home

Reasonable Disagreements On Afghanistan Policy

While I personally support President Obama's Afghanistan policy, I accept that reasonable minds can disagree on this complex and difficult issue. I thus endorse Meteor Blades' view that we must avoid:

a kind of rebranding . . . to separate "reasonable progressives" from "the crazies."

This was the type of New McCarthyism that Andrew Sullivan popularized earlier this decade. We must reject such an offensive and harmful approach out of hand.

Speaking for me only

< "Slumdog Kids" Travel to Hollywood for Oscars | Amnesty Intl.'s Fair Criticism Of Hillary Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    and BTD and Obama are both wrong, (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:19:07 PM EST
    horribly so.

    our policy in afghanistan, both original and present (whatever that actually is, because it isn't at all clear from the administration) is the policy of the brits and soviets, both losers in that quagmire of a country.

    apparently, we're doomed to read santayana over and over and over again.

    putting troops in piecemeal is a sure way to:

    1. incrementally increase our losses., and

    2. ultimately lose the conflict.

    war on the cheap is commonly known as defeat.

    unless we're willing to put a million troops on the ground, wage "total war" (thereby eliminating the enemy's ability to prosecute the war), and act like victors, we will lose. this is not even an issue for discussion, it is just harsh fact.

    if obama intends to merely continue the previous administration's program, albeit with slightly more troops, we'll be having this same discussion come 2010 and 2012 and 2016, etc.

    obviously, we haven't a million troops to put in afhganistan, that would require a draft, anathema to any politician. if victory in afghanistan is truly that important to our national security, the president should be able to sell it to congress, who should be able to sell it to their constituents.

    Hypocrisy r us (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by pluege on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    Putting progressive lipstick on an illegal military invasion and occupation pig is NO DIFFERENT and NO BETTER than neocon lipstick.

    The hypocrisy of escalation boosters is stifling. Not to mention the idiocy of learning nothing form Vietnam, Irag, and the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

    Parent

    It also ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    undermines Obama's underlying foreign policy message, as it continues to allow the US to be painted as an imperial adventurer.

    I don't necessarily agree that "total war" is the answer.  I think a Marshall Plan approach might be more effective.

    But since neither approach is on the table this quibble is moot.

    Parent

    I appreciate your willingness to disagree ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:33:41 AM EST
    ...without demonizing. I wish we progressives could all be done with that. It's why I didn't put progressive in quotation marks when I applied it to the National Security Network in my analysis. They are indeed progressives. Just ones who I disagree with on this particular issue, but not all issues, and not even their whole take on Afghanistan.

    Here does not seem the proper thread to argue the whole Afghanistan issue. Let me just repeat that my main point is not exactly the same as Get Afghanistan Right. There is a range of opinion in the group, which, as I say, overlaps NSN's to some extent. My point is that the sending of troops now, just 10 days into the review of Afghanistan policy, seems to me to presage what one large part of that policy will actually consist of when the policy review presents its conclusions: a larger military presence spread over several more years.

    So far, the U.S. has been there more than seven years and our generals are talking five or more years additionally. Aside from the Indian Wars of the 19th Century, which were piecemeal, that will make the Afghanistan war our longest conflict. I have yet to hear what the goals are, how we shall measure the attaining of those goals, and how much of those goals must be attained before troops can start moving the other direction from the one they are now going.

    A good piece on the internal dynamic in the administration is Gareth Porter's piece, US-AFGHANISTAN:  Obama Nixed Full Surge After Quizzing Brass.

    Here from Porter's article is ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:50:23 AM EST
    ...what I think we should all be concerned about:

    Johnson was worried about sliding into an open-ended commitment to a war that could not be won. But two months later he gave in, against his better judgment, to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, for "urgent reinforcements". The escalation of the war continued for another two years.

    Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month. And if the full 30,000 troop increase proves to be insufficient, he is likely to face further requests later on for "urgent reinforcements."



