Gen. Stanley McChrystal doesn’t have that rare political star power Gen. David Petraeus possessed when he testified in front of Congress in September 2007 in a performance some say singlehandedly quieted much of the Congressional criticism over the war in Iraq; but the head of NATO and American forces in Afghanistan came to Washington today along with US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry to explain to a skeptical Congress where they see the war headed.
The atmospherics around the hearing have focused on the feud between the two men, who have had some very public disagreements over the troop increase McChrystal asked for and was granted by president Obama. Parts of a confidential memo Eikenberry sent to the National Security Council earlier this fall, in which he question what more troops could accomplish, were leaked to the press, and other reports have the men barely speaking. But none of that matters under the hot lights of a Congressional hearing, and the two displayed a united front before the House Armed Services Committee this morning.
Eikenberry was challenged early about the memo by HASC chairman Ike Skelton, and the ambassador replied that “through the very vigorous review of our strategy, all the participants…were encouraged to state their assessments and recommendations,” and his cables were no more than that. At no point during this review process was he ever opposed to additional troops being sent, he said, and he “shared his views with the security situation, which was dire” in parts of the country. His cable questioned “what would be the timeline, what would be the context” of adding new troops, but he stressed that “I am unequivocally in support with this mission, and am exactly aligned with Gen. McChrystal.”
Eikenberry was careful to point out that in the end, “its not about how many [troops], it’s about what effects they get.” He also mentioned several times that by the end of January, there will have been “a threefold increase” of the number of civilians working on governance and development in Afghanistan, but since more troops are on the way, “we’ll have additional requirements for what’s out in the field” later next year.
Still, while a “threefold increase” sounds impressive, the increase will only bring the number of civilians up to about 970 working throughout the country. But whereas Eikenberry was quick to boast of the increase in the number of civilians, he also said that the raw numbers alone don’t tell the story. In on district in Helmand province, for example, there is one agricultural expert who is leading several hundred Afghans in providing services and advice to 14,000 Afghan farmers. “One well-placed civilian in Afghanistan gets tremendous effect,” he said. But that begs the question: Are we placing enough civilains in the right places?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 12/09/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.
http://www.thunderrun.us/2009/12/from-front-12092009.html
Posted by: David M | December 09, 2009 at 10:54 AM