Specter On Afghanistan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:09:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Just finished participating in a call with Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) regarding Afghanistan. I imagine Senator Specter was a bit surprised by my questions from the more hawkish view on Afghanistan. Senator Specter's position is that he opposes troop increases in Afghanistan and even questions maintaining troops in Afghanistan unless the effort is "indispensable" to the conflict with al Qaida. (See Spencer Ackerman's coverage of the call) Senator Spector's primary opponent, Representative Joe Sestak supports troop increases in Afghanistan.

Senator Spector responded to my question regarding the connection with Pakistan and Afghanistan and how an effective Pakistan policy related to adequate troop levels in Afghanistan by turning the question around to me, asking how does increased troop levels in Afghanistan help us with the situation in Pakistan? A fair question, which I will try to address more comprehensively in another post. But on the issue of Pakistan, I believe Senator Specter demonstrated understanding of the issue and when I pressed for an answer on what type of initiatives he would support, he made a good point - promoting peace between India and Pakistan would be an important breakthrough that could lead to a more cooperative and responsible Pakistan. Which could lead to a more successful policy against the Taliban and al Qaida in the region. More on this discussion in a later post.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Former Bush DOJ Officials Back Holder on Trial of 9/11 Suspects >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Specter On Afghanistan | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As a Pennsylvania D-primary voter (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Peter G on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 09:17:15 PM EST

I am made dizzy by the thought that Specter may hold (or in Specter's case, I guess we should say "asserts," not "holds," since it is unclear that anything he says represents an actual principle) a more "progressive" position on Afghanistan than Sestak.

Specter has a difficult needle to thread (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:20:10 PM EST

I think what this answer indicates is that he thinks his tougher race is in the primary.

I'm not sure I've heard (none / 0) (#2)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:31:00 PM EST

anybody else in politics make that point about India and Pakistan, obvious as it should be. But cracking that particular nut may be beyond any third party's diplomacy.

This is the second Specter conference call you've posted about here, I think, isn't it? Was this for bloggers only or a general media mob? Who organizes these things anyway? Is it coming out of Specter's office, or is somebody on the outside arranging them and then persuading him to participate?

It's curious because it doesn't seem many pols are doing this, and Specter would not be the first one I would guess would be gung-ho about the idea. Maybe he's smarter than I usually give him credit for.

Holbrooke made the point (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:44:28 PM EST

about the importance of getting India and Pakistan to unite behind the common enemy some months ago when he was interviewed by Charlie Rose.


I scoff at Holbrooke (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:57:50 PM EST

After delving deeper into what voices he has nurtured and backed.....he has gone with regional advisors made up almost exclusively of Pakistan military origin. And that is why the Pashtun's are furious with us now, they've had no voice and I place a lot of that on Holbrooke's head. Backpeddling is taking place now, but he was warned.......seems like he just wanted to go with who was easiest to work with at the time, ignoring that Afghanistan is in civil war.


Not at all Holbrooke's (none / 0) (#53)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 10:52:32 PM EST

modus operandi, so you'd need to provide some back-up for that accusation. He is a very hard-nosed guy, though, and will work on whoever he thinks it's necessary to work on, whether somebody cries about it being unfair or not.


Oh, he certainly doesn't care if someone (none / 0) (#60)
by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 12:22:33 PM EST

says something is unfair. Just because he is hardnosed does not mean he is inclusive.


On what do you base your dislike of (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 02:33:09 PM EST

Holbrooke?


He has a very large group (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:01:19 AM EST

of advisors but chose to only focus on the advise of certain ones. He seemed to completely avoid listening to anyone who was interested in "counterinsurgency" for whatever his reasons were......I suppose he was being hardnosed about the "military view" running things. Even though the military view encouraged reaching out to all factions. Now the Pashtuns are upset and they are joining the Taliban. Backtracking has now begun in hopes of rectifying the favoritisms. It isn't that I don't like Holbrooke. I suppose I'm pissed at him right now. Yeah, he was hardnosed alright. I don't know if being more inclusive of all the avialable advisors will lead him to creating better policy. But we know what we got when he sidelined the voices he didn't want to hear. I personally feel that Holbrooke signed onto the Biden plan long ago, and was making decisions from his position based on that plan.


: I was just reading Turkana's (none / 0) (#65)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:40:55 AM EST

diary today at Orange about the economy. Perhaps we will have another giant crash, and they'll bring everyone home and we'll fight them over here if they can get here :)

He's one of the very few (none / 0) (#52)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 10:50:38 PM EST

but he's not a political figure per se.


Last I read (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:34:56 PM EST

he still has a Republican campaign manager. I do wonder who's doing his internet outreach.


