Executive control on U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan

Earlier this week, President Obama ruled out the possibility that he might shrink the eight-year old war in Afghanistan to a counterterrorism campaign. Yet he did not reveal any other details about his war-strategy for the region. His top, handpicked commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal has repeatedly warned that at least 40,000 additional troops are needed in order to avoid defeat. However, the President has not yet signaled whether he is prepared to heed the advice of his top general and escalate troops by 40,000 or order a smaller buildup of 10,000 troops. The President has already pledged to send in another 21,000 troops by the end of this year – raising total deployment in the country to 68,000. This is why General McChrystal’s request warrants even further deliberation on the part of the President.

According to the BBC, President has already convened several meetings with his “war council” to discuss the volatile situation in the region. However, his top advisors are split on their opinions on troop escalation; while politicians like Joe Biden and John Kerry are strongly opposed to it, others like Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates agree with the expert military advice of McChrystal, Mike Mullen and General Patraeus. President Obama, however, has remained silent. He is keen to get as much input on the situation as possible before reaching a final decision.

According to Aaron Wildavsky, presidential discretion has dominated U.S. foreign policy over the years. Be it the World Wars, the Cold War, or the more recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – presidential hold on foreign affairs has only intensified as “consequences of events in foreign affairs are potentially more grave, faster to manifest themselves and less easily reversible than in domestic affairs…” During previous administrations, when it came to policy decisions, the military almost never prevailed. However, to bolster his case for Afghanistan, General McChrystal has even broken the usual standard of military silence and has appeared on shows like 60 minutes to explain why troop escalation in the region is imperative.

Torn between the opposing views of his vice-president and his top commander in the region, President Obama has expressed his desire to be deliberate, but at the same time, conscious of the urgency of the situation. Yet, it increasingly seems as though the President is not feeling pressurized to make an announcement anytime soon, even though the military, Congress, rival political figures and the public are all getting frustrated by the lack of information about the administration’s long-term strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to the NYTimes, Dick Cheney recently spoke out against the Obama administration’s ‘indecisiveness’ on the issue and accused the President of “dithering” on Afghanistan. However, this simply goes to show that although the Presidency will always have rivals who will compete for the control of foreign policy (institutions like the military, Congress and the State department), it is the Presidency that is expected to pay the cost if American engagement abroad goes awry – which is why in matters of foreign policy, it is only President Obama who will wield preponderant authority.