home

President Obama Is Right On Afghanistsan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:21:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The WSJ reports:

President Barack Obama plans to request new funding from Congress for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he risks a backlash from antiwar lawmakers. . . . Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus[,] is . . . concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don't think we should be going there," she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. "I just have this sinking feeling that we're getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end," he said.

With due respect to these fine progressive legislators, I disagree. I will explain why below the fold.

While a quicker drawdown in Iraq would of course be best, at this point that is not going to happen. The real issue it seems to me is Afghanistan. Why do I support President Obama's policy on Afghanistan? Because I believe the United States has a vital strategic interest in (1) stabilizing the region; (2) restraining extremism and terrorism that emanates from the region and (3) the situation in Pakistan is such that a U.S. military presence in the region is necessary.

Some would argue that it is the US's presence in the region that is destabilizing. I disagree. Unlike in Iraq, the region was destablized and problematic long before the US toppled the Taliban in late 2001.

It is both in the interests of the United States and the region that the United States invest military and diplomatic assets to attempting to provide stability and a political solution to the Af-Pak situation. Some think this means simply using military force. This is incorrect. Hard headed diplomacy with Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Taliban and Iran is absolutely vital.

I believe President Obama and his team are on the right track on Afghanistan.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | The "Money" Quote >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    President Obama Is Right On Afghanistsan | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    I have not seen a convincing argument that getting out of Afghanistan right now will improve the situation in any way.

    With the Obama policy, there is at least a chance of the situation improving. Of course it remains to be seen whether it will help, but there is no alternative at this point.

    Hey (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    We're O-bots for a day, or for a post at least.

    Parent
    and i have yet to see (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    have not seen a convincing argument that getting out of Afghanistan right now will improve the situation in any way.

    a compelling solution to our present quagmire in that country, that would actually achieve the goals set forth.

    absent a huge (and by huge, i don't mean just an additional 30k troops, i mean an additional 300k troops) infusion of troops, to complement the proposed "hard diplomacy", it's just a waste of scarce, allocable resources. without both, afghanistan will continue to be the world's largest "whackamole" game.

    correct me if i'm wrong, but unless we start filling the volunteer army by emptying our prisons, i hadn't noticed an extra 300k troops just sitting around, waiting for something to do.

    in fairness to obama, this is not a situation of his making, the bush administration's "war on the cheap" military business model created this mess. however, pres. obama was presumably aware of this when he decided to run, it's his problem now.

    Parent

    Not his making (none / 0) (#93)
    by star on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    But the making of the terrorists ( I have no problem calling them so ) who flew planes into towers in NY and killed people who were going about their business for no fault of their own..

    It is a bit unnerving the 9/11 is so forgotten.. I hated Bush for going into Iraq..but Afganisthan was thrust on us and there was no other way to deal with osama and co other than what was done. I would know ,coz I am muslim and from around that region.. Clinton was regarded as a coward by a lot of muslims in Af-Pak region for not responding to embassy and USS cole bombings..
    I am a dem and voted for Obama , but I do find it extremly foolish and hypocritical of him to go around the globe apologizing for USA hurting muslilm sentiments.. US policy before 9/11 was not ovely focused on muslim world and in fact in many regions supported muslim countries (pakistan vs india, bosnia, somalia ) ..


    Parent

    This only makes sense if (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Pacific John on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    ...there is robust, effective, economic transformation of the country. Security is one cornerstone of building a safe civil society, but it has to quickly end up being a background activity, or it will fail.

    If our primary presence is military rather than economic, we'll be another link in the unbroken chain of great countries whose militaries went to Afghanistan to fail.

    Right now, it's a leap of faith that Obama will eclipse his military escalation with a bold, much larger, long-term, humanitarian nation-building mission.

    He's been so tepid and captive to the status quo on other huge problems, I can't see why we should trust him on this. He does, after all, still have the Bush team at DoD.

    Like everything else, he places rational Democrats in the position of having to kick his a** into doing the right thing, and in this case, doing the right thing means having a large, expensive humanitarian plan up front.

    Another way of viewing this is, there is no primarily military way to improve the situation in the long term, perhaps at all. As much as it flies in the face of the American ethic to take action and solve problems, it could be that any military action will only make things worse than when we started.

    See: Iraq.

    ORLY (none / 0) (#29)
    by wystler on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    He does, after all, still have the Bush team at DoD.

    Sure.

    Doug Feith and Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are still calling the shot. More of the same, eh?

    Sheesh

    Parent

    Pretty low standards then I guess (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    if that's what you're basing everything on.

    Parent
    on the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by wystler on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    some of us are immune to ODS, which has run rampant here for quite some time

    Parent
    So does the progressive (none / 0) (#63)
    by dk on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    caucus have ODS too?

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    you missed the point: Some how having bush adminstration officials as long as they aren't Feith et al. makes Obama's picks great? Seems like pretty low standards to me.

    Parent
    get up to date (none / 0) (#83)
    by michael098762001 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:44:38 PM EST
       Feith teaches at Johns Hopkins, IIRC, Wolfowitz after he left the DoD ran the world bank or IMF until a personal scandal drove him out and perle isn't on that defense policy planning board anymore...

    Parent
    Just to play Devil's Advocate... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    ...why is an unstable Afghanistan against our national interest more so than, say, Sudan and Somalia?

    If the main reason is proximity to an unstable Pakistan, that the problem is Pakistan (and an internal problem, at that, relatively immune from our ability to mitigate it) and additional troops in Afghanistan are targets tangential to the real issue.

    If the issue is Afghanistan as a base for past and future terrorists and plotters, one would think Somalia and Sudan would be eligible for some US troops.

    Well (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    When you answer your own questions, what's left for me to do?

    Parent
    I didn't answer my own questions... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    ...and that is obvious.

    I attempted to note that I was aware of two possible answers to the question, and at the same time give what I felt were complications to those answers. It was an attempt to make things easier. To reduce the number of back-and-forths caused by unclear statements or misunderstanding

    Of course you have found a better way to reduce the number of back-and-forths by not even bothering and just issuing a snarky dismissal of the question.

    So, you found a more efficient method. Kudos.

    Parent

    Someone's in a pissy mood (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    You're lucky I do not get to give you the full bore Armando of yore.

    But let me try to satisfy you - The proximity to Pakistan is a critical consideration. The proximity of the Taliban is a critical consideration. The proximity of Al Qaida is a critical consideration.

    As for why not Somalia and Sudan too? Why not indeed?

    Parent

    Ok... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    As for why not Somalia and Sudan too? Why not indeed

    ...that answered the "question."

    I put "question" in quotes because I generally agree with you, and I wanted to see what defined "national interest" in this situation, out of curiosity and my own sense that I'm a bit too casuistic in my definition. I don't know if having hard and set definitions is any better. So, dialectic.

    As far as being pissy. Eh, questions aren't pissy. Being exasperated at pat dismissals from a guy on a blog might be a little pissy, but nothing to note. And if I was being pissy, well, I can't imagine that you could honestly view that as a negative (see various quotes from the referenced "full bore Armando of yore").

    Parent

    I comment in (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    less engaged fashion precisely because I can not be the Armando of yore at this site.

    I was booted/left DKos because I was singled out for being the Armando of Yore. I notice that the civility needle really hasn't moved much since I left there.  So that was a failed "civility" strategy there.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    ...and obviously you know how much I prefer (or, rather, appreciated) the Armando of Yore and how I feel about your absence at Dailykos.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    It was a good thing for me. And for daily kos I think.

    But I do get a chuckle every now and then when I look at the site to consider I was considered too uncivil for it.

    Parent

    Armando of Yore (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    I first met that guy during the March 2006 Primary between Henry (Bush-kissed-me-at-the-State-of-the-Union) Cuellar and Ciro Rodriquez.

