Doesn't sound like it to me.The WaPo has a piece with quotes from Eikenberry and Holbrooke opposing McChrystal's plan to use Afghan tribes against the bad guys. I have an Op Ed in today's Washington Times about how we need to have both the military and diplomats on the same page . We need a unified command and leadership to succeed there and it sounds like it's time for Eikenberry to go. We face a difficult task in that "war of necessity," and there are no easy answers or simple paths to victory. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has a bold plan that enlists local tribes to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda. It was a risk to trust and arm the Sunni tribes that made up the Anbar Awakening in Iraq, but it paid off and was a major factor in our success there. Of course, there are risks involved in Gen. McChrystal's plan - there are risks in every military action. But as the British Special Air Service says, "Who dares wins." The problem is that Mr. Obama's diplomatic team doesn't understand daring or bold or much of anything that could lead to a win. It seems to be more concerned with limiting risks until we can cut and run. Both Afghanistan Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry and Special Envoy Richard C. Holbrooke have come out publicly against this plan. They both claim to want more control of the program by the Afghan government. This seems odd coming from two men deeply involved in an attempted political coup to push Afghan President Hamid Karzai to the sidelines. During the last Afghan elections, both Mr. Holbrooke and Mr. Eikenberry tried to get Mr. Karzai to drop out or share power with his main rival. The relationships between both men and Mr. Karzai's team became so poor that they essentially were persona non grata.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/wnElrJVRcrk/is-state-dept-on-board-in-afghanistan.html
Posted
Jan 26 2010, 11:26 PM
by
BLACKFIVE