Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
Yesterday, I answered Peter's first two questions on Afghanistan. They were: 1) How do we define victory, especially as it pertains to Afghanistan?; and 2) Does Afghanistan matter nearly as much as Pakistan?
Peter's third question: Why are we having to ask these questions? Shouldn't the President, or Petraeus, or somebody have explained all this in plain language already?
Answer: Well, the President is in a bind. Let us count the ways:
- He ran on 'let me at 'em' in the 'good war' and "I'll end" the "bad" war in Iraq. Never in his right mind, did he anticipate that the Taliban would call his bluff: the good war went bad, and the bad good in Iraq.
- Deadlines of withdrawal either ensure defeat or must be Guatanamoized into 'that was then, this is now.'
- Petraeus's three overseers--the former senators, Biden, Clinton, and Obama—in the prior hearings on a Petraean surge were not merely defeatist, but rudely so. Now they are the establishment and it will be hard again to do 'we were outsiders then, insiders now" flip.
- Obama did not meet Gen. McChrystal for months, apparently thinking by voting present, the problem would either go away or devolve into "Bush did it."
- So many of our problems of definition and perceptions of uncertainty starts at the very top, not the battlefield. I would imagine Petraeus had leverage and in time we will see new diplomatic officials in Afghanistan, and a realization that Afghanistan is now Obama's to win or lose. He would come to learn that he would rather be Bill Clinton after Serbia than Bill Clinton after Mogadishu.
A final note: From 2001-07, the casualty rates of Afghanistan were roughly in total the same as one year in Iraq, and we once talked of Iraq in terms of "where is the Iraqi Karzai" (the recipient of the Liberty Medal at one time)?—so Afghanistan for years was not considered a "lost" war, but a quiet front, UN and NATO approved. We should remember that and not fall into despair.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
I believe it was Dr. Hanson who commented elsewhere to the effect that one of the big things President Obama has going for him is that there is no Senator Obama sniping at him for political advantage.
And General Petraeus' fiercest critics hail him as the savior of the moment. It's "Special train for General Petraeus when the guns begin to shoot."
May '10
Re: Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
Crazy Update: RNC Chairman Michael Steele has now said on tape that Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the U. S. had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." Also: "[If Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan." This is the leader of the Republican Party? Amazing.
Bill Kristol and Andy McCarthy (and many others to follow, no doubt) have just asked him to resign.
May '10
Re: Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
Scott - having grown up in Ohio, I always assume GOP big-shots will be the only enemies of conservative candidates more damaging than the media. Even with those low expectations, Steele has been a disaster.
Has everyone read Steyn's latest Maclean's piece? As Steyn and others have been arguing for some time, it's tough to be optimistic about a war effort diluted by UN and NATO "nation-building" business when even America's dedication stretches little further than political necessity.
May '10
Re: Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
Jason,
I'm as skeptical of nation building as the next guy -- as skeptical even as George W. Bush was during Election 2000 -- but it's worth noting that General Petraeus, the most trusted military man in America, asserts that Iraq and Afghanistan require a strategy that, whatever one calls it, involves a whole lot of nation building. So I understand what you mean when you observe that this "nation building" business is diluting the war effort, but isn't it the case that without that aspect of the conflict, there wouldn't be any notable military figures who believe the war to be winnable? I'm still not ready to say that we should leave Afghanistan, but if any strategy that involves nation building is doomed, we should definitely leave, because we haven't got any other plan except "build the nation strong enough to survive Taliban attacks."
May '10
Re: Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
Jason and Conor: I'm pretty much on board with Conor's got-any-better-ideas? analysis of nation building, and in fact Steyn lately has frustrated me with his (it seems) reversal on the merits of the US's long-slog exporting of democracy, freedom, human rights, etc. in the Muslim world. On pages 167-176 of America Alone he goes on what I've always seen as a brilliant riff on the importance of America's using its "moment" to "leave something behind," as the British did in their day--not to colonize, of course, but certainly to abandon the he's-an-SOB-but-he's-our-SOB escape from nation building we've had for generations now.
Maybe Steyn is just opposing "half-assed" nation building (i.e., the July 2011 thing). I don't know. But the new Steyn seems incompatible with the guy who wrote, to contrast the US's exit-strategy obsession, that "the British went to India without an exit strategy, stayed for generations, and midwifed the world's most populous democracy and a key US ally in the years ahead. Which looks like the smarter approach now?" (AA p170)
Jun '10
Re: Comments on Afghanistan: Part 2
I was cruising Youtube when I discovered a homemade clip showing a mixed US-Afghan unit relaxing after a firefight. The US troops are still vigilant, but the Afghans are all stoned on hashish and opium. A Taliban sniper round ricochets off some debris. The Americans take cover, but an Afghan soldier jumps up and unloads in the general direction of the sniper. A second shot catches the soldier's AK in the magazine and rips it from his hands. He falls to the ground giggling.
"Are they always like that?" asks the cameraman.
"Most of the time," answers a US soldier, "except on Wednesdays which is man-love night."
It's the little things that indicate systemic problems that bother me. I am not confident in our ultimate success.