The underlying tension between the two men dates to last fall's strategy review, in which Biden argued for a narrower counterterrorism approach that would focus on targeting al-Qaeda leaders. McChrystal argued for a broader counterinsurgency strategy -- one requiring many more troops, with a mission of securing the civilian population and reinforcing the government. In the end, Obama sided mostly with McChrystal.
Six months later, questions abound about whether that plan is working. Administration officials stress that it is still being implemented, and that no revisions to the strategy will be considered before a planned review in December. But progress has been slow, with missions in Marja and Kandahar behind schedule. Political support within Washington for remaining in Afghanistan, especially among Democrats, has waned.
Biden scored two victories during the policy debate: the December review of the policy, and a start date of July 2011 for withdrawing troops. The military has resisted both, suggesting the dates may slip -- only adding further to the sense of conflict between the vice president's office and the McChrystal command on the ground.
But even before the Rolling Stone article appeared, Biden's viewpoint was regaining traction, with Democratic members of Congress suggesting that it would soon be time to revisit Biden's idea of a targeted counterterrorism strategy. Now, even critics of that strategy believe that Biden's hand will be strengthened by McChrystal's missteps.
"The Rolling Stone piece puts these issues back on the table," said Bruce Riedel, who conducted Obama's original Afghanistan review in early 2009, and who opposes the counterterrorism approach. More generally, Riedel said: "The description that it portrays of how our commander in the field is operating, and how some of the people around him are behaving, will definitely undermine support for the war."
No comments:
Post a Comment