    Parent
    The other description... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    Is that Obama is starting a summer offensive in 2009. Quite a few of his primary supporters and general election supporters have little idea this was his plan.   Obama opposed the war (Iraq) according to the public billing.  I don't even think people realize that his stance on Pakistani is at the quiet American stage.   I wouldn't be surprised to see heavy involvement in Pakistan (population 175,000,000). By 2012.  Policy appears to be on autopilot.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    at that time, President Johnson initially ridiculed his generals saying that they were more interested in his saving face, but he was more concerned about losing his pants.  And, as we came to see, Lyndon in shorts was not a pretty sight.

    Parent
    I did not mean to give your analysis (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 05:47:01 AM EST
    short shrift.

    I will be addressing the substance in a later post.

    Parent

    bear in mind, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    I think a Marshall Plan approach might be more effective.

    this was instituted after germany and its allies were totally defeated in war. you didn't have guerilla groups marauding in the countryside.

    again, absent a firm plan (and there doesn't seem to be one at this point), incremental troop increases are meaningless.

    of the two conflicts, afghanistan was actually the legitimate one; the taliban dominated government, by refusing to secure and remand osama bin laden (and his merry band in tights) to the US, to answer for their crimes, committed an act of war against us. we had every legitimate right, under international law, to strike back.

    had we kept it to afghanistan, focussed all our resources and energy there, we would today be celebrating a re-birth in that pitiful country. instead, bush decided to show the world his codpiece, and squandered it all attacking a country that had caused us no harm.

    so far, i've not read, heard or seen anything from the obama administration specifying exactly what their intentions are in afghanistan, other than another "surge".

    heck, i'll even take the cliff's notes version at this point.

    I think it's a bit of a stretch (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    To suggest had we just focused on Afghanistan that we would be celebrating a re-birth is a bit naive.  Sorry, that would've necessitated that, first and foremost, we had the interests of the Afghan people in mind.  We didn't and we still don't.  We seem to be clinging to the belief that there are answers for everything in life, and there aren't, and quagmires of history and religion and medievil mindsets like Afghanistan are such things.  I, too, would love to "bring" them peace and prosperity and everything else, but I am wishing that from a skewed perspective, as we all seem to be.  If we really want to make Afghanistan better, help make it better, that is, then we have to accept that the Afghan people havet he right to be wrong, and we have announced clearly and loudly and violently that the Afghan don't have that right, they only have the right to do what WE want.

    That is not a recipe for any kind of success.  Period.  Petreaus can be brilliant as hell, the bigger problem is there seems to be no one of power ANYwhere in our structure who seems to really understand what makes people tick.  But that is no surprise. To understand such things takes the kind of patient meditation and thought that we simply have no military patience for.

    Parent

    To BTD: what is President (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    Obama's policy re Afghanistan?

    Maybe I was out of the loop (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    but I totally missed this:

    [T]here was broad progressive consensus that getting into a fight over Afghanistan would not help Obama's chances against McCain. So progressives who opposed a troop escalation in Afghanistan kept mostly silent.

    If I had disagreed with Obama about Afghanistan, I doubt that I would have kept my mouth shut about it because of some "progressive consensus."

    As always (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    My agreement is with the section I quote.

    I do not agree with the rest of MB's analysis, as my link to my previous post makes clear.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:43:11 PM EST
    I figured the whole post was fair game for comments.

    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    I just wanted to make clear my views.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:37:19 PM EST
    For people who support an escalation, there is always a temptation to tell people who are flatly anti-war "hey, you just haven't thought deeply enough about this."

    But not only is it rude and condescending, the burden of proof must always, by necessity, fall on those who favor the war.  If someone wants to say "look, you just haven't shown me the necessity," that's their right.

    On a related note, I am tired of hearing how Republicans are "rooting for failure" on the economy, with an exception perhaps for Rush Limbaugh because of what he actually said.  It's the exact flip side of what they used to say about Democrats and Iraq and it's equally out of line.  I don't know what comes over people where they decide being in the majority means now it's our turn to question the other guys' patriotism.

    And like a lot of politcal postions ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    people who suggest that those who oppose escalation "haven't thought deeply enough about it" have got it exactly backwards.

