The New York Times reported last week that the White House has lowered the bar on how success is defined in the Afghan war.
The Times reported that the phrase "Afghan Good Enough" has been making the rounds at the White House and State Department.
"Gone is the much greater expectation that NATO will leave behind a cohesive central government with real influence beyond Kabul and a handful of other population centers," the Times reported. "Gone is the assumption that Helmand Province, Kandahar and the rest of the heavily contested south — where the bulk of the 2010 influx of troops was sent — will remain entirely in the control of the central government once that area is transferred to Afghanistan's fledgling national security forces."
New York Times Washington correspondent, David Sanger, author of a soon-to-be-released book on the Obama administration's handling of the Afghan War, noted in a recent interview that one of the President's goals in Afghanistan was to keep the city of Kabul from falling. But this "does not necessarily mean that other parts of the country might not fall into Taliban control", said Sanger, adding that "it seems fairly likely that a few years from now, we will see some parts of the country that ARE significantly under Taliban control."
Nevertheless, despite the White House's claim [mantra] that 'Afghan Good Enough' is good enough. Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said Thursday, that 'Afghan Good Enough' is NOT good enough.
Problem is, Gen. Allen knows full well that Obama is running the show. He also knows that, from Day One of the Obama Presidency, 'Afghan Good Enough' was good enough, as far as Obama was concerned. Hence, this is just pure rhetoric from General Allen, who, sadly, has been forced into a corner by Obama, the Commander-and politician-in-Chief.