Petraeus already making his presence felt?

At NRO's Corner, Daniel Foster notes a subtle change in how the President describes the events that may or may not commence next July.


"We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us. We said we’d begin a transition phase that would allow the Afghan government to take more and more responsibility," he said.

That part isn't so much news. But immediately after, Obama also said that at the end of this year his administration will undertake a second comprehensive review of its Afghanistan strategy. That point was also hit today by SecDef Gates and CJCS Adm. Mullen. Gates said that the administration would be looking to see if "by December we have enough evidence to demonstrate, if you will, the proof of concept" of the strategy.

By connecting the deadline talk with the strategic review talk, Obama and his national security principals are begging us to add the missing premise: if the review doesn't show things proceeding smoothly in Afghanistan, the deadline could be pushed off, indefinitely. Of course, nobody in the administration wants to say that outright. But the hopes seems to be that it will be reassuring enough to signal it.

Another possible reading of the "proof of concept" talk is that, should evidence indicate that the strategy is not working, it would be abandoned. Now, would that entail withdrawal or staying and switching to some non-COIN strategy, perhaps the counter terror strategy advocated by the VP? Neither would leave a good taste in Afghan mouths, and the tapping of Petraeus would seem to indicate they are not being seriously considered. He may already think that the overcautious version of COIN that troops seem to be unhappy with amounted to the CT approach and was in fact failing. If that were the case, he certainly would not resort to the same approach.

What to look for going forward? A possible shake up re the other principles in Afghanistan, the ambassador, and the special envoy. It will be interesting to see if they have a 'come to Jesus' meeting with Petraeus, or are outright replaced. Actually, it seems that Hollbrook's presence is otiose, he could be removed with no significant negative effect. Would Crocker be interested in an Iraq redux?

And, of course, Karzai could use a 'come to Jesus' with the general, after his recent antics. Petraeus has to decide whether the man retains enough legitimacy with his people to serve as partner in the implementation of his plan. Look for Petraeus to "say all the right things" but conduct a tour of the country with that end in mind. He will listen very closely to the locals everywhere he goes.