Strange public discussion. Though the CINC and his spokesmen continue to speak Time-Based planning WRT JUL 2011 - the uniformed leadership and SECDEF continue to focus on Conditions Based.
Thing about Conditions Based Planning, you can't reverse engineer it to a calendar. You cannot predict to a month if Decisive Conditions have been met. Additionally - it takes months from the point you make a decision to where forces can start to decrease if measured by total force levels. The only way to do that is if you tell Unit X that they are not deploying to relieve Unit Y. If you plan on forces to decrease by JUL 2011 in an organized manner - the decision needs to be made by Christmas to do it right. That would require you to predict Conditions, something you cannot do.
Now, if in JUL 2011 a Operational Review was completed that stated that, "Decisive Conditions have been achieved at A, B, and C. As a result, we will redeploy units X and Y and when their deployment is over, they will not be replaced." That would be fine ... and force levels would start to drop a few months later - just like we saw in Iraq when Decisive Conditions were met.
Here is my concern. As we get closer and closer to JUL 2011, the CINC and the DOD story lines do not get any closer. I don't see the likes of Mattis and Petraeus fudging conditions - so I wouldn't worry about that. We cannot afford in a Strategic context to have either our uniformed leadership tell happy-talk half-truths for domestic political reasons - again - nor can we have a situation where the civilian leadership and uniformed leadership are in open conflict. Watching this get patched together will be interesting - and in a few years will spawn quite a few Doctoral works.
11 months is not a long time in the Planning world when you are talking about bringing forces home in an orderly manner.
Listening to Petraeus here - the gap is still un-bridgeable. Watch.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
MSNBC video can be clunky - so via Allah, here is some of the transcript - though you can get more from the MSNBC site.
MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about U.S. troops. I asked you before, when we talked about this July deadline of next year, how stifling is the, the concept of this deadline and this Washington debate to what you’re trying to do here?He is trying hard to give the CINC running room - I hope he takes it.
GEN. PETRAEUS: I don’t find it that stifling. I’m not bowed over by, you know, the knowledge that July 2011 is out there. In fact, the president has been very clear, Vice President Biden’s been very clear as well, more recently, that this is a date when a process begins that is conditions based. And as the conditions permit, we transition tasks to our Afghan counterparts and to security forces and, and in various governmental institutions, and that enables a “responsible drawdown of our forces”…
Let me point out one other item about July 2011 if I could. Because what I have often noted was that in the speech that the president made at West Point, there were two messages. One was a message of substantial additional commitment, additional 30,000 troops, again more civilians, more funding for Afghan forces, authorization of 100,000 more of them and so forth; but also a message of increased urgency. And that’s what July 2011 really connotes. It is to all the participants, those in Kabul, some of us in uniform, again our civilian counterparts, that we’ve got to get on with this, that this has been going on for some nine years or so, that there is understandable concern, in some cases frustration, and that, therefore, we’ve got to really put our shoulder to the wheel and show during the course of this year that progress can be achieved. And, and, again, one manifestation of that is out there that you have this date.
4 comments:
If Obama wont move troops from AFG by 2012 elections, he will be moved from the White house in favor of someone else... Note that if he gets really dismal ratings due to economy, even that wont help him. He might end not running for second term at all. Johnson redux?
Jimmy Carter 2.0 as many have noted.
Ewok, what planet do you live on? Easy 2nd term...
I hope they don't win the argument-it is high time we cut the cords on worthless people who can't or won't help themselves. To quote a great article in FP, "Let's consider: "...only in the last few weeks that the war plan had been fine-tuned." Really, general? So what was that yearlong policy review about? The past nine years of effort by U.S. military planners -- the last several of which have involved your active participation and supervision? This is the Charlie Sheen approach to military planning: just give me one more chance, please, just one more and I promise I'll get it right this time. ".
And for what? If we stay one year or 20 years at the end of the period, the Afghans will STILL be just as screwed up as they are now. And we don't benefit one iota. We cannot afford these wars any more, from a fiscal, foreign policy or even a national security standpoint. These wars leave the country more reliant on foreign central bankers. They don't make America stronger; they make it weaker. And more importantly, all the time we spend tooling around in Arab lands allow the folks who have sat this whole thing out, China, India, most of SE Asia to become more competitive economically. By staying in these places long past the time we should have left we have ceded all the advantges to our competitors (China, India for example). The US needs to to stop hemorrhaging money, lives, and attention in the Muslim world so we can rebuild the political and economic institutions that form the foundation of U.S. national strength.
I get back to my point-when do the Afghans get to take a large share of the blame for lack of progress. Just like in Iraq, we refuse to do that.
Greetings from Bucuresti BTW.
Post a Comment