McCaffrey vs. the Civilian Surge

By
Monday, December 07, 2009 at 5:05 pm

State Department officials have been assuring reporters for the last week that by January, more than 1,000 diplomats, development workers and other U.S. government civilians will be positioned in Afghanistan to help their soon-to-be-100,000 uniformed counterparts in an effort dubbed the “civilian surge.” Indeed, just this morning, Paul Jones, the deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said to expect “beyond” that number to join the war effort in 2010, as the State Department, USAID and other non-military aspects of American power expand their operations. But retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the ethically compromised former military leader and drug czar, says none of this is real — apparently at the behest of U.S. Central Command.

Laura Rozen obtains a report commissioned by CENTCOM and written by McCaffrey casting doubt on whether the civilian surge is really meaningful. It has a lot of praise for the military leadership in Afghanistan. But then, Rozen observes:

McCaffrey’s lavish praise for the military geniuses contrasts with notable terseness regarding the whole rest of the operation in Afghanistan, though his assessment lists interviews with top US embassy officials in Afghanistan by name.

Note this point, for instance, in the summary: “The international civilian agency surge will essentially not happen — although State Department officers, US AID, CIA, DEA, and the FBI will make vital contributions. Afghanistan over the next 2-3 years will be simply too dangerous for most civil agencies.”

The State Department, USAID and CIA etc. are providing “vital contributions?” Ouch.

What does it mean to say the civilian surge “will essentially not happen”? Are those 1,000 civilians in Afghanistan or aren’t they? Rozen interprets McCaffrey’s line as indicating “the U.S. military leadership may not be ready to put aside tensions with their civilian counterparts.” I don’t know — the military commissions a lot of reports. But we’ll get an indication of whether she’s right starting tomorrow morning, when Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Amb. Karl Eikenberry begin two days of joint congressional testimony. In any event, it’s hard to know what McCaffrey is talking about here.

Fun fact: in the assessment, McCaffrey references the private security company “DynCorp whose Board of Directors I am proud to be with.” At least he’s disclosing his corporate affiliations now…

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

7 Comments

Tweets that mention McCaffrey vs. the Civilian Surge « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted December 7, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: McCaffrey vs. the Civilian Surge: State Department officials have been assuring reporters for th… http://bit.ly/4MDF9S [...]


strangely_enough
Comment posted December 7, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

Dyncorp and McCaffrey seem like a perfect match.


vabelle
Comment posted December 7, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

It sounds like he's saying: “If you want civilians, we (Dyn Corp) can provide those too. Don't want no real civilians”…


PM_Herald
Comment posted December 8, 2009 @ 1:00 am

He (McCaffrey) is talking about the fact that 1000 people, even if they arrive in Kabul or Bagram will not have the willingness or capability or freedom of movement to get off the FOBs and work with the Afghan people in any meaningful way. Simply getting people in country is not a surge. Getting them to fan out over the landscape and do their work is the surge.


PM_Herald
Comment posted December 8, 2009 @ 6:00 am

He (McCaffrey) is talking about the fact that 1000 people, even if they arrive in Kabul or Bagram will not have the willingness or capability or freedom of movement to get off the FOBs and work with the Afghan people in any meaningful way. Simply getting people in country is not a surge. Getting them to fan out over the landscape and do their work is the surge.


20,000 Troops in Haiti by January 24 - veronicaestrada’s Diary - RedState
Pingback posted January 22, 2010 @ 2:36 am

[...] why didn’t Obama send them to Afghanistan to fully implement the “surge” (v. civilian surge)? Or are there some other negotiations going on in the back-channels that are facilitating [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.