What's Obama to do about Afstan? And what about the Afghans?

Further to this post,

Gates and the generals, and admirals/McChrystal Update

how long will the president's consideration of Afghan strategy, er, drone on

The White House began its review of the Afghan war strategy in earnest Tuesday, with senior administration officials meeting via videoconference with the top commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, at the start of what could be weeks of debate over whether to send thousands of reinforcements.

White House officials said President Barack Obama will join in the discussions Wednesday, when he is expected to meet with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among other top officials.

The White House unexpectedly decided to review its strategy in Afghanistan after a series of recent setbacks in the war, including allegations of fraud following last month's presidential elections and surging violence throughout the country. It begins just days after Gen. McChrystal submitted his request for as many as 40,000 additional troops to the Pentagon.

Some in the administration, notably Mr. Biden, have argued for a smaller military footprint and a tighter focus on counterterrorism [emphasis added] as the best way forward.

Advocates of such a shift point to the effective use of Predator drone strikes to kill Taliban leaders in Pakistan. Two additional Predators are expected to be shifted soon to the region to patrol the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, according to people familiar with the decision, a move that would bring the total drones in the theater to a number the military has wanted for years.

Mr. Obama gave voice to a possible shift in emphasis on Tuesday when he spoke of "dismantling, disrupting, destroying the al Qaeda network" as the mission, without mentioning the Taliban [emphasis added]. He also said the U.S. is working with the Afghans to bring security to the country...

After years of pressing European allies for additional forces in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama made no mention of having discussed NATO contributions to the war effort after his meeting with Mr. Rasmussen.

But in an address Monday night to the Atlantic Council in Washington, the NATO secretary general said he believed the alliance must send more trainers to Afghanistan quickly or it will be impossible to draw down foreign troops in the future.

What the president said:

...it is absolutely critical that we are successful in dismantling, disrupting, destroying the Al Qaeda network, and that we are effectively working with the Afghan government to provide the security necessary for that country...

Not much there to give Afghans confidence in a real US commitment to the country. Terry Glavin gets to the nub of the matter from the Canadian angle in the National Post (done earlier at his blog, see this post, but worth repeating):

It is heartening to see that the consensus of silence that has united Canada's political leaders on the Afghanistan question is at long last receiving some public notice [more here]. The sound of crickets is pretty well all we've been hearing ever since the January 2008 release of John Manley's sobering, no-nonsense report about Canada's purposes in that faraway country.

The report should have provided the basis for a proper public debate about what Canada's role might be at the 2011 end-date of the 52-nation Afghanistan Compact. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats have used the opportunity as an excuse to keep schtum about the whole thing...

The problem isn't the resolve of the Afghan people. For Afghans, the big fear isn't the spectre of Taliban militias rolling across the landscape and recapturing Kabul. It's the stink of a looming betrayal that emanates from the language of defeatism abroad in rich countries like Canada. It paralyzes the bravest Afghans --if it's all coming to an end, there's no point in sticking one's neck out. It also fuels the "corruption" that plagues the country -- if this isn't going to last, then you might as well get it while the getting's good.

The language we speak is at least as important to the Afghan cause as bread or roses, or guns or butter. More than all else, what the Afghan people need to hear from us is plain words spoken in clear language:We will not betray you. We will not abandon you. We will not surrender. We will not retreat.

Until Canada's politicians can find it in themselves to speak that kind of language, perhaps they should do us all a favour and just keep their mouths shut. - Terry Glavin is an author, journalist and adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia.

Obama? Betrayal...? See end of this post.

Here's one constraint on our government's being very clear about the future of Canada's military mission,

Afstan mission planning--"Gotcha!"?

but this is just a wee bit encouraging:

CAN Troops to Stay Post-2011?

But, of course, if President Obama effectively downgrades the American commitment it will, to my mind, be politically impossible for any Canadian military mission to continue after 2011.

Update: Bouhammer's Afghan Blog (senior Army National Guard NCO, 16 month tour as an ETT leader in Afghanistan) lays out key statements by major American military and administration figures and concludes:

It is Time to Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the War

(Via The Thunder Run's very helpful daily round-up.)

Should President Obama turn down any substantial increase in forces, what's a poor Afghan to conclude? The top US military man in country say more forces are needed or mission failure is possible. The president disagrees. What faith is that Afghan to have that the Taliban won't be back sooner or later? Which horse may he lay side bets on, at a minimum? The PR impact of the US decision-making stinks from an Afghan standpoint--even if those forces are sent, it certainly looks like this administration's commitment is increasingly grudging. Not a happy longer-term prospect for those Afghans unless the ANSF really do get built up and really effective pretty soon.