The war in Afghanistan is probably the biggest pitfall for President Obama and for US foreign policy in general. It’s past time we got out, and two of the blogs I read regularly had some important posts that you should go read now.
Does that sound like a stirring appeal to urgent national security interests? Why should we continue to kill both Afghan civilians and our own troops and pour billions of dollars into that country indefinitely? Because “there’s a reasonable chance the counterinsurgency approach will yield something better than stalemate.” One can almost hear the yawning as the Post Editors call for more war. We don’t need to pretend any more that war, bombing and occupation of other countries is indispensable to protecting ourselves; as long as “there’s a reasonable chance it will yield something better than stalemate,” it should continue into its tenth, eleventh, twelfth year and beyond.
Of course, the reason the Post editors and their war-loving comrades can so blithely advocate more war is because it doesn’t affect them in any way. They’re not the ones whose homes are being air-bombed and whose limbs are being blown off. That’s nothing new; here’s George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, describing (without knowing) Fred Hiatt in 1938:
The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours.
Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.
And Shaun at Upper Left (emphasis in the original):
How, I wonder, can you be in favor of having any force, necessary and/or reasonable, if you don’t first know what victory is and how we will achieve it. Isn’t the size of the force, it’s need and rationality, dependent on the goal, the definition of victory?
They say the memory is the second thing to go, and I’m getting on, but as I remember we entered Afghanistan with three identifiable and arguably defensible goals. The first was to destroy it’s capacity as a training and operational base for Al Qaeda. We accomplished that swiftly and handily. The second was to punish the Taliban government that had given them safe harbor by deposing them. That, too, was the matter of a brief and decisive battle. Finally, in the wake of an unconscionable attack on American sovereign territory and the death and destruction attendant to those attacks, we set out to kill or capture as much of the Al Qaeda high command as possible, and in particular their spokesman, strategist and financier, Osama Bin Laden.
The second goal, though apparently swiftly achieved, continues to be a stumbling block for adherents of the disgraced former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule.” The rule fails in Afghanistan, though, because we didn’t break it. It’s been broken for centuries, and centuries of outside interference have caused the debris to spread far beyond Afghani borders. Some of it spilled into ours, and we swept it out of our path. If Afghanistan were to organize itself in such a way that it could accept and distribute humanitarian aid, it would certainly be a candidate with other countries that receive American largesse, whether publicly or privately provided. The level of American military force that would be required in order to effect and enforce such an organization of Afghanistan, though, in time, treasure and blood, would defy any possible conception of “within reason.” Its impossibility, by the same token, renders its need moot. We didn’t break it. We needn’t buy it. And we’re only making it worse.
And while you’re over at Shaun’s place, you ought to read all the posts he’s been doing on Afghanistan.
And to think just a few months ago the anti-war people were complaining when bush ordered air strikes that killed innocent civilians…
NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90
…
NATO officials initially insisted that there were no civilians in the area when the attack occurred about 2:30 a.m., but alliance chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen later acknowledged some civilians may have died.
…
A senior Afghan police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the dead included about 40 civilians.
Lucky for the obama that democrats don’t care about innocent civilians are killed when a democrat is in the white house.
Hell, cindy sheehan protested obama in marthas vineyard and the liberal media refused to acknowledge her. Damn, the democrats did a 180 on cindy. Now with a democrat in the white house the left has thrown cindy under the bus.
And to think that the assholes in the chimp administration have turned into surrender monkeys!
You are such a total hypocrite! This is too funny!
What a simpering punk. Go suck some more republican dick marvy-poo. Be of SOME use to SOMEONE.
IMO if ever there were a country that should be allowed to break up and be absorbed or aligned along tribal alliances…it’s Afghanistan.
That said, given the current course of action, we can’t leave the country to the Al Qaeda/Taliban extremists. The COIN operations of Iraq don’t translate into Afghanistan. In Iraq it was a matter of rebuilding, in Afghanistan it’s starting from zero.
where is the UN? This is exactly the kind of “peace keeping” operation the UN operates.
