AfPak strategy out today

The internets are abuzz - ABUZZ I tell you - with anticipation, nervousness, and apprehension over the Obama administration’s planned release of an Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy.  At first glance, it looks about the best you could hope for:  4,000 more troops (in addition to the 17,000 Obama has already ordered on over), not to mention the $2billion more per month in funding.

Notably, the press leaks haven’t articulated extraordinarily precise new goals:

Obama plans to announce a “simple, clear, concise goal — to disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan,” said the official, one of three authorized to anonymously discuss the strategy.

(Sound of record needle ripped off vinyl) Wait - al Qaeda IN PAKISTAN?  Look, I understand that AQ is holed up in Pakistan, but proclaimations like that are going to need some serious explanation.  If we’re trying to smash AQ in PAKISTAN, yours truly understands the Afghan side of the ledger, but I follow this stuff for a living.  The rest of America is going to need the President to link the two countries convincingly or public support is going to head south, and quickly.

Since I have to run off to the DMV, I’m going to steal some other smart comments on what this all means.

Marc Ambinder:

In seeking to reassure Americans that help to Pakistan is contingent on internal reforms, he plans to stress that Americans will work with those in both countries who demonstratively seek peace and reconciliation.

This will be interpreted as a warning to both President Asif Ali Zardari in Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. Pointedly, the new Afpak policy does not express a preference for specific leaders, another difference from the previous administration, which had been accused of coddling and courting Karzai and former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf at the expense of rooting out corruption and terrorism. Afghanistan holds elections later this year, and the U.S. hasn’t found a candidate it likes.

Michael Cohen:

So basically the Obama Adminstration, for strategic and political reasons, was always going to seek out some sort of middle ground. This was never truly a debate between three possible options; it was more of a Goldilocks debate - how we avoid getting into too deep, but how to we ensure we don’t too little.

I’m hardly surprised that those arguing for a focus on counter-terrorism versus the COIN-dinistas have won the internal White House debate. I supposed what I’m more surprised by is that this was a serious debate. Let’s face it, Barack Obama has big plans, both domestically and internationally. The last thing he wants to do is find himself mired in a guerrila war in Afghanistan, particularly when the adoption of a COIN strategy means more money, more soldiers and no definite chance of achieving a positive result.