    There were perhaps 3 or 4 people on that thread at about 11:30 PDT.  Armando of Yore was one of them.  I wrote this nice little post--well after the polls closed--saying it didn't look good for Ciro.  And out of nowhere I get all kinds of grief--I'm an idiot, etc; how could I know.....It had to have been 3 or 4 in the morning his time.  I said I could understand being emotional about Ciro losing--I sent him some money--nope, Armando of Yore wasn't emotionally invested at all...

    Well, at least someone else was watching the returns during those dark Republican days.

     

    Parent

    Let me add (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    that just because we can not solve all of Pakistan's problems does not mean we can not "mitigate" the threats to US interests in the region.

    Consider Desert Storm in 1991. George Bush the Good One acted properly in all respects - building a coalition, bringing massive force to bear, AND not taking on a problem he could not solve and making it worse.

    He served US interests perfectly in Desert Storm.

    Now consider George Bush the BAD in 2003. He CREATED a problem for vital US interests for no good reason and addressing no real threat, If instead he had addressed the threat to the US in Af-Pak, we would not be here today. the world would not be perfect of course, but it would be much better.

    See my point?    

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    ...no solution of any kind ever will make the world perfect. Mostly I was referencing the fact that Pakistan's domestic problems -- specifically the ones related to extremism, terrorism, and the possibility of nuclear proliferation -- are easily exacerbated by any attempt we make to influence them. Some attempts at mitigation cause problems that undermine other attempts at mitigation. Naturally.

    So we can attempt to contain those problems to Pakistan. Or even to the region. But if our attempts to contain (or act directly, in the case of the NWFP/FATA dronestrikes) disrupts the internal politics of Pakistan in a way that makes the extremists more popular and powerful? It's a tightrope.

    Again, I see your point because I agree. I just haven't heard arguments for it that are too much better than the one in my head that I don't feel is all that airtight or substantial.

    Parent

    It's a tightrope (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    Indeed. In that sense, prominently proclaiming it is about Afghanistan is an important part of the PR.

    Parent
    I'll take the status quo in Pakistan (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    It isn't all that great but at least the Taliban isn't in control of the army or the nukes.

    I'd also take the status quo in Afghanistan--assuming that entails a Taliban not in complete control and an al Qaeda basically in hiding.....

    The pre-invasion status quo in Iraq wasn't all that bad, either.  

    A messy equilibirum which lets us take out al Qaeda camps when needed is just fine with me.

    Parent

    My bet is that (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    either Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D.CA) or Rep. Jim McGovern (D.MA) will some day be successful in a Democratic presidential primary for having excellent judgment for recognizing the likely quagmire and, accordingly, being against expanding the war in Afghanistan. Their superior judgment would be linked to their  understanding  of the history, the potential for further de-stabilization, the absence of a clear mission as well as  the what and who characterizes the present-day Afghan enemy.  They, too, seem to have it right when they place the burden on the administration to explain fully what and why we are doing what we are doing. They seem to know that  mistakes of gigantic proportions have been made by the so-called best and brightest from administrations of all stripes.

    But Wooley and/or McGovern (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    to walk the walk once he or she achieved the Presidency?  (See Barack Obama.)

    Parent
    Yes, But Unlike (none / 0) (#96)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:58:02 PM EST
    Obama, they are in a position of power to back up their "rhetoric" with action. That will be the test of their resolve. As you no doubt recall, Obama was not in such a position when he made his objections but was in the Illinois senate. His objections have proven to be empty at best, and hypocritical at worst.

    Parent
    I assume Obama has the power now, but (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    he seems to have changed his mind.  Yes, I do recall he promised more troops in Afghanistan during the GE debates.  I mean before that.

    Parent
    Afghanistan is not a nation (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    It is a terribly loose group of various tribes and klans with beefs literally centuries old.  To accept your assessment, Tent, I would have to assume that the U.S. will be able to do in Afghanistan what no major power has done in the thousands of years they have been trying.  And since we are still inflicting just as much damage on civilians as the "enemy", and will inevitably do more as troop levels increase, we are in a never-ending process of proving to Afghans that we, indeed, cannot do the impossible.

    This is a quagmire with no solution.  Life is like that: it is full of things that have no answers, no solutions, only their difficult and persistent existence.  It's that stupid survival mechanism, the one that lives in everything from single celled organisms to humans.  And we think we can overcome that on the other side of the world, with other people's lives and land and future?  

    Please.  

    Hope I'm wrong.  Peace, y'all.

    You're not (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    And if it continues, there'll be another quagmire to deal with in nuclear Pakistan before long.

    Parent
    yet for all of that.. (none / 0) (#101)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    We have won wars. And insurgencies have been beaten before.


    Parent
    The more I read about the creation of (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    Pakistan and its subseuent turbulent history, the less I think anyone will ever stabilize Pakistan, including Pakistanis.

    Must we have increased military presence in Afghanistan to accomplish the goals you set forth?

    We might have to have (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    a presence in Pakistan. . .

    Parent
    The ungoverned areas (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    Certainly. In a way, we already do - through the drones and the missile strikes.

    Parent
    Yes. I just don't know if that's enough. (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:32:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Boots on the ground? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    There? Hard to do. Or have enough.

    Parent
    Honestly, if it gets any worse (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    I would think about taking out the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and inviting India to invade. Yes, I know, Pandora's box.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:48:08 AM EST


    Parent
    That's simply insane. N/T (none / 0) (#19)
    by Chatham on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:48:42 AM EST


    Parent
    That's the point (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    Not that it would actually happen, but that the Pakistanis might think it would. Impetus for making hard choices.

    Parent
    You have now entered (none / 0) (#25)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    The Twilight Zone

    Parent
    I think there's some benefit (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    to making the bad actors think that maybe we aren't 100% rational.

    Parent
    And the rest of the world? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:07:54 AM EST


    Parent
    What are they going to do about it? (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:13:47 AM EST


    Parent
    What are they going to do about it? (none / 0) (#45)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    What do you think you are suggesting? A small Friday night scuffle at the local bar?

    Parent
    No, no scuffle (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    Threat of a scuffle.

    Parent
    Yeah I think everyone here got that point (none / 0) (#56)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    Threats. So you are adopting the George W. Bush style of leadership.

    No thanks.

    Parent

    You think there's no place for threats (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    in international relations?

    Nothing to do with George Bush.

    Parent

    Keep going you're getting there (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    Originally you said:

    I would think about taking out the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and inviting India to invade. Yes, I know, Pandora's box.

    So you have now gone from a completley fantastical act of aggression to dialing it down to threat. Keep going you're headed in the right direction with just a ways to go.

    Parent

    Um, "think about" (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    And let them know it. Whether it would even come close to actually happening is an entirely different question.

    Parent
    "Yes, I know, Pandora's box" (none / 0) (#73)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    Well you thought about it in the same breath reached a consensus with all the other posters here - bad idea.

    Parent
    Nixon's Madman Theory (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    I don't buy it myself.

    Parent
    I think it's pretty well accepted in game theory (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    to the degree I understand it.

    Parent
    and, that's why (none / 0) (#41)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    I think it's pretty well accepted in game theory

    it's called "theory". the problem with it is if you meet up with someone who truly is nutzoid (N. Korea comes quickly to mind), then what?

    the various war colleges study a lot of theories, using computer modeling. very few ever get put into actual practice, for what turn out to be very obvious reasons.

    Parent

    As Long As We (none / 0) (#97)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    keep rationalizing along these lines we need look no further than the mirror to see who the the real "nutzoids" in this scenario are.

    Parent
    Well game theory (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    has nothing to do with foreign affairs imo. I always thought so.

