Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

Michael Crowley responds to my suggestion that the Obama administration wasn’t really at fault for not realizing that the Pentagon planned to ask for a major troop increase in Afghanistan:

Even if you assume that only half the country needs COIN protection — the west and north are more stable then the south and east — you’re still talking about a combined US and Afghan force of 300,000. McKiernan’s requested force level, combined with the feeble Afghan National Army and police, wasn’t even close to these levels. This would have been clear to someone like under secretary of defense for policy Michele Flournoy, a COIN expert (and former Nagl colleague) who participated in the initial review. Though I don’t believe he was part of the same review process, I have to think that David Petraeus, the ultimate Yoda of COIN, chimed in as well.

….At the same time that the counterinsurgency idea was taking hold among the review team’s members, Mullen and Gates were starting to question whether McKiernan was the right general to lead the effort in Afghanistan. If he was serious about counterinsurgency, some in the Pentagon wondered, how could he not want more forces?

I doubt this view would have been kept secret from Obama, who had to approve the decision to sack McKiernan. It just seems a little too convenient, then, for administration officials to say they’re surprised by McChrystal’s call for many more troops.

But this gets directly to my point: counterinsurgency doctrine says we need 300,000 troops or more in Afghanistan.  Obviously nothing even close to that is going to happen.  So given that we know we’re pursuing a non-optimal strategy, does non-optimal mean 100,000 troops or 140,000 troops?  That’s not at all obvious.

Back in March, Obama had already committed to a big increase in troops in order to better pursue a COIN strategy.  If the military believed we needed another big increase, it’s inconceivable that they would have simply assumed that everyone in the White House knew this.  They would have said so directly and forcefully.  But they didn’t, and contra Michael, it seems awfully convenient for them to come back now and say they’re surprised everyone didn’t get this from the start.

I don’t want to take this argument too far.  There’s no telling precisely who said what, or whether Obama was given fair warning that another big troop request was in the offing.  But if that was the plan, surely it’s the military’s responsibility to make sure it’s crystal clear?  Or are we going to go through this again six months from now because “everyone knows” that 140,000 isn’t enough troops either?

REAL QUICK, REAL URGENT

Minority rule, corruption, disinformation, attacks on those who dare tell the truth: There is a direct line from what's happening in Russia and Ukraine to what's happening here at home. And that's what MoJo's Monika Bauerlein writes about in "Their Fight Is Our Fight" to unpack the information war we find ourselves in and share a few examples to show why the power of independent, reader-supported journalism is such a threat to authoritarians.

Corrupt leaders the world over can (and will) try to shut down the truth, but when the truth has millions of people on its side, you can't keep it down for good. And there's no more powerful or urgent argument for your support of Mother Jones' journalism right now than that. We need to raise about $450,000 to hit our online fundraising budget in these next few months, so please read more from Monika and pitch in if you can.

payment methods

REAL QUICK, REAL URGENT

Minority rule, corruption, disinformation, attacks on those who dare tell the truth: There is a direct line from what's happening in Russia and Ukraine to what's happening here at home. And that's what MoJo's Monika Bauerlein writes about in "Their Fight Is Our Fight" to unpack the information war we find ourselves in and share a few examples to show why the power of independent, reader-supported journalism is such a threat to authoritarians.

Corrupt leaders the world over can (and will) try to shut down the truth, but when the truth has millions of people on its side, you can't keep it down for good. And there's no more powerful or urgent argument for your support of Mother Jones' journalism right now than that. We need to raise about $450,000 to hit our online fundraising budget in these next few months, so please read more from Monika and pitch in if you can.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate