Organizational Behavior Model Analysis

When President Obama entered office in 2009, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) was in the midst of a stagnation. Military funding and manpower were concentrated on Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). During the presidential campaign, Obama promised to improve the US efforts in Afghanistan. Campaign promises and comments painted him into a corner in terms of whether or not to take action. Obama’s cabinet and advisors offered four potential courses of action for consideration. Vice President Biden suggested the US add enough troops to maintain the status quo which he termed “counterterrorism plus.” The US Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, General McChrystal, offered the following three options: add 10,000–11,000 troops to train and support Afghan
Each organization provides different capabilities and according to the model, each organization is advocating for mission control and funding to execute the organizational mission, to achieve the political objectives. In the case of the Afghan Surge, there were many US organizations in Afghanistan such as the State Department, USAID, US Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense to name a few. Every organization fulfilled a specific role and in some cases, the military should have been subordinate to some operations by the State Department. The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, garnered a lot power in Washington as one of the most influential advisors to the President. However, the influence exerted failed to support the very organization she led. Instead, she threw her support toward a military option and bolstered the position of the Department of Defense. Secretary Clinton’s reasons for her actions are discussed later, but for now, it is important to note the connection and the access channels she possessed from an organizational model
At the time Marsh wrote the article, people suspected, but could not prove Secretary Clinton was playing the long game in terms of political jockeying. She positioned herself to run for President in the 2016 election. If the State Department took charge of the COIN operation in Afghanistan and failed, it would be a blemish on her record and would thwart her chance to run for President. However, she had to advise President Obama. The situation in front of her was to recommend a surge in her organization where she assumed the risk, or allow the DoD who was advocating continuing COIN operations to provide the option and keep the risk. From a personal political perspective, her choice was easy. The reason why her advocacy was most influential was that typically, the DoD and the State Department are at odds regarding decisions on foreign policy. The opposing opinions are what allow the President to arrive at the most beneficial decisions, because he is able to hear both side of the argument. By Secretary Clinton siding with Secretary Gates, she only allowed President Obama the luxury of a one-sided