    Parent
    Well, FA is an art (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:38:26 AM EST


    Parent
    then you always thought wrong. (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    Well game theory has nothing to do with foreign affairs imo. I always thought so.

    clausewitz: "war is diplomacy by other means"

    game theory, diplomacy and military action have been hand-in-hand, probably since alexander the great. napolean knew his enemies well enough to predict exactly what they would do, in specific circumstances, which he then created to exploit their predictability. his battles were mostly won before the first shot was ever fired.

    game theory is used to give you the greatest opportunity for military success, should diplomacy fail.

    Parent

    Sounds like the (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    Richard Nixon School of Foreign Policy, and just as unhinged.

    Parent
    Hire Bush (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:58:02 PM EST


    Parent
    First, though, we've threatened to (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    invade Somalia and take out the pirates.  Priorities, priorities.

    Parent
    No way (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:52:47 AM EST


    Parent
    You gotsta be kidding (none / 0) (#24)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    Take out a nuclear arsenal and invite India to invade? And then what? Hindu India annexes Muslim Pakistan and rules over them and the entire Muslim world explodes in anger? And then Europe, Russia, China, Muslim Indonesia approve of all that?

    That would not be Pandora's box, that would be opening the gates of hell.

    I know it is a full moon today and that sometimes makes people have strange thoughts and all but...

    Parent

    And if you missed a single Pakistani nuke... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    ...millions of Indians would die.

    Parent
    Wont happen (none / 0) (#95)
    by star on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:38:56 PM EST
    India is pretty much its own master and does not base its foreign policy on anybodys' bidding. Besides, no other country has been provoked enough as India and it has not responded..so India doing the dirty work for another country ..I dont think so

    Parent
    We actually have some people on the ground (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:41:54 PM EST
    there right now too.  They are doing 3 to 6 month rotations.  I don't know what exactly they are doing, and I probably won't ever because I think it is part of intel.

    Parent
    We already have one (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    it might have to get a lot bigger though.

    Parent
    In my view yes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    Particularly for dealing with extremist elements and the Taliban.

    Parent
    I agree with staying in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#28)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    but took special notice with the following:

    1) stabilizing the region; (2) restraining extremism and terrorism that emanates from the region and (3) the situation in Pakistan is such that a U.S. military presence in the region is necessary.

    Substitute Iran for Pakistan and those are the exact reasons Bush gave to stay in Iraq. And comes real close to the reasons Obama is keeping us in Iraq and will likely keep us there longer than advertised.

    Parent

    Iran is not unstable (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:08:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Well if you don't (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    consider who rules the Iran you would be correct. If you do then it leads one to a different conclusion.

    At any rate it is the reasons Bush gave. And when you further consider Iran's march to nukes it is a world consensus that not only would that make Iran further unstable but it would effectively destabilize, in a cold war sense, the entire region and make Europe and surrounding countries very nervous.

    And given Obama's overtures to Iran and there leadership thumbing their nose in return the march to nukes will likely keep us in Iraq longer that advertised. I'd bet on that.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:22:50 AM EST
    That we do not care for Iran's government is not equivalent to Iran being unstable.

    Iran has had the same government for 30 years more or less. It is incredibly stable.

    Now, like Cuba, this is a BUG, not a feature. but it is silly to argue Iran is "unstable."


    Parent

    do not care for Iran's government? (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    Wow that is papering over reality. How about that the world in general is afraid to death of their march to nukes. How about Israel with their finger on the trigger. How about the Saudis likely having an underground nuke program in the works to counter.

    Yes Iran is stable. It is the world around them that in unstable. Why should anyone worry about such a stable country threatening to wipe Israel off the map? Why should we be concerned about their involvement in Lebanon or other places. Aggression is not instability. It is just aggression. They are very stable - in the wrong way.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    I happen to be a relative hardliner on Iran so you do not have to yell at me.

    I am talking about what the word stability means.

    Parent

    hmmm (none / 0) (#82)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    as i recollect the only country that actually did go ahead and pull that trigger was (drumroll) U.S.A !

    Parent
    The problem is not (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    Afghanistan, per se.  Rather, the problem is in the instability of Pakistan, and Afghanistan is both a cause and an effect of that.

    Prediction:  within the next two years, there will be a turnover of the government in Pakistan.  That governmental turnover will be a result (I want to say a direct result, but am not yet willing to go that far) of the on-going Talibanist insurgency inside Pakistan.  That turnover will result (possibly in one but more likely in several steps) in a Taliban or Taliban-oriented theocracy getting control of Pakistan and, with that, control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

    So, if you think things are bad now, or have been bad before, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

    I make this prediction because the insurgency has reached a point (go read the Cliff Notes on Chairman Mao's book...) where it is moving from the countryside and into cities in a big way, and the government is being ham-handed in the extreme in dealing with it.  It isn't long now.

    This strikes me as (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    strong justification for an American military presence in the region.

    Parent
    Or for making nice with the Taliban (none / 0) (#20)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    while figuring out how to steal the nukes and destroy the capability to replicate them, first.

    After all, it was Republican businessmen who helped them build the whole plant for the nukes in the first place.

    The last place we need to be putting our boots on the ground for an extended time is in Pakistan.  It could not be contemplated without contemplating a draft, and likely never could be accomplished at all.  After all:  what will be the end condition which we could define as "success"?

    Parent

    No idea how accurate this information (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    is, but the linked site says Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons stemmed from Mr. Khan, a former United Nations scientist, with help from Europe, China, and the Soviet Union.  No mention of Republican businessmen.

    link

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#12)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    Then we'll need to take their nukes away.   A regime like that would be everything they claimed Saddam was, but for real.

    Parent
    Doubt it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Chatham on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    Pakistan has its own internal problems, true, but I think its myopic to view it through the lens of Afghanistan. One of the reasons why I don't like calling it the "Af-Pak situation".  I hope people can see that a country as large as Pakistan can have several issues going on at the same time.  The groups a long the border are a problem, as are Mexican drug traffickers in the US, but they represent a small minority of the people (ethnically and ideologically).

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by star on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:10:17 PM EST
    Pakistan is getting consumed by religious extremism. since its independence pak has not had a steady civilian government..its military dictators have been ruthless, education is close to nil, poverty and corruption are extreme..pak is very close to being a failed state..womens rights are pathetic . Heck humar rights are pathetic.
    Any soultion in the region has to be an 'AF-PAK' solution for it to sustain. an entire generation young pakistanis have been created with the 'Taliban' world view with the only education they have being from madrassas. it is really sad that they have no future other than what they can grab through spread of hatred.
    Any talk to 'good' taliban is another joke. It is the American way of life that they hate. To think that any sensible deal can be struck with ANYONE who believed in taliban and al-queda ideology is wishful thinking. It will not work. They are not diplomats. they do not have any kind of long range world view that they will WANT to make friends with USA. They believe all riches and comforts are evil and therefore are not interested in improving the lot for their people..so what pray tell me is so attractive for them to make friends with kafirs(Non believers)? maybe they will come to table short term to buy time so they can re-group...

    Parent
    That's a fair point (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:03:03 AM EST


    Parent
    maybe (none / 0) (#38)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    There may be some parallels in that they exist on a lawless border but I dont remember mexican drug gangs every recieving a visit from a nuclear scientist or having long standing contacts and sympathy in the US intelligence services.

    And mexican drug cartels, to my knowledge, are not actually plotting to take over the US government  or conspiring to kill the president.  I'll need to check with Lou Dobbs to be sure but..

    Parent

    Why only us? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    China and Russia are closer to Afghanistan so why are they not as concerned as us in stabilizing the regions as we are.  Where are their military troops to help us stabilize the region.

    Is the area more of a strategic importance to us yet not to them?

    The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    and our proxy war with them in that country has a lot to do with what Afghanistan is today.

    I don't know about staying in Afghanistan.  I understand how intensely messed up the place is at this point, but history is not on the side of invaders in that part of the world at all.

    Parent

    I agree but (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    with the left coming at him for this plus the left coming at him for the FISA stuff (and other stuff) he is going to have an interesting summer.
    also (none / 0) (#15)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:46:40 AM EST
    He wants the immigration debate this summer and possible legislation by fall.  An issue that splits parties and where he's going to argue for a path to citizenship in the middle of a recession.

    He certainly likes to fight.

    Parent

    I think thats is a good thing (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    or I should say I hope its a good thing.
    and that he wants to fight for the right stuff because I think in most cases he is going to get what he wants.

    Parent
    I don't really (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    know what to think about this. I think if Kerry had won and this had been implemented four years ago then there probably would have been a good chance of it working. Now, however, I'm not sure.

    I don't really know either. (none / 0) (#52)
    by dk on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    But BTD's analysis seems more like an argument for doing "something" than an argument for following the specifics of the Obama proposal.

    At this point, I don't see any particular reason to support Obama's proposals over the progressive caucus' proposals.  The progressive caucus had a better voting record than Obama on national security issues while he was in the senate, so without a lot of further transparent evidence (which I'm always open to read) I would tend to trust the progressive caucus' views over that of Obama.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    that it's more of an argument for doing something than anything else. I don't know that I would think that the progressive legislators are really any better than Obama in some ways. I've been reading that Kabul will probably be falling soon. I'm sure that Obama is trying to ward that off from happening but I don't know if he can. Bush basically operated there for a few months and then abandoned the country for Iraq. Is Obama going to use "overwhelming force" or is this just a half assed operation to try to put a band aid on an untenable situation? If the latter is true, then the progessive caucus is right.

    Parent
    Right on Iraq, Wrong on Afghanistan (none / 0) (#69)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    What does BTD see as success for our "adventure" in Afghanistan? How in the world can it be achieved? IMHO Afghanistan is the anvil upon which our economy will be broken.  Vizzini was right!

    April 7, 1965 (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    "Why must we take this painful road?

    Why must this Nation hazard its ease, and its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

    We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.

    This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason, and the waste of war, the works of peace.

    We wish that this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.

    The world as it is in Asia is not a serene or peaceful place."

    President Lyndon Johnson, Address at Johns Hopkins University:"Peace Without Conquest"

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:02:54 PM EST


    Parent
    and then there is the matter of the oil (none / 0) (#79)
    by sancho on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    in the region, something all americans use everyday to a degree unequalled by the citizens of any other nation.

    and as students of history know, occupying empires are always there "to stabilize" the region they are occupying.

    until they can't.

    that time is likely sooner than the US thinks.

    no oil in afghanistan (none / 0) (#85)
    by michael098762001 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:01:14 PM EST
       From a former editor of counterpunch, writing in the left-liberal magazine, the american prospect , ken silverstein. No War for Oil!

    Is the United States really after Afghanistan's resources? Not a chance.
        http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=no_war_for_oil

    Ken Silverstein | July 21, 2002

    Parent

    no oil in israel, (none / 0) (#90)
    by sancho on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    either, but it is good to have a cop on the block. along with nukes, there is nothing to fight about over there except controlling the energy supplies. that's what empires do.

    Parent
    Afghanistan (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 08:14:17 AM EST
    is next to a great deal of it. Also, who knows what is under their soil.  There have been almost no surveys there, ever.

    Parent
    There is the minor issue (none / 0) (#81)
    by Learned Hand on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:40:03 PM EST
    that Afghanistan has not exactly had a stable nationalist model of government to go by for a long time, and the country is essentially completely tribal and lacks any sort of basic infrastructure necessary for a central government to provide the basic necessities we would classically consider the province of a government, such as health, security, economic regulation, roads, etc. etc.

    Howard Zinn was on NPR a little while ago railing against Obama's planned escalation. He reminded everyone that the war on terror is a war of hearts and minds, not of guns and bombs. More troops and more drones and more missiles blowing up houses can never be the answer unless there is some sort of humanitarian or economic follow up, which is even more difficult in Afghanistan because their world completely lacks any sort of foundation to build from. Iraq, on the other hand, at least had a history and a culture of a central government, a heritage of something resembling nationhood going back thousands of years. People there at least had some investment in the idea of "Iraq." People in Afghanistan, not so much. How can Afghanistan turn away from a country of local tribes and warlords controlling everything and squabbling with each other? I'm not sure we have the ability to do that.

    The real issue then, is how can we get to the point where that doesn't matter for us? Where there is less probability that someone will be able to muster the necessary resources put a nuke in a suitcase and blow it up in downtown NY?

    We need to get to the point where crazy clerics in tents in the desert cannot inspire a massive movement of millions of people to hate the US. We have the ability to lessen ill-will against the United States so less people in the world are inclined to hate us.  Even better, try and foster a world where those young men in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc. etc., have something to live for and something to lose and something to want to raise a family for. In my opinion that is how you prevent terrorism. I don't see more troops and more bombs accomplishing this objective absent some sort of major humanitarian push as well as a very competent and strong central Afghan leader who can inspire people.

    Did anyone else read that (none / 0) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    our SOS and Holbrooke both recommended greater emphasis on winning hearts & minds in Afghanistan than incorporated in Obama admin policy & funding?


    Parent
    I Read (none / 0) (#94)
    by daring grace on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    here that the administration plans to combine the military approach with "projects aimed at winning hearts and minds," such as "help with agriculture projects, small businesses and setting up a rudimentary judicial service."

    So perhaps Holbrooke and Madame Secretary are being heard.

    Parent

    liberal think tank on Afghan policy (none / 0) (#84)
    by michael098762001 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:54:15 PM EST
       From the Center for american progress run by podesta who ran the obama transition, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/sustainable_afghanistan.html available in several forms from full length to a brief summary. Helpful to keep up with think tank reports whether from the broad Left like CAP or the Right like CSIS , where cordesman always writes excellent reports on military policy.
    Afghanistan conspiracy theorists (none / 0) (#88)
    by michael098762001 on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/02388258.htm
     Much more on the canards that infest too much "progressive" writing on Afghanistan and the Caspian Sea pipelines.

    the anti-war left said the (none / 0) (#110)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    same thing about somalia, that it was secretly a war about oil.  It just seems like a canned protest line designed to simply the intellectual basis of opposition to war.

    When the "no blood for oil' signs come out, I tend to tune out.  All I see is lazy thinking.

    Parent

    That's what al qaeda hoped. (none / 0) (#103)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:28:09 PM EST
    They openly said as much.  Didnt quite work out for them.

    Somewhere there is a jihadi Thomas Friedman saying, "six more months...".

    I don't think it has worked out all that (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    well for anybody though.

    The Afghan people have been thrown back to the stone age even though they used to have a fairly vibrant and educated democracy compared to many of their neighbors.  The Soviets spun themselves out fighting that war.  We secretly intervened and picked "winners" including OBL, provided training and weaponry and found ourselves attacked in 2001 by an apparatus that we had helped to create.  Now in the time since then, we've spent billions of dollars and lost people in two wars inspired by that attack and we're currently backslinding fast in Afghanistan having offered nothing as a meaningful alternative to the Taliban or the poppy growing trade - and then there's Pakistan too.

    If it doesn't become a quagmire this time too, it seems like that'd be a miracle to me.  We'll see.

    Parent

    yeah, we'll see.. (none / 0) (#106)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    The thing about unintended consquences is that you never know who they will bite.   Many of al qaeda's actions have bitten their own cause as well.

    We also trained Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot straight but that doesnt mean we should abolish the marine corp.  No matter what you do, the unexpected is still coming.

    Parent

    TalkLeft: a voice for US militarism (none / 0) (#108)
    by Andreas on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 02:39:23 AM EST


    President Obama Is Right On Afghanistsan | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment