Barack Obama is looking for alternatives to stepping up the number of troops, writes Daniel Dombey
AS PRESSURE from his military for more troops in Afghanistan has mounted, Barack Obama has made his wishes clear. In spite of the clear advice of Gen Stanley McChrystal, his commander in the country, the US president is looking for alternatives to stepping up the war.
“I have to exercise scepticism any time I send a single young man or woman in uniform into harm’s way,” Mr Obama told NBC News at the weekend, even as the White House was steeling itself for the leak of the McChrystal report.
“The question that I’m asking right now is to our military, to Gen McChrystal [is] how does this advance America’s national security interests? How does it make sure that al-Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot attack the US homeland? . . . It’s important that we match strategy to resources,” he said.
Indeed, just eight months into office, Mr Obama faces a daunting dilemma. He has to choose between heeding his generals – including not just Gen McChrystal but Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who said last week more troops were probably needed, and paying attention to public opinion and Democrats on Capitol Hill, both increasingly turning against the war.
On the one hand, he risks being depicted as weak on national security and inattentive to the needs of the military – the traditional and effective Republican charge against many Democratic leaders in the past.
On the other, he faces a break with his party and the alienation of his own supporters, with possible electoral consequences.
In strategic terms, the problem is more acute: the president has to decide whether acceding to Gen McChrystal’s request furthers his goal of eliminating al-Qaeda, which is, after all, based in Pakistan.
Jeremy Shapiro, an expert at the Brookings Institution who advised Gen McChrystal, says: “President Obama is not questioning his own strategy, he’s noticing that his own strategy has not been followed.”
The issue is coming to a head. The leak increases the pressure from congressional Republicans for a decision to send more troops. Gen McChrystal is readying a separate resources request, which is expected to lay out options of between about 10,000 and 50,000 extra troops – but is likely to signal his own preference of a number somewhere in between.
Meanwhile, diplomats such as Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama’s representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, are looking at alternatives to US troop reinforcements.
On taking office, Mr Obama said he wanted to cut the war’s goals to preventing the country from reverting to a haven for the Taliban and al-Qaeda and stopping it from destabilising neighbouring Pakistan.
In March, he announced a three-pronged strategy, involving a new push on regional diplomacy linking Pakistan and Afghanistan, a focus on specific, achievable goals or “benchmarks”, and a civilian effort to accompany the military drive.
But six months later, it is far from clear how much progress has been made on any front, or indeed whether Gen McChrystal’s advice, which sets out plans for a full counterinsurgency campaign, squares with the strategy marked out by the president.
A list of benchmarks scheduled to be sent to Congress this week sets out ambitious goals such as cracking down on corruption, holding credible elections and reducing the proportion of the population living under the Taliban. But Mr Holbrooke has admitted that big initiatives had to be put largely on hold because of Afghanistan’s recent presidential election.
The chaos that has followed that disputed contest has only deepened Mr Obama’s problems. – (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009)