We removed the Taliban/Al Qaeda, a new gov was freely elected, the UN should move in to keep the peace while Afghanistan gets on it’s feet..
In the end however, I support the President, he is following his military advisers, that’s good to see.
HA has been virtually silent on Afghanistan since Obama’s election. However, as I recall during the campaign many on HA time and again held up Obama’s superior judgment on Iraq and Afghanistan and seconded his argument that the second war was the war of necessity and the one we absolutely needed to be in. Indeed, only recently Roger Rabbit mocked George Will’s call for a withdrawal as “cut and run,” even though its Dems and liberals in particular who are abandoning Obama in Afghanistan, not conservatives.
Yet here we are, a mere eight months after giving him a green light to fight the war of necessity, well before his strategy has had time to work, and many of Obama’s most ardent supporters are flipping on this issue.
Of course, the timing, with so many other critical issues on the table, couldn’t be worse, which is no doubt why liberal lawmakers, with a few exceptions, are so silent for now.
That will eventually change, and, as Obama is certainly aware, he will need all the Republican help he can get on the war of necessity.
Incidentally, Carl, were you voicing concerns during Obama’s campaign, or is it only now?
@jon:
Many of us complained during the campaign. My biggest complaint was that McCain and the Repub’s had convinced the nation that the “surge worked”, which made anything other than a “surge” attempt in Afghanistan political suicide.
Obama was boxed in on this one. He had to ratchet up in Afghanistan.
The problem is that the “surge” didn’t really work. The reduction in violence was primarily due to a combination of factors: The Sunni awakening, the Al Sadr cease-fire, the paying of insurgents to fight al Qaeda instead of us, and the homogenization of the individual regions through the process of ethnic cleansing.
Afghanistan is a totally different dynamic. And a surge there is doomed to fail. But an attempt followed by failure was the ONLY political option and it was going to occur regardless of who was elected president.
What is it about democrats and their gay slurs/innuendoes?
Like steve would say, your projection is waaaay too obvious. psych 101.
How about we leave Korea, too? We’ve been camped out over there for nearly 60 years. Let South Korea, China, Russia and Japan take care of that guy in the north with the bad haircut.
@5 Obama was boxed in on this one. He had to ratchet up in Afghanistan.
—————-
Boxed in? When Obama claimed this was a war we absolutely had to win, I assumed he meant it and this wasn’t a political act. So did many on HA, who seconded Obama’s argument that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. And I assume the large number of troops he’s pouring in now and will pour in in the months ahead are based on his and his military’s leadership’s collective judgment – the judgment supporters held up time and again – that this is the best way to win the war.
Your view seems to be that either Obama is being level with the American people, or that his judgment is flawed. There isn’t a lot of “in between.”
@jon:
I’m saying that a candidate that declared Afghanistan a failure and a lost cause would not have been elected.
Few disagreed with the decision to go to war in Afghanistan in the first place. Obama’s support of the war was for the elimination of the Taliban & the Al Qaeda camps.
His criticism was that Bush abandoned the Afghan effort to invade Iraq. This was of course correct.
The problem he had, was that given the current mess, there were really only two options, surge or get out. Status quo wasn’t an option.
Politically, however, there was only one option, for any presidential candidate. Whether he took that option because he had to, or because he believed in it we don’t know. But he had ZERO choice in the matter. NONE.
I’m saying that a candidate that declared Afghanistan a failure and a lost cause would not have been elected.
————
So now you’re saying that once he’s elected he can say it’s a lost cause and we should withdrawal and that he didn’t really mean what he was telling voters then? Is that it?
Well, what he’s saying now, in fact, is that the war is a war of necessity – still – and that it’s winnable. He hasn’t changed his position one iota and is walking his talk.
Sounds to me that he’s just doing what he said he was going to do and that he believes every bit of it. This is exactly what many supporters voted for, and they said so, including on HA.
