No More Military General Pronouncements

James Jones has cordially invited Gen. Stanley McChrystal to shove it.

National security adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands the 100,000 U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, warned bluntly last week in a London speech that a strategy for defeating the Taliban that is narrower than the one he is advocating would be ineffective and "short-sighted." The comments effectively rejected a policy option that senior White House officials, including Vice President Biden, are considering nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion.

McChrystal's statement came a day after senior White House officials challenged him over his dire assessment of the war, and what it will take to improve the U.S. position there, during a videoconference from Kabul with President Obama and his national security team. Obama then summoned McChrystal to Copenhagen the day after the general's speech for a private meeting aboard Air Force One.

We're simply unused to the chain of command predominating in this day and age, but there really was a time where military commanders didn't make public statements about strategy and troop requests. And Jones is right in wishing for that time to return. While some don't see McChrystal's statements as objectionable, and certainly they aren't a prelude to a coup or anything, because of our military conferring hero status on generals they are overweighted in the debate, and have a tendency to place Presidents in a box should they want to disagree. That's what has angered people, Jones included.

Meanwhile, this WaPo piece offers a lot of good thoughts about the problems in Afghanistan - particularly with respect to jobs. I don't know if the country facing 10% unemployment should be seen as a savior in this regard.

A Friedman Unit For DADT

Gen. James Jones, the President's national security advisor, wants to wait to overturn the military's policy on gay soldiers until "the right time."

KING: You're national security adviser at a time of two wars, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And there's a big question about a promise the president made in the campaign, ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about homosexuals serving openly in the military.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, sent the president a letter this past week in which he says, "At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country. Many members of Congress, like me, support the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.' As Congress considers future legislative action, we believe it would be helpful to hear your views on policy."

They want the president to get involved. Is it time now, as soon as possible, to change that policy?

JONES: The -- the president has an awful lot on -- on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on.

KING: No idea when the right time is?

JONES: I don't think it's going to be -- it's not years, but I think -- I think it will be teed up appropriately.

I don't think this is as bad as John Aravosis makes it out to be, but it's not great. Jones could just as easily taken the same approach as Harry Reid, saying that the fact that we're in two wars is an argument FOR ending a bad policy as quickly as possible. Instead, Jones argued that things must be done at the appropriate time. In other words, wait a Friedman Unit or two, and we'll see then.

If anything else was happening to expand gay rights consistent with Obama's promises for more equality in America, maybe this could be excused. But he's not.

Days Of Decision

The McChrystal request for more troops in Afghanistan is reportedly as much as 45,000. It's now on a shelf at the Pentagon as deliberations continue in the White House on reviewing the overall strategy. Obama has no scheduled events today. That could be in observation of Yom Kippur (Emanuel and Axelrod are certainly indisposed today), but what's also likely is a day of internal discussion over the way forward in Afghanistan. The President has reached beyond his circle of advisors and even to Colin Powell in making this decision.

The competing advice and concerns fuel a pivotal struggle to shape the president’s thinking about a war that he inherited but may come to define his tenure. Among the most important outside voices has been that of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star Army general, who visited Mr. Obama in the Oval Office this month and expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success. According to people briefed on the discussion, Mr. Powell reminded the president of his longstanding view that military missions should be clearly defined.

Mr. Powell is one of the three people outside the administration, along with Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate. All have expressed varying degrees of doubt about the wisdom of sending more forces to Afghanistan.

Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, where he served, and has floated the idea of a more limited counterterrorist mission. Mr. Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and an Army veteran, has not ruled out supporting more troops but said “the burden of proof” was on commanders to justify it.

In the West Wing, beyond Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has advocated an alternative strategy to the troop buildup, other presidential advisers sound dubious about more troops, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, according to people who have spoken with them. At the same time, Mr. Obama is also hearing from more hawkish figures, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even inside the Pentagon, opinions are mixed as to whether more troops will make a difference.

