COIN Contradictions

From Greg Kaufmann:

One problem with the Obama Administration's "Af-Pak" strategy -- aside from the lack of an exit strategy, air strikes, and a cost that threatens its domestic agenda -- is the fact that the allotment of resources consistently contradicts General Petraeus' own stated counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. Petraeus says 80 percent of expenditures should go towards non-military purposes like economic development, and only 20 percent to the military. Yet the $106 billion supplemental approved yesterday by the House handed over nearly 90 percent of the funds to the military.

Representative Mike Honda -- Chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus and a Progressive Caucus member -- homed in on that fact in his good statement explaining his vote against the supplemental yesterday (full statement here):

"… I cannot support the continuation of the Bush Administration's failed modus operandi in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, and the mis-proportioned 90-10 doctrine of assistance allocation – that is, 90% for military investments and only 10% for political, economic, and social development. The Supplemental represented our first opportunity to correct the failed approaches of the past, but we unfortunately did not use this chance."

"Going forward, I hope that I can work closely with the President to ensure a policy more aligned with the 80-20 model often quoted by General David Petraeus, which would invest 80% of resources into political capacity and institutions with only 20% for military. In this regard, I have presented specific recommendations to my colleagues in Congress, with the intention of informing and improving US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was pleased to hear in my April meeting with the President that his FY2010 budget request will move in this direction."

Hopefully, Rep. Honda and others -- especially the 80-member Progressive Caucus -- will hold President Obama to that pledge moving forward. Too many let him off the hook yesterday.

Comments (3)

1. Or maybe you could get some Islamic countries to chip in with some aid to Afghanistan?

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/17/2009 @ 2:43pm

2. It's almost as if both parties are deliberately trying to see how fast they can bankrupt the U.S. treasury along with the U.S. work force.

   I guess from there, the rich and powerful can buy up anything and everything since pretty much everyone else will be out on the street. Maybe the end game all along was to take control of this country with an iron fist, rip the constitution to shreds and claim victory over the masses.

   Continuing Bush's blundering stupidity in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now we can possibly add Iran and North Korea to the endless pit of military endeavors. Oh, what joy have we brought amongst ourselves delving into the dealing of all of the nations of the earth.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 3:37pm

3. Representative Mike Honda...: "… ...I was pleased to hear in my April meeting with the President that his FY2010 budget request will move in this direction."

   Shouldn't be difficult for Magic to satisfy "the 80-member Progressive Caucus" by a bit of "move" in direction!

   All he'd needs to do, is shuffle 1 or 2 percent of FY2010 budget request into "political, economic, and social development" while shaving back to 88% for "military investments".....:)

   Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 8:26pm