The White House is considering a drastic change in Afghanistan strategy, according to the New York Times. President Obama is, apparently, exploring the feasibility of drawing down the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and getting out of Afghani politics, leaving the Taliban alone in order to focus exclusively on al-Qaeda. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, sent a memo to the President warning that, if he does not receive more troops, the mission in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. The memo is available here (.pdf). Dave Schuler points out that, under conventional counter-insurgency doctrine, more than 400,000 troops are necessary to secure Afghanistan. Spencer Ackerman finds that figure in the memo and reminds us that Afghanistan is supposed to supply at least that many troops and police to the effort. And Andrew Exum points out that counter-insurgency tactics will increase the number of U.S. casualties. If you visit that link, however, be aware that Exum has several other posts up with arguments and links supporting a counter-insurgency strategy.
The Justice Department concluded that Congress does not need to pass additional legislation regarding the detention of alleged terrorists. The DoJ claims that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force provides the administration all the detention power that it requires. Adam Serwer points out that this is considered a victory for civil libertarians. Meanwhile, the administration is preparing to miss the self-imposed deadline for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
President Obama delivered a speech to the U.N. on Wednesday. Reaction to the speech has been fairly quiet. The New York Times was pleased by the greater multilateralism on display, but concerned about the absence of any discussion of Afghanistan.
William Schambra penned an essay claiming that many of President Obama’s political problems can be traced to his affinity for large-scale policy proposals. David Broder read the essay and pushed it to a wider audience, claiming that Schambra’s analysis pinpoints why Obama’s is unlikely to be a successful presidency. Joe Klein takes issue with this and accuses Broder of being overly selective with his historical examples. Stephen Griffin offers additional thoughts, including ways to amend the Constitutional structure in order to make this type of large-scale policymaking easier.


