General: We’re Staying in Afghanistan, No Matter What Obama Said

By Spencer Ackerman

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, nominated to be the next commander of the Afghanistan war, speaks in February at Eglin Air Force Base, February 2012. Photo: U.S. Marine Corps

Remember how President Obama said on the campaign trail that he would “responsibly end the war” in Afghanistan in 2014? Or when Vice President Biden said the president’s plan was “to end the war in 2014?” The general they want to lead that war is singing a much different tune.


During his confirmation hearing to take command in Kabul, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the U.S. needs to present a “clear and compelling narrative of commitment” to Afghanistan, beyond the 2014 timeframe for turning over security to the Afghans. Step one is to negotiate the contours of a post-2014 U.S. force in Afghanistan, to “create momentum for that narrative that I was alluding to.”
The discrepancy between Dunford’s narrative of a continuing war and his boss’ narrative of a concluding war is a consequence of the Obama administration saying two things to two different audiences about the same war. To the American public, which Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) described as “war-weary,” the Obama team has sweeping rhetoric about “mov[ing] with confidence beyond this time of war,” as Obama said during his reelection speech last week. Overseas, not so much.
“It’s a question of confidence in the Afghan people that we will remain, confidence in the Afghanistan national security forces that we will remain,” confidence in the “capitals that we will remain,” and confidence among “regional actors that we will remain,” Dunford said. Constructing that narrative, in his view, is a hedge against the Taliban waiting the U.S. out and U.S. allies and adversaries alike preparing for the fall of the Washington-backed Afghan government.

Talks began on Thursday between U.S. and Afghan diplomats, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) noted, to craft the details of the U.S.’s continued presence, a long, long-telegraphed process Dunford says he wants to see wrapped up by May 2013. The general testified that the U.S. can “absolutely” cut its troop levels, but will need a residual force for “counterterrorism” operations and to backstop the fledgling Afghanistan army and police. (As well as to use Afghanistan as a platform to strike militant targets in Pakistan.) Regardless of the ultimate size of that force, Dunford’s testimony signaled that he intends to spend his time in Afghanistan telling whomever will listen that the U.S. is in Southwest Asia for the long haul, never mind what the president says.
Dunford had less to say about actually salvaging the war he will command. He elided critical debates about the pace of pre-2014 troop reductions — even saying he wasn’t part of internal deliberations over them — and the ultimate size of the Afghan security forces. He didn’t discuss any U.S. operations beyond training those Afghans, which he called “the critical part of our effort,” and said little of substance about stopping Afghan soldiers and cops from killing their American mentors. Instead, he came armed with talking points about progress in the war — although recent military statistics show enemy attacks to be more frequent than before the troop surge — and declared, “our objectives are achievable.”
Senators on the panel did not sound convinced. A frustrated Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the war’s biggest congressional supporters, called Dunford a “blank slate” and made the surprising statement that if the U.S. “can’t accomplish the mission, I’m not sure why we should stay.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the “lack of progress [and] the surge in insider attacks paint a rather bleak picture.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) mused about cutting off funding for the war if the U.S. withdraws too many troops to perform the residual missions Dunford outline. The panel’s chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), however, encouraged Dunford to “present the positives” in Afghanistan and swiped at the media for emphasizing the negatives.
Lots of generals, especially David Petraeus, talk about shaping public perceptions of U.S. wars. Few are as blunt about it as Dunford was. That might be because the facts underlying Dunford’s narrative are basically in flux: NATO definitely wants its troops out, full stop, from Afghanistan, and the war is unpopular among the American people. Washington and Kabul still have to negotiate the size of a residual U.S. force, so it remains to be seen if that force will be an afterword to the war or the continuation of it under a new phrase. Facts like those tend to present a narrative all of their own.