had reminded members of his national security team that they needed to work together if they are ever to achieve success in Afghanistan. [Was Obama looking for more rear ends to kick?] In describing his decision to let McChrystal go, Obama said it wasn't about "personal insult" but more about trust. The general's behavior had undermined trust, among the troops and among his team. "War is bigger than any one man or woman," Obama said. Coming together, he said, was essential: "Doing so is not an option, but an obligation," the president warned. "I will not tolerate division." [Read Obama's remarks in full] Obama's ability to enforce that edict by getting his own staff under control could mean the difference between winning and losing a war he was reluctant to fight in the first place. And surmounting this challenge could reassure a growing chorus of critics that he has made the Afghan conflict his responsibility. — Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#2. To: Badeye (#0)
That's the $64k question. History shows us that it's not possible for a foreign country to win a war in Afghanistan. I listened to a retired Col. on Fox News yesterday (wanted to get the Fox perspective on the McChrystal firing). He argued that while McChrystal was a great leader, his tactics were doomed to fail in Afghanistan. His point was that Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, never had a strong central government and thus copying the Iraq model wasn't going to work. Instead, the only workable strategy, in his view, is to simply attack the Taliban wherever they are rather than focus on "winning hearts and minds" (he endorsed Biden's approach of a limited military role focused on attacking Taliban/AQ camps). I'm not sure if he's right or not, but I don't have a whole lot of faith in the idea of sending massive numbers of troops into Afghanistan.
Thanks for the summary.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|