Strike Force Behind The Book: strikeforce.mp3 Writers Roundtable Interview With Dale Brown ATARI ACT OF WAR: DIRECT ACTION LINKS Dale Brown Interview With: Peter Anthony Holder When a former pilot turns his hand to thrillers you can take their authenticity for granted. His writing is exceptional and the dialogue, plots and characters are first-class... far too good to be missed.' --Sunday Mirror ‘Dale Brown is a superb storyteller’ --WASHINGTON POST ‘Dale Brown is the best military adventure writer in the country’ --CLIVE CUSSLER

THE POWELL DOCTRINE AND AFGHANISTAN
by Dale Brown, 2009

ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT Facebook.com/AuthorDaleBrown, 2 Dec. 2009

So now we know The Obama Plan for Afghanistan. Are you buying any of it? Can you really plan to train up an army so it can defend itself, yet at the same time tell the enemy when you plan on leaving?

I always refer to the so-called Powell Doctrine (actually was the Weinberger Doctrine, but Colin Powell said it better) when looking at our involvement in any conflict. To be fair, Pres. Obama inherited this conflict--boots were already on the ground when he became Commander-in-Chief--but it's his war now, so let's look at how The Obama Plan measures up:

1) Is a vital national security interest threatened? Certainly from al-Qaeda using the region for training and recruiting Islamist extremists who plan to stage more attacks in the West and pro-West nations, although we now know that al-Qaeda is active all around the world, not just in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Taliban is possibly a threat to Pakistan and its nuclear weapons, but the direct threat to the U.S. from the Taliban is less obvious.

2) Do we have a clear attainable objective? Pres. Obama wants to push back against al-Qaeda and the Taliban (notice he didn't say "eliminate" or "destroy") long enough so the government can build up its own defense forces so U.S. forces can leave. Can any plan that depends on the performance of somebody else, especially a military force that does not exist, be attainable?

3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? I think Pres. Obama focused on the political risks and costs and decided that doing nothing or pulling out completely would hurt him more. He did mention a dollar figure--$30 billion a year just for the additional troops--but didn't mention how we are supposed to pay that.

4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? The need to respond to the 9/11 attacks and try to capture Usama bin Laden probably prevented this, and Pres. Bush successfully set up a representative government in Kabul (after driving the Taliban out). Pres. Obama's only non-violent action appears to be sending 5,000 instructors to help train the Afghan army. What other non-violent actions has he taken?

5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Pres. Obama's exit strategy is simple: start pulling forces out in 2011. He qualified it by saying it was all situation-dependant, but he said what his supporters wanted to hear: we're leaving in 18 months, period.

6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Again, I think Pres. Obama is only considering his political consequences. But what if we start taking casualties in Afghanistan like we took in Iraq before 2007? Does The Obama Plan start to unravel?

7) Is the action supported by the American people? It's about a 50-50 split right now, but support has been waning. A lot of Pres. Obama's own progressive supporters don't like the idea of sending in more troops. He was not supposed to be a "war president" like Pres. Bush--he was elected to get us OUT of wars.

8) Do we have genuine broad international support? I was actually struck by how many countries around the world welcomed the President's plan. However, it remains to be seen how many countries like it well enough to commit their troops to The Obama Plan.

9) Will all available resources and overwhelming force be committed to the conflict to ensure victory? It can be argued that Pres. Obama can't because of our commitment in Iraq and the state of our economy, two more situations that he inherited. But "victory" is not a part of The Obama Plan--"secure enough to get out" is The Obama Plan.

Saying "no," "too early to tell," or "maybe" to any of the above questions means that it fails the Powell Doctrine test.

The Obama Plan is in place--we have to see how well it does. But if it fails the Powell Doctrine test, I don't give it much chance of success.

Welcome to AirBattleForce.Com Lake Tahoe, Nevada, USA Cyberspace home of: Dale Brown readermail@dalebrown.info