Yesterday, in an appearance at Georgetown, Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton defended the Obama administration's strategy review process for Afghanistan across the backdrop of an increasingly ridiculous media narrative of personal friction between the president and Gen. Stanley McChrystal. As Spencer Ackerman reported:
As Gates reiterated the importance of private advice — and, accordingly, wouldn't address his advice to Obama — Clinton said that Obama has put together “one of the most open, most thorough [review processes] I've read about.” Like Gates, she defended Obama against charges that he's irresolute on Afghanistan, saying a process of revisiting “every assumption” was what “a very decisive and intelligent commander-in-chief would do.”
Indeed, defending the review process was exactly what McChrystal was doing last week in London, during the appearance that began the controversy. “People are re-looking what our goals and objectives are and redefining and clarifying those, and I think that’s helpful,” McChrystal said. This is, quite frankly, exactly what the administration should be doing in the aftermath of what Peter Galbraith accurately described as the Taliban's "greatest strategic victory in eight years," namely the widespread fraud in the recent Afghan election. A legitimate government is essential to a successful counterinsurgency strategy, and since there isn't one, it makes sense that the administration would be proceeding carefully instead of throwing the saloon doors open as some are demanding.
Instead of seriously considering what we should be doing in Afghanistan, we've spent the past week debating the trivial matter of whether or not Obama and McChrystal like each other personally and whether the commander-in-chief has been showing his top general in Afghanistan sufficient deference. That, not the time being taken to consider viable strategic options, is a disservice to the American soldiers who are currently risking their lives over there.
-- A. Serwer
