Is there a serious disjuncture between DoD and the administration on Afghanistan?

FRONT PAGE: "US advances Taliban role: McChrystal looks to force peace deal; General seeks backing from London summit," by Matthew Green, Financial Times, 25 January 2010.

AFGHAN CONFLICT: "Race against time for Nato strategy: Interview | Stanley McChrystal, Nato commander; Casualty rates add to pressure for a political deal," by Matthew Green, Financial Times, 25 January 2010.

AFGHAN CONFLICT: "US struggles to convey common enemy message: Pakistan and India," by Daniel Dombey, Financial Times, 25 January 2010.

Why I thought this: "uber ambassador" Holbrooke (not mentioned anywhere in this trio of pieces) speaks of creating a strong center in Kabul while Gates and McChrystal seem to be arguing for something quite different, to include making peace where they must with the more flexible Taliban.

Yes, Gates contradicted himself at times during his recent trip, but I sense a deeper divide between the Pentagon's vision of a successful drawdown and State's vision of a stable, coherent Afghanistan.

Comments

[Dan Hare]

Tom, what is the 'deeper divide'?To me, from the outside, it seems like the culture of the State Department is out of touch with reality there. But I am having a hard time putting to words the different paradigms.

[Abe C.]

Isn't this easily solved by a Dpt of Everything Else?

Also, it's like the State Dpt doesn't want a role in policy there. Instead of combating the 'militarization' of foreign policy, it is embraced. At least regarding this.