The assumption of the hawks, that allowing Afghanistan to fall to the Taliban will automatically signal a return of Al Qaeda into the country in a safe haven, reminds me of the domino theory - speculative, ignorant of the local dynamic, based on scant evidence. James Jones, the national security advisor, seemed to dismiss it the other day. While Al Qaeda's presence in the border region hasn't been wasy, with drone strikes and other pressures, the severe anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, such that the government is openly hindering government visa requests and de facto protecting Al Qaeda, suggests that they are much more comfortable where they are than moving back into Afghanistan, where the Taliban suffered decapitation the last time they gave them harbor, are not as ideologically aligned with them this time around and would be wary of entering into the same agreement. Notwithstanding the argument that "safe havens" in host countries are unnecessary for a plot to be carried off in, for example, Denver and Queens, or for core leadership to gravitate to North Africa or some other area. An Afghanistan-centered strategy, in this context, seems foolish.

I think the linchpin of all of this is Joe Biden. He was maybe the pre-eminent humanitarian interventionist in the Democratic Party for a long time, until coming up against Afghanistan and recognizing that the nation-building effort had no partner and was doomed to failure. It's the personal meetings between Biden and Hamid Karzai that appear to have soured him on the whole project and shift to a counter-terrorism focus:

Nothing shook his faith quite as much as what you might call the Karzai dinners. The first occurred in February 2008, during a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan that Biden took with fellow senators John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Dining on platters of rice and lamb at the heavily fortified presidential palace in Kabul, Biden and his colleagues grilled Karzai about reports of corruption and the growing opium trade in the country, which the president disingenuously denied. An increasingly impatient Biden challenged Karzai's assertions until he lost his temper. Biden finally stood up and threw down his napkin, declaring, "This meeting is over," before he marched out of the room with Hagel and Kerry. It was a similar story nearly a year later. As Obama prepared to assume the presidency in January, he dispatched Biden on a regional fact-finding trip. Again Biden dined with Karzai, and, again, the meeting was contentious. Reiterating his prior complaints about corruption, Biden warned Karzai that the Bush administration's kid-glove treatment was over; the new team would demand more of him.

Biden's revised view of Karzai was pivotal. Whereas he had once felt that, with sufficient U.S. support, Afghanistan could be stabilized, now he wasn't so sure. "He's aware that a basic rule of counterinsurgency is that you need a reliable local partner," says one person who has worked with Biden in the past. The trip also left Biden wondering about the clarity of America's mission. At the White House, he told colleagues that "if you asked ten different U.S. officials in that country what their mission was, you'd get ten different answers," according to a senior White House aide. He was also growing increasingly concerned about the fate of Pakistan. Biden has been troubled by the overwhelmingly disproportionate allocation of U.S. resources to Afghanistan in comparison to Pakistan, a ratio one administration official measures as 30:1. Indeed, before leaving the Senate last year, Biden authored legislation that would triple U.S. non-military aid to Islamabad to $1.5 billion per year. (House-Senate bickering has tied up the plan for months, and Biden has recently been working the phones to broker a compromise.)

Actually, that tripling of aid for Pakistan passed the Senate unanimously this past week.

Biden actually lost this fight the first time around to the hawks, but the futility of the fraudulent election has brought things into a different view. And yet the White House and other NATO members feel obliged to actually support Karzai, mainly because of his ethnicity (a Tajik like Abdullah Abdullah would lose the Pashto-dominated country quickly). Just writing a sentence like that leads to the conclusion that building a stable government here is impossible.

Frank Rich looks at the deliberations in the White House through the prism of the Vietnam era and the release of a new book detailing that policymaking:

George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War.

Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis by the new Obama administration [...]

As Goldstein said to me last week, it’s “eerie” how closely even these political maneuvers track those of a half-century ago, when J.F.K. was weighing whether to send combat troops to Vietnam. Military leaders lobbied for their new mission by planting leaks in the press. Kennedy fired back by authorizing his own leaks, which, like Obama’s, indicated his reservations about whether American combat forces could turn a counterinsurgency strategy into a winnable war.

We shall know the outcome of these days of decision within weeks. Obama has a responsibility, not to rubber-stamp the views of Washington hawks and counter-insurgency lovers, but to outline the best possible policy for the future. I don't see how committing 100,000-plus troops to Afghanistan for five years or more, to defend an illegitimate government, to fight an invisible enemy, fits with that mandate.

Keeping Up With The Jones

Let's continue my look at various cabinet and White House staff appointments by taking a look at the new national security advisor, James Jones. By all accounts Jones, a former Marine general, is fairly apolitical, although he supported John McCain in the election and has been tapped to head at least a couple studies by the Bush Administration. He has commanded NATO forces in the past and has a keen understanding of both military and diplomatic issues. By all accounts, he's a smart, committed public servant, and his views on some major issues have been decent, particularly on Afghanistan, where he is an advocate for improving both reconstruction and diplomatic efforts.

Many are justifiably concerned about Jones' most recent job at the US Chamber of Commerce, advising on energy issues. Energy is absolutely a national security concern, so his new position will be at least tangential to that issue. And the Chamber's energy policy, in a word, sucks.

Jones sits on the board of Chevron Corp., and since March 2007 has been president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, which has been criticized by environmental groups.

"They have a reprehensible record," said Frank O'Donnell, the outspoken leader of Clean Air Watch, of the institute led by Jones.

The institute calls for the immediate expansion of domestic oil and gas production, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology, in addition to investment in renewable and alternative energy sources.

O'Donnell criticized institute reports under Jones that challenged the use of the Clean Air Act to combat global warming and the right of states, such as California, to impose environmental standards that go beyond those set by the federal government.

"Since global warming is a security threat, this selection raises a real eyebrow," O'Donnell said in an e-mail. "Will Jones be predisposed to compromise the new administration's environmental agenda, both at home and in the international arena? . . . Stay tuned."

We cannot think in the mindset of the past, where we use the military to provide safe passage for oil and fight resource wars. The future of energy has nothing to do with "Drill baby drill" or clean coal, which doesn't exist. Hopefully Jones' views on this subject will be taken with massive amounts of grains of salt. At this point, the jobs of Energy Secretary and EPA Administrator had better be far to the left of Jones to balance this out.

Cabinet Report

Quite a Friday news dump on the Cabinet front.

• Timothy Geithner, a Summers/Rubin acolyte and the current chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, looks to be the next Treasury Secretary. I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot about him. Apparently he was the only member of the current "brain trust" who advocated for saving Lehman Brothers, so at least he showed sound, forward-thinking judgment there. But he's not what I'd totally call a progressive economist.

• Bill Richardson looks to be the favorite for the Commerce Secretary position. This seems like a slightly less powerful job than UN Ambassador or Energy Secretary, Richardson's roles in the Clinton Administration, so I'm not sure why he would want it. Also, I always considered Richardson to be more progressive on foreign policy issues than domestic ones (he wanted a balanced budget amendment), so that bugs me as well. His energy policy was excellent in the primary, however, so hopefully he can bring corporate America along on green issues.

• There are scattered reports that Hillary Clinton will accept the Secretary of State position. I've gone back and forth on this one, and I'll have a much longer post on this later.

• And retired Marine Gen. James Jones is the pick for National Security Advisor. Politically he's an independent, but he supported McCain in the election, and was offered deputy staff positions in the Bush Administration. On the other hand, he didn't TAKE the positions with Bush, and he wrote a very well-regarded report about the Iraqi security forces earlier this year. He has been a critic of the war and of Don Rumsfeld's management style at the Defense Department.

As I said, I'll have more analysis later, but the nickel version is that I think there's some reason for progressives to be concerned.