White House and NY Times Face Off: Has Obama Opted for Hard Power in Afghanistan?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Those folks who bother to worry about the war in Afghanistan–not a large slice of the population–had reason to fret on Wednesday morning when they picked up (or clicked on) the New York Times and read a front-page story noting that President Barack Obama is adopting a new “approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development.” The piece cited unnamed senior administration officials.

At a press briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had said that the administration was in the early stage of reevaluating Afghanistan policy. He had noted that Obama intended to meet with US Army General David McKiernan, the commander of the NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, to discuss the course ahead. It seemed as if no decisions had been rendered about Afghanistan.

Yet the Times indicated key calls have already been made:

[Administration officials] said that the Obama administration would work with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government, and that it would leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces could focus on the fight against insurgents.

Has Obama dumped nation-building for Taliban-fighting? That could be troubling.

But at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, Gibbs rained on the Times‘s scoop. Asked about the article, Gibbs referred to “erroneous reporting” and maintained that the administration’s review of its Afghanistan policy is “not yet completed.” He pointed out that Obama has emphasized the “importance of long-term development” in Afghanistan and the region and that there is not “simply a military solution” to the problem. He added, “Only through long-term and sustainable development can we hope to turn around” the situation in Afghanistan. He did not, however, address whether Obama was contemplating a division of labor, under which the Europeans would take the high (development) road and the Americans would take the low (counterinsurgency) road. When I asked when Obama would meet with McKiernan to review the policy, Gibbs said that he did not know.

Meanwhile, the International Institute for Strategic Studies released a report this week, saying that Afghanistan is entering its most critical phase since the United States invaded the country. The group’s director, John Chipman, noted, “The integrity of the whole international mission in Afghanistan is … very substantially at stake.” The IISS report was bad news: “In the face of a strengthening insurgency in Afghanistan, NATO has increasing problems in forging a common understanding of objectives for its mission.”

Gibbs says the policy review is just beginning. The Times reports the deal’s done. Who to believe? In any event, Obama ought to publicly address Afghanistan soon. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates on Tuesday said Afghanistan is the “greatest military challenge” facing Obama. That being the case, the new commander in chief ought to tell the rest of us what he intends to do about it.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate