Afghanistan: Down the Yellow Brick Road? UPDATE 5
Dexter Filkins had this to say immediately after President Obama’s speech at West Point. “President Obama’s commitment Tuesday night to redouble America’s campaign in Afghanistan left unanswered what is perhaps the most decisive question of all: will the Afghans step up too?”
Whole thing here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02afghan.html?_r=1&hp
The speech probably made the best case that could be made for what the President has decided. Will it work? Probably not as outlined for some of the reasons Filkins enumerates. (FYI Filkins covered the first Afghan incursion for the LA Times and was in Iraq for the NYTimes and recently back in Afghanistan.)
What did you make of the speech and the plan?
Update: Here again Juan Cole’s assessment of the Afghan “government”; Karzai is not the only problem: http://salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/12/01/obama_afghanistan
Update 2: Here is Steve Coll at the New Yorker, generally supportive but with this proviso: “No matter how nuanced the invocation, Pakistani liberals fighting against the Army’s hedging strategy of support for the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be demoralized by the use of a specific date. Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2009/12/the-speech.html#ixzz0YZXtiwOE
Upd3: And Afghan reaction from Carlotta Gall in Kabul: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03pstan.html?hp
4: My favorite, knowing, and skeptical military observer (ret.), Pat Lang: The generals won–everything http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/12/the-generals-won-everything.html (Corrected!)
5: Veteran journalist John Burns answers some very good questions: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/ask-john-burns-global-impact-of-afghan-plan/
I thought it was notable that the White House did not have its spin doctors flooding the news stations. At least that’s the way it was on CNN except for Donna Brazile who had to feel outnumbered. She and the Democratic and Republican strategists were the last to comment on the initial reactions to the speech. By that time the sound bites were definitely going in an undesired direction for this administration. Another thought I have is that Obama should have couched his reassurance, to Afghans that the US had not intention of Occupying their country, by stating “who would want to occupy such a terrain?” Good for poppy though.
The ordinary Afghan is not going to step up. The only chance is to work with the Taliban leadership. Help them out, make it worth their while and seek to build from there while containing Al quida. That is what worked in Iraq.
One interesting not to me was the loud applause for the Presdent from the cadets when he said he hopoed still we could be united (as we were in 2002) in this process.
As Bill noted, the spin doctors are already at work, and I think the first question is wil we be guided by them as the usual partisan divide here operates?
Best phrase I heard on TV was ‘here comes the calvery but we’re not staying’. My hope is that Hillary Clinton can convince the 700 thousand man Pakistan army to drive out the Taliban from the border territories.
All I know is, I’m glad I’m not the President. What a horrible, horrible, horrible decision to have to make.
In case anyone missed it, Chris Matthews referred to West Point as “an enemy camp” as he wondered why Obama chose to give his speech there. Given the Left’s hatred of our military, and Obama is nothing if not a Leftist, its a good question. The answer of course is that Obama is floundering around, trying to placate the independents while holding his base. He considers Afghanistan and Iraq as annoyances that are screwing up his domestic agenda (and to add to the domestic agenda problem comes…Climategate!).
You make several good points Bob S., but I do not think the military has any “bad” feelings about the President though. He is their Commander in Chief after all; I think Chris Matthews is off-base on his assessment.
I agree with you that this is a tough one for the President. However frankly, especially considering our current economic problems, while folks like me (on the Right) probably prefer some isolationist nationalism for awhile, I think President Obama will have more trouble with his Left flank.
Those on the Right will go along with the President on this, partly because some on the Right agree with pressing on in Afghanistan, and partly because the more isolationist or nationalistic right wingers (like myself), even if we do not agree with staying in Afghanistan, hold the notion that the President is Commander in Chief, and our job is to support him and the troops; that politics should stop at the waterfront.
Those on the Left however, labor under no such restrictions. If they honestly feel the President has somehow betrayed them or their cause, or simply because they do not agree with him on this, they might well start protesting long and loud as they did during most of the Iraq war. That will hurt the President broadly, and will make it more difficult for him to tend his domestic agenda.
And so while the President has a huge amount on his plate dealing with Afghanistan, it seems he also has a very delicate (domestic, Democrat) political situation on his hands.
As for Copenhagen and global warming, the e-mails that expose the fraudulent actions of the top climate “scientists” look – for the President anyway – like a true blessing in disguise in that at least it means the President can simply shelve most of that agenda i.e., he need not worry about it for now. This Afghan war will make it difficult enough to proceed with health care reform, and so the President is probably glad that he can justifiably let the Cap & Trade initiative more or less wither on the vine.
If President Obama can allow the economy to recover naturally (i.e. keep the government from slowing the economic recovery), properly handle this Afghan war, pass some sort of health care system improvements, and grant amnesty to the (mostly Mexican) indocumentados, he will have done a reasonable job.