The return of Mullah Omar and his buds Osama and Ayman?
Not good – jon.
We should deal totally at-arm’s-length with all the countries of the Middle East. We ain’t gonna change Islam – changing Islam is Islam’s problem, not ours. Muslims want to live in the Seventh Century. Let ’em!
As for Israel, they can take care of themselves. We need to get out of this war between the Muslims and Jews. It ain’t our business.
@11
I don’t think sarge and a growing number of Dems/liberals see it this way.
jon what’s your freaking point? This “Silence of HA” broken record, is this some type of LaRouche/Paultard bender you’re on?
Yes, Afghanistan is an ugly situation – we probably can’t afford it anymore but neither can we afford organized Islamist whackjobs continue to organize and get more proficient at carrying out ugly massacres of Americans and our allies.
I say we find a means to empower moderates and marginalize radicals in the region and that mean staying involved in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
I remember during the bush administration the left kept pointing out all the terrorists came from saudi arabia.
If true, why are we in afghanistan if not to keep the oil flowing?
But obama is president. Wasn’t that the theme of his campaign, that he would bring change. That his message of Change & Hope would heal the world?
You’re starting to sound like those right-wingnut war mongers with your “islamist whackjobs” committing massacres.
Oops, there’s a democrat in office. Democrats can now change their opinions.
15 – Uhhh. Last I checked there was no oil in Afghanistan.
Maybe you can build a pipeline through Afghanistan but we’ll never see that in our lifetimes.
We’re there so that country doesn’t fall back into the 12th century again as it did under the Taliban.
liar @ 16
Obama said he’d bring change to America. 9/11, the embassy bombings, the Cole showed there’s nutcases who want to kill Americans. No politician left or right will allow that to continue – they won’t stay in office that way.
The way to protect Americans was NOT to invade Iraq. There WAS NO al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded. Saddam was effectively contained by northern and southern no-fly zones and international economic sanctions.
We’re there so that country doesn’t fall back into the 12th century again as it did under the Taliban.
————–
Really, we’re sending 70 or 90K troops there and spending billions we don’t have so that Afghanistan doesn’t return to the 12th century? I don’t think I’ve heard this argument before.
i voted for obama because i hoped he would listen to the majority of merkans to end the 9-11 wars and honor the millions of anti-war gotv workers who took the chance on him when the only viable alternative was a withered old mccain cloaked in the crazy xian right represented by palin. first thing obama did was double down on robert death squads gates and second was have rev. rick warren at the nooggerayshun. nice.
i like and respect surg–err sarge, but that dem operative talk about political requirements to expand the 9-11 wars is no different than saying single-payer can’t be enacted by a dem supermajority because of political fallout. cultivate some conviction, dems.
19 – You’re hearing it now. What did Afghanistan returning to the 12th century give us?
It gave public stoning and ugly oppression of women to Afghans.
It gave the world a protected sanctuary for al Qaeda so they could train their fanatics to blow themselves up everywhere.
WE FUCKING STAY INVOLVED!
Better maybe if it’s 10k troops than 90k but we find a way for that country to keep at least one foot in the community of nations.
TO: Notaboomer
from: ABOOMER
The Democrats have no balls. NONE. They were the last best hope for undoing contemptible mistakes (like, for instance, Marvy the sideshow bushbot) but they’re not even going to try.
I am leaving the country in the next few weeks. The wingers have rendered it FUBAR since Reagan took office. I wish you luck. Let me know when you need CARE packages from Asia.
huh?
For years under bush the left was chanting that it was the evil policies of bush and republicans that caused the hate that pushed the believers of the peaceful muslim religion to attack on 9/11.
Oops, that was under bush. Now there’s a democrat president so new talking points have emerged.
@14 can we afford organized Islamist whackjobs continue to organize and get more proficient at carrying out ugly massacres of Americans and our allies.
————
Strange that we’re having such a difficult time getting our allies to buy into this argument. I don’t see our allies, who presumably face the same threat, pouring in troops and resources and suffering our casualty levels.
Really tough to sell your argument to Americans under these circumstances.
20 – Last I looked Iraq is being wound down.
Yeah you have.
When bush was talking about going to iraq to help the people escape the saddam regime.
Last I looked Iraq is being wound down.
wound down to a dysfunctional society populated with permanent foreign bases?
@21 It gave public stoning and ugly oppression of women to Afghans.
———–
What??? Now you saying it’s our job to send troops wherever this happens? We’d have troops in 20 other countries INCLUDING NORTH KOREA if this was the criteria. Where’s the UN? Where are Russia, China, Europe?
Moron @ 23
Yes fool. The invasion of Iraq, the torture at Abu Ghraib did a lot to “grow the market” for the services of Republican companies like Blackwater.
Now we have a Dem president who has to clean up the mess left by the Bushies and at the same protect Americans from getting killed by extremists.
Because if he doesn’t, the fickle american electorate may not grant him or his party a re-up and we’re back to same old same old yet again.
You’d love that wouldn’t you?
@26
Well, right, YLB is sounding a lot like Bush. Who would have thought?
28 – AFAIK these things didn’t happen in Afghanistan before Ronald Reagan and George Bush the elder gave stinger missiles to the Afghans and their allies on “jihad”.
Not saying that they shouldn’t have helped them to fight off the Russians but they should have stayed involved in some capacity afterwards.
30 – Bush neglected Afghanistan. Bush invaded Iraq instead!
There’s oil in Iraq. There was the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
How sweet you think I’m a mistake.
And you wonder why the democrats aren’t following your agenda?
The Saddam regime was an ugly corrupt regime but women weren’t being stoned there and we had his worst tendencies well contained.
The right thing to do was to let the Iraqis remove their own dictator.
I’m guessing that ylb is hoping obama attacks iran so women no longer have to get stoned to death.
Hhmm, considering saddam had rape rooms and women were treated worse than dirt, I wonder why ylb doesn’t appreciate bush helping those women.
Does ylb feel some women are more deserving of our care and help than others? Doesn’t sound like ylb is being fair to women.
@32
Well, you’re in good company YLB:
“Mr. President, you have put in place the military leadership and sent the initial resources required to begin bringing this war to a successful conclusion. The military leadership has devised a strategy that will reverse the errors of previous years, free Afghans from the chains of tyranny, and keep America safe. We call on you to fully resource this effort, do everything possible to minimize the risk of failure, and to devote the necessary time to explain, soberly and comprehensively, to the American people the stakes in Afghanistan, the route to success, and the cost of defeat.”
Conservatives back Obama on Afghanistan
http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....ml?showall
On this issue you have much more in common with the right than a growing number of Democrats and liberals. And that’s only going to become more pronounced over time.
Welcome aboard!
Of course not. Let’s ignore all those youtube videos.
http://www.google.com/search?h.....&aqi=
And our society ISN’T dysfunctional? I’ve seen no proof that any bases are going to be permanent.
Ylb is becoming a right-wingnut.
How cute.
35 – Yeah Saddam’s sons and goons were pervs but women could go to school, walk the streets without being covered from head to toe and have jobs.
That’s a fact.
It wasn’t the case in Afghanistan.
36 – Don’t care a whit about conservatives.
I care about a policy that will effectively contain violent extremism. More 9/11’s aren’t going to do much for politics in this country.
You can’t be for that can you?
Iraq wasn’t the solution and maybe Afghanistan isn’t – all I know is the likes of a Taliban coming back to power can’t be a good thing.
And I’m sorry Iran isn’t anything CLOSE to that.
@40
Well, I know you and Roger Rabbit (and Lee and Daddy Love, for that matter, as I recall) are big believers in Obama’s “Afghanistan is a war of necessity” argument. However, I think you’re going to have a tougher and tougher job making this pitch as times goes on.
