Republicans might be right militarily but wrong strategically on Afghanistan war

Most of yesterday’s confirmation hearing for General Petraeus was about Republicans picking at the scab on the Afghan war, the Obama deadline for beginning a pullout just over a year from now, and the question it implies: Just how can you win a war when you are telling the enemy you’re leaving in a year? Democrats responded by trying to slap a band-aid over the problem.

Sen. McCain zeroed in first:

SEN. MCCAIN: General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the president when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?

GEN. PETRAEUS:  There was not.

SEN. MCCAIN:  There was not by any military person that you know of?

GEN. PETRAEUS:  Not that I’m aware of.

Others piled on:

SEN. LEMIEUX: General, you said a moment ago when answering a question from Senator McCain that you were not consulted on the development of a drawdown date.  

GEN. PETRAEUS: I was consulted. I think — let’s be very precise if I could. I think it was — did I — did we propose it or recommend, or something like that. I mean, we — there’s no question that in the final session, that this was discussed.  

SEN. LEMIEUX: But it was not something that you proposed?

(Cross talk.)

GEN. PETRAEUS: — and agreed it.

SEN. LEMIEUX: Not something you proposed.  

GEN. PETRAEUS: That is correct.

SEN. LEMIEUX: And not something, as far as you are aware, that was proposed by any of the other leadership of the military.  

GEN. PETRAEUS: Not that I’m aware of.

Here is the problem I have with the Republican approach. Yes, they are right that  it is not good to have a war policy the military doesn’t like. And I think there is a good argument to be made against the Obama deadline.

That said, just because the military is strongly against an approach doesn’t mean the approach is wrong. For example, in World War II, the U.S. military, from Marshall on down, vigorously opposed Operation Torch, the U.S.-led invasion of North Africa. They suspected FDR backed it for base political reasons. Yet in retrospect, the move made good military sense. The U.S. military had a lot to learn and needed to do a couple of these major movements — Africa and Sicily — before crossing the Channel. Had they tried to send a force across the Channel in 1942, or even in 1943, I think the landings might have been disastrous and demoralizing. And so the war might have gone on a year or two longer.

Likewise, in military terms, MacArthur might have been right during the Korean War in recommending blockading Chinese ports and bombing Chinese cities. Yet President Truman correctly concluded that the American people had no interest in going to war with China, and that MacArthur was way out of touch with the American people. (Not for the first time, by the way: In 1936, MacArthur and Eisenhower had a huge argument over whether, as MacArthur believed, Landon would crush FDR in that year’s presidential election.)

So, while the Afghan deadline makes no sense militarily, it might make sense politically, both for domestic political reasons and in prodding the Afghan government. If you believe, as I do, that the Afghan government is our biggest problem in the war (followed closely by the Pakistani government), then what happens to the Taliban is a secondary issue, and the primary question has to be: How do we get a government in Afghanistan that is not counterproductive and can field reasonably good security forces?   

Petraeus’s high school nickname was "Peaches," by the way.