As US Ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, leaks a memo about his concerns of sending more troops to Afghanistan President Obama ponders whether sending more soldiers will really make a difference. Nick Paton Walsh writes.
It is all about perceptions.
Today’s leaking of a memo from the US Ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, to Washington about his concerns over sending more than 10 to 15,000 reinforcements here, is not the first leak this week.
There’s been a flurry of backhanded information coming out of Washington in the past few months.
Unless this is genuinely a reflection of an administration in chaos and head spin about one of its most important decisions yet, the leaks aims are pretty clear: the Obama administration wants the public to know they thought about it a lot before they decided.
Most people on the ground here seem to think the announcement by President Obama – first expected round about now, and now anticipated in December – will send over 30,000 more troops. 40,000 is very possible.
If Obama does not commit to the war he won an election on by framing as vital, then he lays himself open to entirely owning defeat here.
But nothing is final: a senior military figure I spoke to told me that he really had no idea what Obama was thinking and he thought top Nato commanders didn’t either. It is possible Obama is really undecided about this one.
But are there other possible reasons for the delay?
Aside from pressure from his own Democratic party, Obama has another arm to twist.
The Karzai government here – now reinstalled after an immensely dodgy electoral process which eventually saw an electoral committee the president had appointed rubber stamp his return to power – makes no secret that it would like more American troops here. They really do need the bolstering and the security.
Hence the endless mantra from Downing Street – and more importantly from Washington – about corruption here. And bad governance.
There is a perhaps naive hope that Karzai – who has proven himself the only real option here over the past two years – will suddenly wake up and fire anyone with bad money or blood on their hands, and appoint some luminary like Paddy Ashdown as his top advisor. That probably won’t happen.
But the pressure is everywhere building and that’s why Eikenberry’s memo counts.
He points to corruption as a problem, but also the Afghan government’s habitual dependence on the US and its military to solve its problems. His fear is more troops here will simply promote that tendency. And bolster a government that doesn’t want to govern.
His opinion matters, but not just because he’s the US’s top diplomat here. He was the top US commander here and has previously clashed with the head of Nato – Stanley McChrystal, who wants 40,000 troops to swamp areas now dominated by insurgents.
Kabul’s top two American officials are now publicly at odds over whether a tiny force of 10,000 or a massive contingent of 40,000 should battle this booming insurgency.
The decision maker has yet to decide, and the leaks about his deliberations and advice continue.
This is perhaps the most vital time yet in this eight year campaign, and Nato here is left waiting, rather than doing.
– Get new posts from the World News Blog emailed to you. Sign up here for free (link takes you to Google’s Feedburner service).