Wow – That is quite a list of projects!
“..even if we do not agree with staying in Afghanistan, hold the notion that the President is Commander in Chief, and our job is to support him and the troops; that politics should stop at the waterfront.”
Ken,
It is never our country right or wrong. Morality supersedes everything. Nationalism has always been the source of unnecessary wars from the beginning to Hitler and Rumsfeld/Chaney. The blessing of battleships and other artillery is always an oxymorn for Christians.
Bill M – I did not say “our country right or wrong”; I said:
“…even if we do not agree with staying in Afghanistan, hold the notion that the President is Commander in Chief, and our job is to support him and the troops; that politics should stop at the waterfront.”
My larger point is that while most on the right will follow the president, albeit reluctantly, that President’s main political problems will come from his own Left wing.
However saying that politics should stop at the waterfront is not the same as “my coutnry right or wrong”.
It is simply a recognition that as part of the responsibility he bears, and part or the duties of his office, the president needs to decide things and that naturally, not all of us Americans will agree with him all the time. Now, once he makes his mind up on something international (outside the USA), even if I do not agree with him, because he is President and Commander in Chief, I will understand the decision is within his purview and will defer to his judgement. That being settled in my mind, I then support my president.
For the record, I did not understand how we justified our military actions in Kosovo, but at the time I simply trusted that President Clinton had more information that I, and in any case, that it was his call, not mine. I then just prayed and hoped for the best. Thankfully it worked out Ok. I did the same thing in Iraq and will do something similar this time around.
And Bill, You can save the tired old “Hitler-Cheney” comparison for another time. I am not sure where or when it would be appropriate, if ever.
As important as this topic is, my goodness it is tedious of you to trot out that old Lefist harangue and parade it around like that.
Believe me it does you no compliment; you are smarter than that.
Supporting the president–or not–is a complicated problem. Most of us want to believe the president knows more than we do, and more than the talking heads. I think I was fully disabused of that idea not long after we went into Iraq.
Still, I feel sympathy for Obama; as Thomas Jacobs says above: “What a horrible, horrible, horrible decision to have to make.” I am currently reading a book about foreign policy decision making during the Cold War by Campbell Craig. The way in which domestic considerations influenced Republican and Democratic foreign policy making to the detriment of our national interests is grim reading. The book: America’s Cold War: The Politics of Insecurity
Obama’s Left will probably have little leverage in coming decision forks, but you can be sure that Republicans who now claim to support his decision will begin sniping–some already have.
It is very true that supporting the president – or not – can be complicated.
For me it goes to rendering unto Caesar that which is his, etc. As for nationalism, perhaps that is not the correct word. While I consider myself to be a Catholic American; Catholic first, of course it is very important to be loyal and to love and support one’s country. This is summed up by the phrase “for God and country”.
And so while I voted for Bush, because I will always side with the Pope, I was not thrilled with the war in Iraq. Of course I fully respect and gladly give due deference to our Presidents’ civil authority, and in my heart I follow Rome.
Siding with the Pope first, and respecting the civil authority of our President, means striking a sort of balance. I suppose there are times where it could prove problematic, but thankfully to date, as an American, I have not found it difficult.
For this and other reasons I am always thankful to have been born both Catholic and American.
Ken: not a partisan question. If you mean you voted for Bush in 2004, how is that siding with the Pope who opposed the war in Iraq as did the U.S. bishops–though not as vigorously? Just curious about your line of thinking.
I always go back to the “why”question.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/will_the_taliban_wait_us_out.php
My fundamental problem is trying to decide whether his reasons and the basis for the policy are primarily about national security or national politics. The idea of setting a firm date to withdrawl makes no sense, and I can’t believe any of his military advisors supported it. In fact, it is more likely that fewer troops will be needed and brought home sooner if he hadn’t. In asymetrical warfare the one thing the insurgent has on his side is time. By announcing a withdrawl schedule, he has provided them with an opportunity that didn’t have before.
Moreover, he has probably guranteed a more thorough and brutal campaign against the very people we claim to support. If you are the Taliban, what would you do? I would avoid encounters with our forces to the extent possible, concentrating on terrorizing the local population.
Regarding international humanitarin aid for the people of Afghanistan, I am wondering if it would be possible to have humanitarian aid dependent upon Afghanistan’s committment to support the cultivation of legal crops in their country? Perhaps some of the humanitarian aid could be given in exchange for farmers contributing crops for an international Food Bank that would be beneficial to both the people of Afghanistan and those in need of humanitarian aid in the international community.
