OPINION:
The abrupt resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has a few important facts behind it, but it is probably tied to a shift in President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan.
Mr. Hagel, the only Republican in the Obama Cabinet, served less than two years and left few, if any, accomplishments. His lack of accomplishments is unsurprising. When Mr. Hagel went before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing, his performance wasn’t just puzzling — it was nearly incomprehensible. He acknowledged not knowing much about some important subjects and promised to learn about them. His performance as defense secretary was on-the-job training.
We know from the memoir of his predecessor, Robert M. Gates, that defense and foreign policy decisions were firmly controlled by the White House. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Hagel was given any more latitude (or authority) by the president’s national security team. He served as a dutiful place holder for those in the White House who make the important decisions.
Mr. Hagel is departing at a time when the president’s defense and foreign policies measure somewhere between disarray and a total shambles. From Ukraine to the South China Sea, American influence is nil. In Israel — after more than a year of Mr. Obama’s “peace process” failures — Hamas terrorists joined the Abbas government and commenced bloody attacks that may signal the beginning of another terrorist campaign. Now — after a year of fruitless negotiations and ineffective sanctions — Secretary of State John F. Kerry is pleading for patience and agreeing to continue the failed nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran.
Much of Iraq and Syria are held by terrorists of the Islamic State and, according to several news reports, Mr. Obama has partially reversed himself on U.S. troops’ mission in Afghanistan. That shift shows the secondary reason why Mr. Hagel was shoved out the door.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama approved new guidelines for the fight in Afghanistan. Instead of banning U.S. forces from combat next year, the guidelines reportedly authorize U.S. airstrikes and special operations forces raids against Taliban targets. The reason for the reversal of policy is as political as is Mr. Hagel’s removal.
The New York Times reported Sunday that Afghan army generals in two of the hottest combat zones welcomed the lifting of a ban on night raids by Afghan and U.S. special operations forces imposed under the Hamid Karzai administration, as well as the renewed commitment of U.S. forces to close air support. The story quoted Maj. Gen. Abdul Hameed, commander of the Afghan 205th Corps in Kandahar, as saying, “We need strong backing of foreign forces during night raids, the helicopters and night vision goggles, GPS equipment, and better guidance,” he said. “Now we have noticed free movement of the Taliban, they are moving around at night and passing messages and recruiting people for fighting, and the only solution to stop their movement is night raids.”
This report has two important implications. First, it means that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and his military commanders see that their country will go the way of Iraq when the U.S. withdraws at the end of 2016 under Mr. Obama’s most recent plan, and they seek a partial remedy.
Second, the new Afghanistan guidelines mean that Mr. Obama is matching his “strategies” in Afghanistan to those in Iraq. In Iraq, the president has chosen to fight the Islamic State inconclusively. Saying the fight will take years, his strategy — if it can be called that — employs only a small fraction of American, British and French air power against a massive terrorist force without designing the fight to roll back the Islamic State’s territorial conquests. Moreover, he has called for the training of a small force of “moderate” Syrian rebels to be vetted and trained to fight the Islamic State instead of demanding ground forces from Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The problem with this is that the vetting process will take months (and hasn’t begun) and that the training can’t be completed in less than six or eight additional months.
Mr. Obama is matching his Afghanistan strategy to his slow-rolling Iraq strategy. Mounting airstrikes and special operations forces in Afghanistan may have the effect of slowing the Taliban’s momentum, but nothing more. If Gen. Hameed is right — if the Taliban are moving freely at night, recruiting fighters and planning patiently for the end of 2016 — Mr. Obama’s plan will do nothing more than nibble at the edges of their growing capabilities. It will not stop the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan soon after the U.S. leaves.
What does all that have to do with Chuck Hagel? Only that it will be a hard battle for any new defense secretary to defend Mr. Obama’s policies, and the president knows Mr. Hagel has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer. Preparing for the last two years of his presidency, Mr. Obama will need the best and most faithful defenders of his policies in key Cabinet offices. Mr. Hagel was certainly one of the most faithful, but never a good advocate. He was forced out because Mr. Obama wants to choose a smarter and stronger advocate who can defend him as he leaves.
⦁ Jed Babbin was deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration and a co-author of “The Sunni Vanguard” (London Center for Policy Research, 2014).
Please read our comment policy before commenting.