In his article, Dan De Luce depicts President Barack Obama’s “bind” over the current United States campaign in Afghanistan. He has found himself between a rock and a hard spot while he attempts to work between his military cabinet and his coveted public opinion. Despite the opinions of the top US military leaders, the President has denied the request “for a major troop build-up” in the Afghan nation, perhaps for fear of being grouped with his predecessor. However the war council remains persistent in its efforts to send the necessary ground force, in order to ensure that the mission does not end in failure.
It is known that under former President George W. Bush, “military leaders bowed to White House demands for a small invasion force,” which resulted in terrible consequences. For this reason, military commanders unanimously agree with a “counter-insurgency doctrine,” calling for an increased number of personnel. This larger force will be used to provide security for the local population and in turn earn their trust. Although the current 65,000 troop force remains strong, casualties have risen due to the recent spread of insurgency, and yet skeptics on the left still propose a freeze or even a reduction in troops. General McChrystal has denoted these ideas as “half-measures,” and was quoted saying “you can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.” Top US military officer Admiral Mike Mullen and his counterpart in this debate, General David Petraeus, endorse the “manpower-intensive strategy.”
The fact remains that if President Obama attempts to minimize the United State’s presence in Afghanistan, and declines the request for the necessary invasion force, he will be “rejecting the advice of the US military.” This action would raise the political stakes of the decision and will be paid in the blood of the United States Military. Is it worth it for him to retain his precious public image?
No comments:
Post a Comment