No problem Margaret. I voted for Bush back in 2000 because I was tired of the Clinton scandals and of course, because Gore was not pro-life. Then came 9-11, which placed us on a war footing. Then came 2004 and again, Kerry was pro-choice so I would not vote for him. Add to that the fact that by2004 we were mid-stream in Iraq and regardless of what I personally thought of the actual war, I did not think it a good idea to change commanders in the middle of it. Eventually we gained the upper hand in Iraq and thankfully it sis now winding down. Then came 2008 and again, I voted McCain, not so much because I liked him, but because Obama-Biden were pro-choice. I admired McCain but thought him too old, and I liked Palin and her style, and still do. I find President Obama to be personally charming, and admire Biden’s story and I like his wit. I just wish they were pro-life. Hope that helps explain.
And Nancy – you must be joking:
“I am wondering if it would be possible to have humanitarian aid dependent upon Afghanistan’s commitment to support the cultivation of legal crops in their country?”
Opium IS legal in Afghanistan; it is their main crop. What makes you think we have the right to tell another nation what to grow in their fields? In any case, Afghans are tough in mind and body and are known for their shady deals and devious, brutal ways. I know you and other naïve innocents who think like you have good intentions, but seriously you do not understand who you are dealing with. The Afghans will just laugh, take your money and if you are lucky, they might let you live.
My goodness!
Ken, I was thinking that the crops for humanitarian aid exchange could happen simultaneously, kind of like giving them a fish while teaching them how to fish. Placing restrictions on humanitarian aid in order to benefit the people of Afghanistan seems like a practical solution to me.
It is hard to make chicken salad out of what the chicken hawks of the previous administration left Obama and the country, but my feeling about Obama’s Afghanistan policy is pretty straightforward–and well summed up by a reader at Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
This is easy for me to say, of course, in the comfort of my home office. The reality of the soldiers who will die, and the Afghans who will be die, should make anyone reject this or most any war, especially after these long years of war. And Sullivan goes on to note his ambivalence, which seemed to be shared by most people.
One observation: If Afghanistan was a just war before, is it still a just war? I am also heavily influenced by the desire to get Osama bin Laden, for reasons of justice and likely personal animus. That Bush dropped the ball there (I don’t believe that intentional myth) was really unforgiveable. And politically dumb. Obama seems to be treating this more like the crime-fighting operation it should be, and a way to try to tie up this misbegotten episode of US history with some kind of justice and reasonableness that points the way to a more deliberative American vision and policy.
Oh, and I’d support a war tax and a draft, neither of which are politically palatable. Too few are sacrificing too much.
I fear our surge of troops (over 6 months) will just provide the Taliban and Al Queda new and tempting targets. Responding to new attacks, ambushes, bombings and strong-arming of villagers will be just helter-skelter. There is no cohesion to this country, no common bonds, no shared vision, no desire to be anything at all. They will learn to hate Americans even more and we shall be in worse shape in 8 months and with many more casualties. I can’t see how this surge will accomplish anything but more destruction.
Whatever one thinks of his Afghan strategy, Obama finaly seems to have found the bipartisanship he was looking for:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124562/Obama-Plan-Afghanistan-Finds-Bipartisan-Support.aspx?CSTS=alert
I guess everyone likes war…
Ken, thanks for your response above at 9:57 AM
I would not make that mental leap David, and it does not seem you thought through your remark much either. In fact most people do Not “like war”, but we do have crazed terrorists who have time and again demonstrated they want to attack us.
I do not happen to favor this war either, but I do not and would not go around making shallow remarks about those who insist we fight it, just so I can feel somehow superior to them. I prefer the John Paul II and (now) the Benedict XVI approach of honestly and frankly engaging reasonable elements in the Muslim world i.e., the traditional (non-radical) Muslims, and finding common ground and common cause. On some levels, I think we are making progress with traditional Muslims, but we have a long way to go.
I recognize the obvious (and honest) difference of opinion on this, and I understand that decisions regarding something of the magnitude and gravity of war are serious prudential judgements that are not made lightly but are instead made after a thoughtful analysis and in accordance with the laws of the country in which one lives. In our case (Americans), our President Obama is Commander in Chief of the military and he operates under the war authority granted him by Congress way back when Bush was President. As much as I routinely disagree with our government, I respect my fellow citizens and I respect our system; that of an independent democratic republic.
And so no; I would not run around making flippant remarks about how, unlike myself, the great unwashed masses “like war”.
Ken, are you referring to me? I’m not sure what you are fulminating about. I actually support, with understandable ambivalence, the Afghan push. If I was being “flippant,” Iguess I was doing so about myself. Now there’s a sin! I do think it easier to beat the war drums, as was so evident during the years of the Iraq debacle. And that is terrible, I think. In any case, maybe you were referring to something else in your moment of apoplexy.