Maybe instead of visiting Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympics in 2016, the Commander-in-Chief could give Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, a phone call.
On Sunday night, CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired an interview with McChrystal. At the end of the segment, McChrystal was asked how many times he had spoken to President Barack Obama since the election. The answer: once. The general has spent his time in Afghanistan trying to shake up the status quo, from opening up daily briefings to more officers, to openly criticizing the slow Pentagon bureaucracy. And on top of it all, McChrystal lives in a room that looks smaller than most dorm rooms at Duke. That alone should warrant a phone call.
Certainly, Obama has a lot on his plate. The Iraq War, Iran’s nuclear program, health care reform, the financial crisis, lunch with former President Bill Clinton.... There’s not too much room left in the day for the problems in Afghanistan. But, at some point, the President is going to have to clear out time to deal with the military catastrophe quickly blooming in the Middle East.
Maybe Obama just isn’t a phone guy—a trip to Afghanistan would provide the president with unique insights into the war effort. Obama is taking a trip overseas this week, but he’s not going to Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere else of major consequence to U.S. military aims. He is scheduled to meet the First Lady in Copenhagen, where the Obamas will get together with the rest of the Chicago residents filling high positions in our government to present the case for a Chicago Olympics to the International Olympic Committee. The Taliban insurgents must be shaking in their boots.
The Olympics brings its perks—Americans can go to sleep at normal hours and still see the events live, the U.S. will be poised to win over the hearts of international athletes and their fans and Chicago will share in the economic benefits associated with increased tourism (although this last point is somewhat debated, an independent analysis estimates the effect to be a bit over $1 billion). And so, President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, all from Illinois, will pitch Chicago as the optimal choice to the IOC in person.
Meanwhile, the health care debate rages on, the government deficit runs higher, the economy really isn’t getting better, U.S. soldiers fight without enough support and Chicago, the city at the center of this marketing campaign, reels from an incident of brutal gang violence where a 16-year-old honor roll student was murdered, all caught on a cell phone’s video camera.
What cost should the U.S. be willing to pay to get a Chicago Olympics? Leaving out the opportunity costs associated with five of our country’s top leaders making the visit to Copenhagen, Chicagoans have had to sacrifice civil liberties for the sake of the 2016 Games. According to the Sept. 27 DrudgeReport article, “Fox-TV Chicago ordered not to run anti-Olympics story,” the Chicago Olympic Committee told a local television station not to run a report on Chicagoans opposing the 2016 bid. The Chicago Tribune, in the Feb. 19 story “Boat owners warned: Don’t make waves over Olympics rowing plan,” uncovered a memo threatening retribution against Chicago Yachting Association members who would be outspoken opponents of a Chicago Olympics.
While the Chicago Olympics Committee and their supporters violate the civil rights of citizens in this country, our military service members put themselves in harms way for the sake of those same civil liberties. Military leaders have requested a change in direction, especially in Afghanistan, and, according to the Australian’s Sept. 29 story, “General Stanley McChrystal opts for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan,” McChrystal has sent a full report to the president listing a number of options the U.S. must choose from in order to achieve some semblance of success in Afghanistan.
Whether that choice is to stay or to go, the choice must be made sooner rather than later. The pace of debate on military strategy must reflect the urgency of the decision. A quick decision does not necessitate a failure to plan. There are too many people in this country conducting detailed military analyses for the president to have to wait weeks before he can decide whether or not to dispatch 40,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
There may be no tougher decision during the tenure of any presidency than to send Americans to war. As members of the American public, we cannot know exactly what is happening in Afghanistan—every bit of news we receive is filtered through someone else’s perspective. But if the American system still works, and the president is fully updated and informed, then the time for a decision is now, before the trip to Copenhagen.
Elad Gross is a Trinity senior. His column runs every Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.