Skip to main content

The "double envelopment" or pincer movement is a classic military maneuver that finds the flanks of the opponent under simultaneous attack from the opposing forces. The maneuver may have been used as early as the Battle of Marathon in the fifth century BC, and there are accounts of Hannibal using the double envelopment at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Gen. Robert E. Lee used the technique successfully in the Second Battle of Bull Run in 1862, when the Confederate forces threatened the lines of communication between the Union forces and the political leadership in Washington. The German Sixth Army was a victim of double envelopment at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, and Gen. George Patton used the technique successfully against German forces in World War II.

Now, President Barack Obama finds himself the victim of a political double envelopment in which the Pentagon, having ostensibly agreed to a strategy calling for discussion of withdrawal from Afghanistan, is already campaigning and planning for an extended stay. On one flank, the Pentagon is undertaking a huge base expansion program that will support a regional military strategy against Russia, China and Iran. On the other flank, the senior military leadership is walking away from any notion of even gradual withdrawal beginning in 2011.

President Obama seemed reluctant last year when he announced his decision to enlarge the US military presence in Afghanistan. He demonstrated his uncertainty by combining the decision to send an additional 30,000 soldiers and Marines with a commitment to begin discussions for withdrawal in December of this year in order to begin a withdrawal process in July 2011. Vice President Joe Biden strongly opposed the decision to expand the force presence, but he was outflanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who received predictably strong support from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and senior general officers.

Now, one general after another is walking away from any discussion of a major review of policy, let alone withdrawal, with on-the-record comments in support of an extended stay in Afghanistan. The Pentagon's campaign began two weeks with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, arguing that he had not come to Afghanistan to preside over a "graceful exit." General Petraeus indicated that his support for any decision to begin the withdrawal of forces next summer would depend on how the war was proceeding. He presumably believes that he can repeat the success of the surge in Iraq, which he campaigned for in 2007.

In the wake of General Petraeus' remarks, Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said that President Obama's July 2011 deadline to begin US troop withdrawal was "giving our enemy sustenance." General Conway seemed to be particularly dismissive of any discussion of withdrawal, noting that President Obama was "talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments regarding July 2011." The US commander in charge of training Afghan security forces, Gen. William Caldwell IV, told Pentagon reporters on August 23 that he will not complete his mission of training an Afghan force until after the deadline. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen has been the most aggressive military leader in making the case for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. And General McChrystal probably should have been fired for insubordination in the fall of 2009 when he rejected the idea of using drone aircraft and special forces to defeat al-Qaeda before a final decision had been made.

This is very much different from the private comments of the military leadership to President Obama last year when he conducted his high-level review of Afghan policy. In the Oval Office in October 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen pledged their support to President Obama's plan and committed themselves to making sure that Generals McChrystal and Petraeus would stop their public discussion of the policy debate. Vice Chairman of the JCS, Gen. James Cartwright, also pledged fealty. And in late November, only days before the West Point speech, President Obama asked General Petraeus if he was certain of progress over the next 18 months that would allow the withdrawal to begin in 2011. Gates, Mullen and Petraeus agreed that it could be done and that the Afghan Army could take over the mission at that time.

The pace of US military construction in Afghanistan certainly does not suggest an interest or expectation of an early withdrawal. Major expansion is taking place at three US air bases in southern and northern Afghanistan and none of these projects is expected to be completed before the latter part of 2011. In other words, long after President Obama has pledged to begin the withdrawal of US forces, the Pentagon is allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for air bases in key regions. The House of Representatives has already approved more than $1 billion for additional base construction in addition to the more than $5 billion allocated to build facilities for the Afghan Army and the national police. Neither Afghan institution has demonstrated that it can maintain security in the country, let alone take on the growing Taliban forces.

President Obama has learned some harsh lessons about civilian-military relations over the past year. The secretary of defense and the Pentagon's military leadership are working energetically to undermine the president's call for an end to the cynical policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which undermined the role of gays serving in the military. When the Obama administration was discussing Afghan policy at the highest levels last year, senior general officers campaigned for a significant expansion of US forces long before any decision was actually made. General McChrystal was eventually forced to resign as commander of US forces in Afghanistan because he and his staff were contemptuous toward civilian decision makers.

The president denied that he was "jammed" by the military in the fall of 2009 when the toughest decision of his presidency had to be made. It is clear, however, that the military is trying to manipulate President Obama on the next round of decision making. It was 50 years ago that President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his senior advisers, "God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well as I do."

Originally published at: http://www.truth-out.org/...

Originally posted to Mel Goodman on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:14 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think every person that votes to continue these (6+ / 0-)

    wars should have to

    1. Pay for them
    1. Fight in them

    Struggling to find my relevance in a world gone amok

    by billlaurelMD on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:17:41 PM PDT

  •  So true, so true (0+ / 0-)

    We all know how fast these wars would be over were that to happen.

  •  I think this strategy is all but clear. (0+ / 0-)

    All that remains is whether the President will succumb to it and renege on the start date of his intended withdrawal.

    In some ways it doesn't even matter, because he's already left himself enough wiggle room to take as long as he wants... so long as he at least starts it in 2011.

    But I'll guess it'll be slow, prolonged, and never complete as some reason presents itself as to why we have to stay.

    Most likely something along the lines of of Afghan Security Forces being unprepared, and we can't leave until those forced stand up.. which is when we'll stand down.. .and rename our remaining combat troops for years to come.

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:29:05 PM PDT

  •  He's still the C-in-C (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laker

    I think it's silly to blame the military.  To the extent that you have blame to apportion, it should go to the President.

    The most impressive thing about man [...] is the fact that he has invented the concept of that which does not exist--Glenn Gould

    by Rich in PA on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:32:18 PM PDT

  •  Bring our Empire home. (0+ / 0-)
    I am tired of coddling this military.

    Ex-General Stanley McCrystal was quoted in the NY Times on March 26, 2010, saying "We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

    Get our troops away from innocent people and back home.

    2.5 trillion dollars have been "borrowed" since the [SS] system was "reformed" in the 80s and they simply don't want to pay it back. - dKos Blogger -

    by Silverbird on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:49:26 PM PDT

  •  Like everyone knows, Mr. Obama (0+ / 0-)

    showcased expanded war in Afghanistan as a cornerstone of his campaign.

    So why is all this maneuvering by the Pentagon necessary to get him to do what he intended from the get-go?

    •  The President also said the commitment wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

      be open-ended. The Pentagon wants never ending war to justify it's never ending consumption of resources.

      I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan

      by Lcohen on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting analysis, (0+ / 0-)

    thank you Mr. Goodman.

    The Great Recession is a happy happy joy joy time to drop your obsolete skills and train for new ones.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 03:51:18 PM PDT

  •  Military treasons extend far beyond... (0+ / 0-)

    ...mere political weaseling.  

    I have no doubt that substantial racist, sexist, right wing reactionary conservative fundamentalist elements are deeply embedded throughout all government apparatus, including the military, as well as CIA and State.

    Such elements created the Taliban Frankenstein monster in the first place, like they do all over the world, SOP.

    Such military elements seem likely to defy the Commander in Chief's new Rules of Engagement (eg: stand down from blitzkreig fire fights when civilians are present) and shifts in strategy (ie: from deliberately fostering and cultivating corruption, drug lords, etc, like Bush & Co, to instead crack down on the warlords, and begin providing administrative and technical training and assistance to deploy public services to the population).

    No doubt some military elements revel in racist killing, and consider it all the more compelling to provoke further Afghan resistance, sabotage the purported mission and embarrass Obama.  

    As always, US foreign policy remains fixated on the cold-war perspective that we "must" establish absolute hegemony, or else sow chaos and mayhem, on the flanks of Russia, China, and the oil fields.

    "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

    by Radical def on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 04:46:11 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site