National Security

By Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK)

Biography

Of all the awesome responsibilities that any President of the United States must shoulder, perhaps none are more important and daunting than those he or she assumes as the Commander in Chief.  On a daily basis, the President is provided with a detailed list of real and perceived threats to national security, along with currently available options for responses to those threats. In addition, the President is updated on the status of critical ongoing and planned military, and intelligence operations around the world.

Shortly after taking office, President Obama - in consultation with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, our NATO allies, and - most importantly - our military commanders in the theatre of battle, undertook a careful policy review as it pertains to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  Based on that review, on March of 2009, the President announced a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In announcing this new strategy the President said; "Let me be clear: al Qaeda and it's allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks - are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan.  And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many people as they possibly can."  The President added; "For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world."

To implement his new strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by the then commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan.  In addition, the President also ordered the deployment of an additional 4000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces.  Again, responding to the advice and recommendations of his commanders.

When the President made this announcement, I - and many other Republican Members of Congress praised his decision.  In fact, on the very day of President Obama's announcement, I released the following statement.

"The situation in Afghanistan is fluid, so I welcome the new strategic direction that the administration announced this morning," Congressman Cole said.  "Many skilled military advisors have recommended a troop level increase to our President, and I am pleased that he is heeding their advice."

"Al Qaeda extremists are continuing to use Afghanistan as a staging ground and then travelling to the northern provinces of Pakistan to find safe-haven.  This is a complex problem that must be addressed.  That's why I support President Obama's call for a regional approach that recognizes the nature of this conflict.  We must work with Pakistan to address the fluidity of the border and encourage them to stand against the forces of terror that undermine the security of their own country, as well as the entire region."  

"I also want to commend the President for reaffirming our joint commitment to our allies to fight the forces of terror and extend freedom where it is threatened.  Reaching victory will require us to continue to work in conjunction with other like-minded nations.  Intense military and diplomatic efforts are needed to dismantle extremism and rebuild democracy abroad."  

"Finally, the sacrifices made by our U.S. military should never be far from our minds.  They are the lynchpin of our nation's security.  And as we move forward with troop increases, we must make sure that they have every resource necessary to succeed."

Less than two months later Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the extraordinary step of demanding the resignation of General McKiernan.  It was one of only a handful of times that a President has removed a wartime commander since Harry Truman sacked General MacArthur in 1951.  In anticipation of adding upwards of 60,000 additional troops, President Obama hand picked General McKiernan's replacement when he named General Stanley McChrystal as Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.

As recently as August of this past summer, President Obama continued to give every indication that he was committed to his new strategy and fully supportive of his new Commander.  Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the President said; "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

A War President, Without a War Party

It is a rare President who has the political courage to make the very difficult decisions necessary to prosecute war in the face of public opposition.  Harry Truman had it - he dropped the atomic bomb, fought communist aggression in Korea, and left office with a 22% approval rating. George W. Bush most certainly had it.  He left office with a 25% approval rating and many political experts suggest that the President Bush's policies in the war on terror were largely responsible for the crushing electoral losses for the GOP in 2006 and 2008.   But what Truman and Bush had in common was their willingness to do what was best for the country as Commanders in Chief when it would have been much easier to be popularity seeking politicians.

President Obama has reached that proverbial "fork in the road" where he, too, must decide if he is a Commander in Chief, or just another politician.  On September 20, in response to a directive from the White House, General McChrystal provided an assessment of what he believes is required to effectively implement the President's strategy in Afghanistan. And while the General points out that simply "doubling down" on the previous strategy will not bring about success, he nevertheless made it very clear that a minimum of 40,000 additional troops will be necessary to accomplish our objectives.

It should come as no surprise that this recommendation was met with strong opposition from Congressional Democrats - particularly the far left that dominates the House of Representatives.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said; "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress."  With all due respect to Speaker Pelosi and her ultra-liberal allies in the Congress, they are not the Commander in Chief.  Nor are they particularly qualified to challenge the recommendations of the Commanding General in Afghanistan.  And President Obama would do well to reject their politically motivated advice and, instead, follow the professional recommendations of General McChrystal.

If President Obama follows the advice of General McChrystal, and requests the resources necessary to succeed in Afghanistan, I predict he will have the support of a bi-partisan coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats.  If, however, the President rejects or ignores the advice of General McChrystal, Congress should give serious consideration to denying his request altogether.  If the President isn't fully committed to victory in Afghanistan, perhaps we ought not be there at all.

In order for any U.S. military campaign to be successful, it is necessary for the troops to be well trained, well equipped, competently led, and unwaveringly supported by their Commander in Chief.  History has taught us the bitter lesson of what happens when the President compromises that support because of domestic political considerations.  The most obvious comparison is Lyndon Johnson who, in an effort to pass sweeping domestic legislation, let those ambitions prevent him from prosecuting the Viet Nam war in a manner likely to result in success.  As a result, Johnson accomplished neither and dropped his bid for a second full term as President after he barely won the critical New Hampshire primary race in 1968.

President Obama is in an eerily similar predicament.  While he attempts to fundamentally alter the very character and nature of our country through his efforts to socialize our health care system, impose draconian new energy taxes in the name of global warming, and dramatically increase the size and scope of the federal government, he is also faced with the task of leading our Armed Forces in Afghanistan as our Commander in Chief.  The decisions he makes with respect to Afghanistan in the coming weeks may very well determine if this new President is in the mold of "Give em Hell" Harry Truman, or the historically tragic LBJ.  For the sake of the United States of America and indeed, all of our freedom loving allies around the world, let us pray that it is the former.

Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) is a former member of the House Armed Services Committee.  He currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee.