praise for surge and purge from an unlikely source…

Posted on Friday 4 December 2009

David Brooks is a conservative New York Times op-ed columnist with a brain. His offering today is thoughtful, and welcomed…
The Analytic Mode
New York Times

By DAVID BROOKS
December 4, 2009

Obama … cloaked himself in what you might call Niebuhrian modesty. His decision to expand the war is the most morally consequential one of his presidency so far, yet as the moral stakes rose, Obama’s emotional temperature cooled to just above freezing. He spoke Tuesday night in the manner of an unwilling volunteer, balancing the arguments within his administration by leading the country deeper in while pointing the way out. Despite the ambivalence, he did act. This is not mishmash. With his two surges, Obama will more than double the number of American troops in Afghanistan. As Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard pointed out, he is the first Democratic president in 40 years to deploy a significant number of troops into a war zone.

Those new troops are not themselves a strategy; they are enablers of an evolving strategy. Over the next year, there will be disasters, errors and surprises — as in all wars. But the generals will have more resources with which to cope and respond. If the generals continue to find that stationing troops in the villages of Helmand Province leads to the revival of Afghan society, they will have the troops to do more of that. If they continue to find that order can be maintained only if social development accompanies military action, they will have more troops for that. We have no way of knowing now how those troops will end up being used. And we have no clue if it will be wise to withdraw them in July 2011.

The advantage of the Obama governing style is that his argument-based organization is a learning organization. Amid the torrent of memos and evidence and dispute, the Obama administration is able to adjust and respond more quickly than, say, the Bush administration ever did. The disadvantage is the tendency to bureaucratize the war. Armed conflict is about morale, motivation, honor, fear and breaking the enemy’s will. The danger is that Obama’s analytic mode will neglect the intangibles that are the essence of the fight. It will fail to inspire and comfort. Soldiers and Marines don’t have the luxury of adopting President Obama’s calibrated stance since they are being asked to potentially sacrifice everything. Barring a scientific breakthrough, we can’t merge Obama’s analysis with George Bush’s passion. But we should still be glad that he is governing the way he is. I loved covering the Obama campaign. But amid problems like Afghanistan and health care, it simply wouldn’t do to give gauzy speeches about the meaning of the word hope. It is in Obama’s nature to lead a government by symposium. Embrace the complexity. Learn to live with the dispassion.
"Embrace the complexity" is a fine enjoinder, nearly perfect. After eight years of having decisions made by the ADHD "Decider" based on the first thought that came to mind or was presented by his second in command, having thoughtful, groups of people pore over the data and the consequences is beyond refreshing. Brooks is right. Obama’s Afghanistan speech was reluctantly given – but the more I think about it, the better it sounds. David Brooks’ is eloquent in saying:
Those new troops are not themselves a strategy; they are enablers of an evolving strategy. Over the next year, there will be disasters, errors and surprises — as in all wars. But the generals will have more resources with which to cope and respond. If the generals continue to find that stationing troops in the villages of Helmand Province leads to the revival of Afghan society, they will have the troops to do more of that. If they continue to find that order can be maintained only if social development accompanies military action, they will have more troops for that. We have no way of knowing now how those troops will end up being used. And we have no clue if it will be wise to withdraw them in July 2011.
You’d almost think it was Brooks’ own strategy he was talking about. There’s another difference in Obama’s way of doing things. He respects the minds of other people. That’s what Brooks is talking about. Give the military the needed tools and ask them to use them wisely. We forget what the Cheney/Addington way was – the "Unitary Executive" – masterminding, micromanaging everything. During the Bush years, in matters military, we heard what Donald Rumsfeld thought. Donald Rumsfeld was a weekend warrior, not a soldier. These days, we don’t hear about the Secretary of Defense. We hear about the General. Bush didn’t figure that one out until Petreus, way into things.

It’s a pity the Republican Party isn’t functional these days. Obama really is a moderate, and as bipartisan a Democrat as they will ever see. They’re so dead set on being crazy that they are missing opportunities rarely offered to a minority Party. 2010 will be interesting in that regard. The Republican Party is purging reasonable people and trying to collect even more crazies than they’ve got already. We have no choice but to fight them tooth and toenail. There’s no room right now for anything resembling a true conservative among them.

Like I said, "What a year." David Brooks supporting an Obama plan. Who’d have thunk it?
  1.  
    Carl
    December 9, 2009 | 11:02 PM
     

    I’ve been reviewing material relating to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (’79-’89) and despair that any adventure in that dusty corner of the planet will end well despite the substantive differences in motive, moral rectitude and stated nobility of the objectives. I see from DoD that the units being called into the fray since last week are comprised mainly of versatile light infantry – mostly Marines – and believe that Generals Patraeus and McChrystal are able students of history and competent tacticians. We shall see how they intend to press the fight to the enemy but this sign, as to the type of warrior they are scheduling into it, is more encouraging than lots of the other blather we’ve been hearing. If we see that the girly-man coalition of the witless troops are to remain behind the lines of fire providing security to most of 29 or so provincial areas while our Marines are ‘boots-on-the-ground’ chasing down and exterminating the enemy all along and perhaps across the border with Pakistan, then Barry just might be able to count on something that looks like a “win” at around the date he has posed. Still, these words written by a retired general of the Army of Afghanistan in 1996 have an odious echo:

    “…no army, however sophisticated, well trained, materially rich, numerically overwhelming and ruthless, can succeed on the battlefield if is not psychologically fit and motivated for the fight. The force, however destitute in material advantages and numbers, which can rely on the moral qualities of a strong faith, stubborn determination, individualism and unending patience will always be the winner.”

  2.  
    December 10, 2009 | 4:59 AM
     

    I skipped the optional “spiritual tour of Cairo” today to watch the coming Nobel lecture.

    I hope your apt research is in the mind of McChrystal and the Commander-in-Chief. This is no endeavor for girly-men, sure enough. And Obama has a chance to be serious about peace in this campaign. The best insurance for peace is winning a “just war.”

    As our Egyptian guide says about all future events, In Shaa Allah [meaning “God willing”].

  3.  
    Carl
    December 10, 2009 | 10:24 AM
     

    It wasn’t until I caught a documentary (History Channel maybe) 6 months ago that I realized just how close we were to enucleating Al Qaeda at Tora Bora. The program included interviews with the CIA guy who was calling out loudly for getting the job done…which we know fell on ears that were not working right…I remember at the time thinking that it was about done from what we were hearing from the press who were hot on the trail. What a let down and how costly for us, the Afghans, the coalition forces, the world, humanity in general. In Shah Allah indeed – this time perhaps.

    So, I’ve been anxious to know whether you’ve been sitting around in a tent sipping tea and munching on roasted camel gonads while being entertained by Rubenesque belly dancers? Peace and bright moments.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.