Blog

Posts Tagged ‘mike allen’

Defining succcess

Monday, November 16th, 2009

If President Obama is feeling the pressure on his Afghanistan indecision, as Politico’s Mike Allen reports, then last night’s “60 Minutes” report won’t help.

Coming just hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on Meet the Press that the U.S. was only in Afghanistan to hunt al Qaeda (a more limited mission than Obama was describing just a few months ago), CBS reported on a bomb-hunting unit in Afghanistan. Unlike the Secretary’s clear description of the fight in Afghanistan, the enemy described by the troops was as unclear as the national strategic imperative of winning.

Also remarkable was the troops’ inability to easily define mission success at the end of the piece. That’s consistent with what NBC’s Richard Engel discovered when he recently shadowed troops in Afghanistan. Bottom line: If our troops don’t know why they’re in Afghanistan, then how can the American people?

No wonder President Obama is feeling pressure to set a mission.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Afghanistan announcements

Friday, October 16th, 2009

POLITICO’s Mike Allen reported in Playbook this morning that President Obama will announce his long-awaited decision on what to do with Afghanistan either the last week of October or the first week of November. If it’s anything like his original Afghanistan strategy announcement last spring, it’ll be leaked out over the course of a few days in an effort generate as little controversy or public debate as possible.

But while a slow-walking communications strategy may avoid rousing as much opposition and criticism as a high-profile announcement surely would, it is the wrong approach if President Obama is finally serious about building the public and political support necessary to pursue this war over the long haul. As The Economist writes this week:

Mr Obama needs to fight this war with conviction. His wobbles over the last month have done more to comfort his enemies and worry his allies than any recent losses on the ground. Only if he persuades his troops, his countrymen and the Taliban that America is there for the long haul does he have a chance of turning this war around.

President Obama’s already delivered more prime-time press conferences and addresses than is afforded most Presidents. But he should be encouraged to do one more as he asks for America to support this critical decision.

First thoughts on Obama’s first statements

Monday, August 17th, 2009

President Obama promised to speak about the war in Afghanistan for the first time in months. But the changing Associated Press’s headline on Liz Sidoti’s coverage says it all:

“Obama to talk about conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan” (AP headline at 6:41 AM)
“Obama lashes defense establishment, Congress” (AP headline at 2:25 pm)

So rather than devote the speech to America’s wars, Obama instead made news on domestic politics. But that’s not to say President Obama ignored the wars. As Sidoti reports on Obama’s Afghanistan comments:

Turning to the two current foreign wars engaging the United States, Obama spoke of fierce fighting against Taliban and other insurgents leading up to Thursday’s national elections in Afghanistan.
He said U.S. troops are working to secure polling places so the elections can go forward and Afghans can choose their own future.
Attaining that peaceful future “will not be quick, nor easy,” Obama said.

As for the four questions I wondered this morning (and kindly reprinted by Mike Allen in Playbook), Obama answered one of them, but gave little insight into the other three.

As for the question he did answer: In March, President Obama offered “a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” Today, he amended that goal to also target extremists besides al Qaeda, saying “our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals — to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.” (emphasis added)

President Obama said little about the election, although he seemed to lower the stakes: In March, he said US troops would “provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August.” Today, he repeated that sentiment, but dropped the word “important.”

And on the question on the size and length of our troop commitments, President Obama said nothing except that “at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies”, which is either a vague reference to the soon-to-be-released metrics, or a calibrated statement opening the door to either future troop surges or withdrawals.

This may all seem like parsing – and it is. But that’s because the President says so little about Afghanistan (as POLITICO recently documented), and the future direction of Administration policy (let alone the war) is largely unknown.

Nevertheless, I applaud President Obama for offering a full-throated defense of his Afghanistan strategy, even if much went unsaid. As we enter a critical period of the war, let’s hope it’s not another four months before our Commander-in-Chief rallies the nation to support the effort.

Connect

Archives

Tags

ABC afghanistan AP Axelrod baseball budget campaign CBS chicago tribune cillizza clinton CNN communications Congress disaster economics eurobama europe flip-flop gaffes gibbs health care Huffington Post image Jon Stewart media mike allen Minnesota myths NBC new york times obama palin pandemic politico polls President Bush press conference Republicans Reuters roll-out tax cuts wall street journal washington post White House