SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Government Agencies & Officials

Government Agencies & Officials War zone governance, and in-country political, economic, development assistance.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-12-2009   #1
John T. Fishel
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
Posts: 1,065
Default Unity of Effort...what unity of effort?

The current news that Amabassador Karl Eichenberry (LTG ret.) is skeptical, to say the least, of GEN Stanley McChrystal's Afghanistan strategy and its resource requirements is indicative of our broken C2 system for fighting Small Wars. These guys are not on the same team and, frankly, one of them has to go. I am not saying that disagreement between major players is necesssarily bad but it is not good for it to be public, unresolved, and regardless of resolution leaving them both in place without one of them being in charge. At the end of the day, when President Obama finally makes a decision, he will have to choose between them. That outcome, IMO, will make the loser of the political battle ineffective.

Cheers

JohnT
John T. Fishel is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #2
Steve the Planner
Council Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 827
Default Unity?

Let me see.

Yesterday, the Huffington Post claimed a memo from Jones saying Afghanistan was like the Jay Leno Show--- something they flog out everynight even though it is past its time.

Eikenberry, from what I can gather, is saying that the Afghan national political turf is too unstable to set an anchor in, and the formula of $2.5 billion in aid to $50 billion in defense isn't going to deliver a turn around.

Because of that political/civilian lack of capability, he argues that the troop increase may not be wise, productive, and definitely not able to address the President's pursuit of a viable short or medium term exit strategy.

I wonder how much Gen. McCrystal's now "long-in-the-tooth" recommendation from August might be changed today if Eikenberry's reports are accurate?

Clearly, there is no concensus, but I have trouble believing that an engaged military leadership does not already detect the same mounting pol/civ frustration as the Ambassador. Maybe we are just not hearing the complete story?

If they are not even in dialogue, or seeing things in a diametrically opposed way, we really have problems.

So, when does Ambassador Crocker get called up to try to clean up the civilian side?
Steve the Planner is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #3
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,808
Default

John, which one should go in your opinion? Or does it matter?
slapout9 is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #4
MikeF
Council Member
 
MikeF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,177
Default

I don't know who's right or wrong, but I found this statement pretty ironic last night,

Quote:
General Eikenberry crossed paths with General McChrystal during his second tour in Afghanistan, when General McChrystal led the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, which conducted clandestine operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Their relationship, a senior military official said last year, was occasionally tense as General McChrystal pushed for approval for commando missions, and General Eikenberry was resistant because of concerns that the missions were too risky and could lead to civilian casualties.
I hope at the end of all this, after the President makes his decision on strategy, he puts one person in charge for better or worse.
MikeF is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #5
John T. Fishel
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
Posts: 1,065
Default Slap, for purposes

of this thread, it doesn't matter. I do have my own opinion, of course, on who is right on the substance and the strategic requirements but the point I was making was on unity of effort and my hobby horse that we need unity of command of both civil and military components in a Small War.

How's that for not answering the question? PM or email me for my real opinion.

Cheers

JohnT
John T. Fishel is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #6
Steve the Planner
Council Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 827
Default

John:

My problem goes beyond these two.

Ambassador Eikenberry has been consistently asking State for a major increase in civilian presence, commitment, and has received little in response.

So you have two leaders, one military and one civilian, each pushing for more resources from their stovepipe.

Both are getting the same response (no answer), but at the higher level, the individual stovepipe requests of are inter-dependent. Military surge against a civilian problem is not going to work, and vice versa.

The final answer (after all the lifelines and "phone-a-friend") must coordinate both efforts, or we are just punting the day of decision.

The substance of each's positions is what matters most, and they must "unite."
Steve the Planner is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #7
031-Bacon,RG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve the Planner View Post
The substance of each's positions is what matters most, and they must "unite."
In the absence of leadership from the Oval Office, where civil and military authority merge, there will be no uniting the factions beneath.

However, I doubt that the feud has become public accidentally; rather, I suggest that each of the US civil and military leaders in Afghanistan has put up his trial ballon, and the President will choose the one that draws the least amount of fire.
031-Bacon,RG is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #8
Abu Suleyman
Council Member
 
Abu Suleyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 131
Default He Will Never Pick

I realize that most people dismiss Pres. Obama's "everyone can really get everything they truly want" rhetoric as a political device, but I think that we need to consider that he really means it. I think it is increasingly likely that the real problem in this case is that there is going to be a loser in this debate, and either of them is going to come from "Team Obama." I am becoming increasingly convinced that the Pres. believes that if he just looks hard enough, he will find the third way, which will allow there to be no losers.

In the end, no decision is a decision.
__________________
Audentes adiuvat fortuna
"Abu Suleyman"
Abu Suleyman is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #9
031-Bacon,RG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 8
Default Confusion at the top?

MikeF provides a quote indicating that Eikenberry resisted McCrystal's clandestine ops efforts due to risk and the possibility of civilian casualties, and JohnT reminds us that SmallWarfare requires unity of civil and military command. I find it incomprehensible that we are still debating the strategy and structure of our efforts in Afghanistan after eight years in-theatre.

IMHO, the tempo of clandestine ops will need to be increased to better find and fix the Taliban; once we control the location and timing of our contacts, they've lost. Also, such ops would not be riskier than the IED exposure to convoys of troops driving around the country in search and destroy style missions - sure, such efforts look good on the news, but if you really want to drive a wedge between our PRT efforts and the populace you probably couldn't find a better tactic. Versus a broader net of SpecForce eyes on the terrain and populace, the marginal control of towns and roads we currently maintain only serves to canalize our movements, exposing our troops to IEDs and ROE guesswork in built-up areas.

Last edited by 031-Bacon,RG; 11-12-2009 at 06:42 PM. Reason: Grammar poor and speling bad.
031-Bacon,RG is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #10
omarali50
Council Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 838
Default

I am obviously not an expert, what is the historical record on presidents making decisions in wartime? This looks to an outsider like far too long to make such a fundamental decision. What is he waiting for? There is no rabbit in the hat and no magician on the stage. By now, he should know what he is dealing with (or THINK he knows what he is dealing with) and make a decision. He is the president, he doesnt have the option of saying "I will just wait till I hear something better"....or am i reading this totally wrong?
omarali50 is offline  
Old 11-12-2009   #11
Steve the Planner
Council Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 827
Default Throw Karl Under the Bus???

In the ag post, Davidfpo reference an Abu M post about Missouri Guard efforts.

The same site had the following, which describes Area Code 202 people trying to undermine Eikenberry's future relationship with Karzai by releasing the cable. How byzantine?

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...under-bus.html
Steve the Planner is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CORDS / Phoenix: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Future SWJED Training & Education 9 08-15-2009 02:08 AM
Unity of Command in Afghanistan: A Forsaken Principle of War Jedburgh OEF - Afghanistan 0 11-09-2008 03:26 AM
After Action Report-General Barry R McCaffrey USA (Ret) Afgahanistan h2harris OEF - Afghanistan 31 08-17-2008 10:31 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation