"What the generals won't tell the prez"
Ralph Peters
As our powerless secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, dutifully covers her head to attend the inauguration of an Afghan president so unpopular his ceremony has to be held behind closed doors, our AfPak (Afghanistan/Pakistan) policy isn't merely adrift. It's sinking.
President Obama inherited a mess, and promptly made it worse.
But let's be fair: There's plenty of blame to go around in the ongoing Afghan nondecision debacle, as well as regarding our follies in Pakistan.
If the devalued buck stops at the president's desk, it's also true that the generals involved with AfPak have failed to fulfill their duties to the commander-in-chief.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal's August report, which called for more troops, was one thing -- the commander on the ground's legitimate assessment as to what he believed he needed to execute his mission.
The insubordination came later -- when President Obama asked for strategic options.
The Pentagon was obligated to respond with a full range of alternatives that re-examined the premises of the mission and offered genuine choices. It didn't.
Instead of serious alternatives, the president got slightly different versions of the single option the top generals liked. The issue was reduced to "How many more troops will you send, Mr. President?"
The brass have tried to bully the president on this one. No matter who the president is, that's wrong. When any president asks for options, he should get genuine alternatives, not variations on a theme.
Now what? We'll send more troops to Afghanistan. But we still won't have a strategy, just a new spin on old gimmicks. Far from thinking outside of the box, the generals are struggling to make the box even narrower.
This isn't a defense of Obama, whose vacillation and posturing are appalling. This is a defense of the office of the president: It's dereliction of duty for generals to stack the deck to get their way. They owe the Oval Office serious analysis, not Christmas lists.
Meanwhile, as Afghanistan comes apart, there's far bigger trouble next door in Pakistan -- where the region's future will be decided.
The year-old government of President Asif Zardari is on the political ropes. Corruption's the national sport. The military's vital offensive into South Waziristan has slowed to a pace that encourages the enemy to escape (part of the plan?).
Anti-Americanism has soared -- egged on by the media, parliamentarians and mullahs alike. Pakistan's "outraged" that our latest gift of $7.5 billion comes with questions about how it will be spent. We're villains for demanding accountability.
And I've been wrong about a fundamental issue. For years, I've insisted that, while the Pakistanis would never give us "their" Taliban (such as the Haqqani faction), they'd deliver Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri if they could.
Wrong, wrong, wrong: As the conflict dragged on, I failed to re-examine my conclusion and see what's become obvious: Osama bin Laden is the goose that lays platinum eggs.
If we killed or captured Osama and Zawahiri, the Pakistanis might not be able to milk us for more tribute money. We could draw down our troop presence next door. And the Pakistanis would lose the mighty profits squeezed from our supply route into Afghanistan.
The Pakistanis don't want us to remain in Afghanistan forever, but they're not ready to hit the brakes on the gravy train, either. They're of two minds -- and the greedy side tends to win in the short term.
And as long as we "need" Pakistan, Islamabad will be able to sponsor more terror attacks on India, counting on us to intervene before New Delhi retaliates.
Why on earth would they hand over Osama?
My mistake became clear with the passage of time: Eight years after 9/11, Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency must know where Osama hangs his turban. The ISI has connections even among the state's most virulent enemies. It's impossible to believe that, after this much time has elapsed, it has no idea where Osama's hiding. He could even be under the ISI's active protection.
We're such dupes. For the Pakistani government and the Afghan government. Secretary Clinton will show our support for Karzai in public, nag him a little in private, get a few worthless promises, bother Gen. McChrystal and fly home.
Mission accomplished.
Our president won't act, our generals won't think and our allies won't help.
God help our troops.
Ralph Peters' new book is "The War After Armageddon."
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/what_the_generals_won_tell_the_prez_fUuJ0cjsNWyiYVRsJEZq7O#ixzz0fFThnavG
