Mullen Agrees with Obama on Iraq, Afghanistan?
By Noah Shachtman July 03, 2008 | 11:02:00 AMCategories: Iraq's Insanity, Politricks, War Update
Did the country's top uniformed military leader endorse the Obama plan for Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday? In a briefing at the Pentagon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said he wants more troops in Afghanistan -- but can't get 'em until forces are taken out of Iraq:
Let me also say just a word about Afghanistan. I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there. The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate...
I've made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.
There's no easy solution, and there will be no quick fix. More troops are necessary, and some of our NATO allies have recently committed to sending more of their own, but they won't fully ever be sufficient. We need and are pursuing a broader interagency international approach, one that includes infrastructure improvement, foreign investment and economic incentives, and I'm hopeful these efforts will begin to pay off in the near future. But we all need to be patient. As we have seen in Iraq, counterinsurgency warfare takes time, and it takes a certain level of commitment. It takes flexibility.
Obviously, Mullen hasn't openly embraced Obama's call for a large-scale troops withdrawal. But, even so, the Chairman's remarks sound an awful lot like Barack Obama has been saying for a while, to my ears. Here's an example:
It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq... providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan. This increased commitment in turn can be used to leverage greater assistance - with fewer restrictions - from our NATO allies. It will also allow us to invest more in training Afghan security forces, including more joint NATO operations with the Afghan Army, and a national police training plan that is effectively coordinated and resourced.
A stepped up military commitment must be backed by a long-term investment in the Afghan people. We will start with an additional $1 billion in non military assistance each year - aid that is focused on reaching ordinary Afghans. We need to improve daily life by supporting education, basic infrastructure and human services. We have to counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. And we must call on more support from friends and allies, and better coordination under a strong international coordinator.
Funny, the other day you had team Obama endorsing a second term for Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Now you've got Mullen giving Obama cover for his positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hmmmmm...
Anyway, over at Abu Muquwama, "Dr. iRack" notes that Mullen has been making similar warnings about Afghanistan for months.
Talking heads like Michael O'Hanlon worry that that moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan might "throw away what you've been able to succeed in doing in one place in the hope that you might help a mission where you're having relative failure elsewhere." And, frankly, a drawdown makes me nervous, too. (Although, a little less so lately, since Iraqi forces have been stepping up.)
To Dr. iRack, "thinks this represents a false, zero-sum way of thinking.
Indeed, this is the danger of assuming that we need to max-out our presence in Iraq to "win" there (whatever that means), and not thinking about how a gradual, conditional redeployment from Iraq might be leveraged to generate success in Iraq and free up resources for Afghanistan. O'Hanlon and others who appear to share this view (including McCain) are stuck in the "all in" in Iraq until "victory" mode without a way to actually get there... or avoid defeat in Afghanistan.
Present satuation depicts that US did same mistake as Hitler did to open another front in Russia .US miltery and political leadership looking very much confused between two wars???