You say al Qaida. (none / 0) (#4)
by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:38:43 PM EST

Others say Al Quaeda.

Let's call the whole thing off.

(But yes, there is Pakistan. I'm glad I'm not making this decision. Will Obama be, at last, an FDR with a win? Maybe an Ike, with the guts to get out, when it was clear there could not be a win? Or will Obama be an LBJ/Bush II?)

: It is a tough one (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by ruffian on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:45:17 PM EST

I'm glad to see all the options being considered, and glad the senators (well, at least some of them) are also thinking it through. Whatever the decision regarding troops, I want a clear statement of what we are trying to accomplish.

Excellent Post (none / 0) (#6)
by kidneystones on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:16:12 PM EST

Good to hear that some Dems recognize that there are costs, both in soft and hard power to leaving Afghanistan. The fact this debate is taking place (again) so late in the day is particularly troubling. Especially, since the long-term minimal time frames for a successful intervention have NOT yet made it into the discussion. Generations of commitment stabilized Germany and Japan. That's what successful 'nation-building' requires. Locals willing to cast their lot with the west for more than cash have to feel secure that they and their kids and their grand-kids can count on the presence of allies at their side. Brit generals are calling for fifty years. Ten years out Afghanistan will still be bloody. The question is: do the benefits justify the costs? I say, guardedly, they do.

I doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by dissenter on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:40:36 PM EST

You can't compare Germany and Japan to Afghanistan. As one who has spent years working on reconstruction in that country I can tell you that there is zero chance we are going to win Afghans over.

Nation building is a pipe dream even if you had 50 years and unlimited amounts of money to spend on it. Germany and Japan were educated, modern industrial countries with a national sense of identity. Afghanistan is run by tribes with serious ethnic, political and religious divisions. There has never been a stable central government and there won't be with the cast of clowns in there now. There won't be one with whatever would replace them. For the most part Afghanistan is a country still living in the 13th century and while this is very hard for us to understand, 75% of Afghans are just fine with that. Including the women. I feel terrible for the 25% of the population that wants to move forward but you can't win with that level of support. You would have to split the country up.

Obama has no good options but if he had been prepared and understood the country in the first place he wouldn't have been boxed into the corner he finds himself today. He can't win which leaves us with only one question...

Is it worth hundreds of billions of dollars and untold lives on all sides to continue this or is it better to cut your losses now? Things won't be looking any better in 2012. All we are currently doing is providing protection for corruption. Lose now or lose later but lose we will.


From 1860 to 1977, Afghanistan (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:53:15 PM EST

was ruled by one monarchy after another and Pashtunwali is fine with working monarchy. I think it isn't feasible to think they will ever embrace democracy in the same terms we do, they do have their own legal and moral codes though.


Not really (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by dissenter on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:09:55 PM EST

I understand what you are saying except it didn't really work. I had Afghans show me their secret pictures from a day when Kabul was actually green and there were girls in mini skirts. That was a fleeting time that didn't work as evidence by the series of destructive wars that followed. Pashtuns will never accept a monarchy...or anything that places a national government, its laws or anything else over tribal authority.

And then you have all the other tribes that are not Pashtun. Then there are the serious religious divisions between Sunnis and Shia which rarely get covered in the US or anywhere else. Remember the "we have right to rape law?" Then there is the idea of capitalism... which is rejected by almost everyone. It is offensive to their values. Their values are more in line with communism.

It is not as simple as people think it is and as much as I liked to look at those pictures from the 1970's as I went to work every day they were nothing more than an illusion.

India and Pakistan are the answer... but a peaceful settlement there is going to be about as elusive as peace in Palestine. Until Islamic fanaticism runs its course, there will not be peace. I have come to believe the best way for that to happen is to get out of their countries and let them fight it out. When they have had enough of mass death it will stop. Not until.

Our job and our security is solely built on building a new path to energy.


Believe me (none / 0) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:16:10 PM EST

I know it isn't simple. But the region has to be stabilized. They have transported uncountable numbers of sociologists to the area now......even intel officers who work for us but have family history in the different ethnic regions - and we have asked them to not fight and actually deal with the real problems. What else do you want to do? Ignore the situation?


: Yes (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by dissenter on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:31:05 PM EST

I have come to believe it is that simple. We can't fix the problems that run so deep in Islamic countries. At the end of the day, this their fight and they will fight it out whether we are there or not.
No amount of USAID dollars or sociologists or psychiatrists can fix this mess. The Afghans we send over there (expat) to help us are interested mostly in one thing...how much money can they make. I know, I worked with a boatload of them. They make their bucks but at the end of the day they don't care. They are holding western passports an