And the angle that we need to be in Afghanistan and anywhere else in the world because people are being suppressed is an especially tough sell when we’re carrying the lion’s share of the burden. Don’t moral causes carry universal obligation or something?
Afghanistan was called Russia’s Vietnam. Now it’s an American
quagmirehellhole.Hearing General McCrystal channelling William Westmoreland, I can’t help but start thinking that we’re seeing America’s Russia’s Vietnam in the making.
This picture of obama sure doesn’t look good. How old is he now, late 50s?
It’s looking like he might not be able to handle the stress of making choices harder than voting present.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-pl.....r-children
@33 Assuming your parents had ANY intelligence at all you’re clearly a mistake.
As a sideshow bushbot? Up to the Republicans to decide.
As a parrot? well, maybe a cockatiel. They’re pretty stupid.
And macaws are loud and opinionated,
Projecting again?
Basic psych 101.
I’m sure you never made it past that. You’re lucky you weren’t aborted, which would have been the appropriate course.
I must got to WORK now, a concept which eludes you.
As the Taliban are contesting for control of Afghanistan, it seems to me that if we pull out, they and al Qaeda will come back, and we’ll be back at square one with terrorists re-entrenched in their training camps and plotting attacks against us.
@43 Yes, it looks that way, and our military and civilian leadership needs to rethink our strategy and goals in Afghanistan. Part of the problem is that the Iraq war starved the war that really mattered of troops and resources when it would have made a difference. Now, we have to either do it the hard way, or give up and expose ourselves to what we went there to prevent in the first place.
Yes, it looks that way, and our military and civilian leadership needs to rethink our strategy and goals in Afghanistan.
————
Excuse me? Don’t you think the strategy being pursued hasn’t gone constant review and revision by the administration? They’ve replaced crucial leadership and are ramping up troop levels as a result of this. Obama made clear during the campaign that this was the war we needed to win and that we would have to add more troops as a result. Wasn’t this clear enough? A mere eight months have gone by and now this judgment – the very judgment that was heralded before – is being second guessed.
Didn’t Goldy say we elect these people to make the tough calls, damn the polls?
Increasingly, what will being keeping Obama up at night isn’t the other party, but his. If Dems aren’t careful they will turn Obama into a one term president.
Yes, it looks that way, and our military and civilian leadership needs to rethink our strategy and goals in Afghanistan.
————
Excuse me? Don’t you think the strategy being pursued hasn’t gone constant review and revision by the administration? They’ve replaced crucial leadership and are ramping up troop levels as a result of this. Obama made clear during the campaign that this was the war we needed to win and that we would have to add more troops as a result. Wasn’t this clear enough? A mere eight months have gone by and now this judgment – the very judgment that was heralded before – is being second guessed.
Didn’t Goldy say we elect these people to make the tough calls, damn the polls?
Increasingly, what will being keeping Obama up at night isn’t the other party, but his. If Dems aren’t careful they will turn Obama into a one term president.
“Part of the problem is that the Iraq war starved the war that really mattered of troops and resources when it would have made a difference.”
What a bunch of BS….
The Taliban and Al Qaeda were run out of Afghanistan mostly with special operations units….that’s small units….Low numbers of men. Not the 3ID.. Two different fronts with completely different fights.
Hard to convince tribal people who live in mud huts to abandon their 100’s of years alliances to foreigners of any stripe..That is the main problem, IMO…
If this was such a “necessary” war, one that the world agreed was “just”, why hasn’t the UN taken the lead in peace keeping? Liberals love the UN, where are they now?
IMO, we can keep the Taliban out of control, but no nation has the man power to occupy Afghanistan in such a manner to provide 100% security that keeps them at bay…
The role of the international community is a joke, outside of a few loyal allies..Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a scurge on all free peoples. IMO the UN ought to be the watchdog keeping them away from the sheep (Afghans).
dont look now but your ignorance is showing