    Clearly, those who support escalation haven't thought deeply about it.

    Parent

    Equally lame imo (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    Find me one ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    example of a "deep thought" which supports escalation.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    Not going to play that game with you.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by pluege on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    republicans absolutely rooted for failure by voting against the stimulus. And don't you dare tell me they had ideological differences. No one in a democracy gets everything they want and there is a ton in that crappy bill for so-called phony fiscal conservatives including 1/3 of the bill as ineffective tax cuts. Some of proof of the republican hypocrisy are the republicans now running on how the bill will help their constituents even though they voted against it.

    The republicans were pure political calculation - no concern at all for addressing the crisis. They knew the bill was needed and it could pass with the minimalist republican support (3 senators from the northeast that would benefit from voting yes) and now they will hope if fails so they can use it against democrats. Furthermore their insistence against $40 billion for state aid was a direct effort to cut into the Democratic majority of Governorships.  

    Parent

    Kudos for your first two paragraphs. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:18:58 AM EST
    In the immortal words of Meatloaf... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:23:02 AM EST
    What did Meatloaf have to say about (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:30:11 AM EST
    President Obama re-missioning U.S. military to Afghanistan?

    Parent
    Hm (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 08:06:13 AM EST
    Little did I know Meatloaf is a (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:46:10 AM EST
    noted author.

    Parent
    If things kick off in Pakistan... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    ...175,000,000 million people will be in the crosshairs, or pointing their crosshairs at us troops in that area.

    Parent
    Count me as happy today (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    I'm getting the hard questions I wanted now.  I am happy with this.  I am for troop escalation in Afghanistan to insure civilian safety.  I am not for making poppy war though on farmer's trying to stay alive....that's total bull.  A few efforts have been undertaken thusfar that I feel are very counterproductive but nothing that can't be redirectioned NOW.  I am so happy that the Obama administration now understands they are being watched and watched closely.  I was suddenly not happy about the family commitment to do Afghanistan over the past few days but this brings me back to a place where I can do this.

    Wish I could say the same (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    But I can't.  Afghanistan, like Iraq, was never ours to win or lose.  Sometimes, I'm sorry, when you f*ck up so badly, for so long, you cannot expect to prevail in anything.  When Obama says the Afghan people have the right to be wrong, then I'll hear something really change oriented.  Right now, like the Taliban, we don't believe the Afghans have the right to determine anything, that we have to determine it for them.

    Hell it would make more sense to simply level the entire Pakistan/Afghanistan border region in totality.  The resulting resentment and hatred of us would be about the same as occupying places for decades, which we're looking at.

    Failure is, sorry to say, always an option, whether we or the military like it or not.  Because failure is as intrinsic a part of life as breathing.

    Sorry, Tracy, I'm just not feeling anything but dread for my brother and all the rest in harm's way.

    Parent

    Did I say anything about win? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    Did we win or lose in Bosnia?  Cuz I remember a bunch of wingers trying to say we didn't win anything there when the only thing to ever be had is stable community. The Taliban has nothing to do with community.  They murder whomever they choose when they choose and murder is A-okay when they run things.  If anybody knows that there is no big win in war that would be me.  There are such things though as human rights and stable nations, and then there are such things as zero human rights and murdering genociding unstable nations that then go onto commit acts of terrorism around the world.  We did get hit on 9/11 didn't we?  How many times did Osama take a swing at us before that?  Sorry, but Afghanistan is our problem and it isn't win or lose, it's a problem.  It is also a global problem.  I'll say it again, perhaps we need to stay for this one.  I can't speak for your bro to know why he is in this.  I can speak for this house though and we are in this because my husband has always known that real danger is out there and he has never been overly afraid of that reality while he has a healthy respect for it.  I guess he's always been the way he is too.  He did his service in Iraq and let us not forget that the Dems voted for him to give that service too, there wasn't anything one sided about it anymore once they voted to fund the whole deal!  He has volunteered for Afghanistan though.  It is his job, it is what his job has always been about from day one.  I want oversite though.  No more Cowboys!  I want oversite, I want human rights, and we are even talking about adopting an orphaned female child from the region towards the end of this deployment too.

    Parent
    Too bad we're killing civilians (none / 0) (#27)
    by pluege on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    I am for troop escalation in Afghanistan to insure civilian safety.

    Oh I forgot, when we bomb and kill people we didn't intend to kill its not killing civilians, its collateral damage so their dead wasted lives don't count and its just too bad because our cause is...what?

    Parent

    Civilians are killed whether we stay (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    and most surely when we go if we leave now.  I have never been for overly aggressive anything.  BushCo was overly aggressive in order to be able to use fewer forces.  If you don't want things overly aggressive, send more forces.  And while we are talking about reality, the Taliban is completely without mercy for anyone man, woman, or child to include day old infants.  Civilians are killed in this country every single day as well in the name of different sorts of needed security for the community.  I'm not saying that it makes any of it okay.  But heaven does not exist outside of heaven, and the Taliban is a bunch of ruthless murderers who when given the opportunity to run their own country attempt to go so far as to even begin to murder the world.  Perhaps we need to stay for this one.

    Parent
    Why Not Invade Everywhere? (none / 0) (#34)
    by pluege on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    • there are many ruthless regimes around the world, we can not eliminate them with our military. It is foolish to think otherwise - there is just no evidence today or throughout history of invasion as a successful tool for reducing violence anywhere.
    • we are the ones with the bombing runs that indiscriminately kill civilians. I'm sure it is not easy from an Afghanis perspective to decide which is worse: the Tailiban or us.
    • we see how well more military worked out for the Russians in Afghanistan and us in Vietnam that we should replicate those disasters? And Iraq - we distroyed an entire nation, provided the catalyst for ethnic cleansing and massive dislocation of the population. Iraq is an unmitigated human disaster.

    Being an occupying force is a losing proposition in every instance. The longer you stay, and the more civilians you kill, the more the population turns against you. Just as the Iraqis want the US out, the Afghanis more and more want us out. And BTW, I didn't see any Afghanis asking for more US troops, Obama just decided to do it - unilaterally, more than likely to appease the bloodlust of the Generals. This crap of the US thinking it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and that somehow we are righteous and just is pure crap - it must stop. History is littered with the disasters of military adventures in the name of some trumped up righteous cause. We are not righteous - we are invaders and occupiers of nations.

    Parent
    I want to have a respectful (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 07:53:45 AM EST
    discussion about this, but your discussion is a lot of antiwar rhetoric void facts.  I said nothing about invading everywhere, and Afghanistan isn't only about a "ruthless regime".  It is about a ruthless regime that took over a country and all of its wealth and resources and then participated in attacking my nation several times.  Afghanistan is not Vietnam either, there are zero similarities. And while you are feeling very self righteous about never needing to use any sort of defense of ourselves I shudder at what my world would really be like if I had no defense and just had to let bullies, murderers, and creeps have their way with me without consequences.

    Parent
    Last night, (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    on Bill Maher's season opener, the Afghanistan escalation was among topics discussed.  One of Maher's guests, Chrystia Freeland, managing editor of the Financial Times, argued, essentially, that we really need  to give the new administration the benefit of the doubt, for after all, there are really smart people involved and General Petraeus is our best general and he knows what to do.  Maxine Waters, fortunately, was much more cautious and concerned.  However, the Freeland point of view sure was an eerie memory--what could go wrong in Iraq, the dream team of experts was on hand to advise the new president including Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, Perle and Tommy Franks. Of course, things are never the same, and this is probably much different.

    The American people are (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 07:58:00 AM EST
    versed well enough in what is happening now concerning Afghanistan.  I don't think they need to give anyone the benefit of any doubt here.  I'm fine with them asking hard questions today, this minute.  I would like for them to stick to the facts though, and not just rhetoric.  I think that benefit of the doubt thing is itself rhetoric.  Isn't that what we the people are always supposed to do when our leaders decide we need to go to war?  Isn't that what we usually do?

    Parent