I don’t agree with nation-building, not now in the way the world is currently going, at least. But neither do I think its wise to just get out while Al Qaeda elements are there. Al Qaeda is the target. 9/11. Seriously.
Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said Mr. Biden had proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.
The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan.
This is why Biden was named VP. He has good intuition on foreign policy – he does a good job of breaking out of convention wisdom without taking really extremist positions. Sometimes that’s not the best idea (Iraqi partition) but a lot of time it really helps.
Getting rid of the private contractors would be nice
There’s a reason Afghanistan has been called “the graveyard of empires.”
Sending more US troops won’t help. It’s not that kind of war, and the Americans are hated by even the moderate (i.e., non-Taliban) Afghans. They are foreign invaders and always will be seen as such.
No good answers. But scaling down our presence might stop a little of the bleeding.
‘There’s a reason Afghanistan has been called “the graveyard of empires.”’
Particularly after ignoring it for 7 years while Iraq sucked up the military focus and trillions of dollars.
Amazing that while the Mujaheddin were morphing into the Taliban over the span of 10 years, the West didn’t give a shit about them until 9/11. And even that event only seemed to arouse the abandoned dream of an oil pipeline, the same coveted prize the Soviets were destroyed over.
Much as I respect and admire President Obama, the idea of escalating troop numbers in a country overrun by government corruption and seething with resentment of foreign invaders is a recipe for disaster. Joe may be on to something.
So I guess “listening to the Generals” is optional now that Obama and Biden are in office. Biden was singing a far different tune at the Democratic convention last year:
“Should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan? The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban—the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Barack’s call for more troops.”
Of course, as we know, anything these guys say has an expiration date so it doesn’t matter, right?
So I guess “listening to the Generals” is optional now that Obama and Biden are in office…
I’m sure they still are listening to the generals. Then they make decisions … which are not always exactly what the generals say. That’s how civilian control of the military works
One caveat: the notion that we can train up a genuine Afghan security force seems misguided to me. US trainers are trying to make a modern fighting force out of a starving, illiterate peasants. These are the guys who chased out the Red Army with beat-to-hell AK-47s and RPGs. What the hell are we trying to do over there??
Democrats Never Meant What They Said About Afghanistan
–Jim Geraghty
To all the folks here and at other liberal blogs who have written the following “digby nails it today in her blog”, this is one time I am in agreement.
Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.….
I’d say this was today’s must reading if not for the literary and political genius Mark Helprin weighing in at the WSJ…
Obama and the Politics of Concession
–Mark Helpprin
During last year’s campaign, Sen. Joe Biden famously remarked that, if his ticket won, it wouldn’t be long before “the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy” on foreign affairs. Last week, President Obama, brilliantly wielding the powers of his office, managed to fail that test not just once but twice, buckling in the face of Russian pressure and taking a giant wooden nickel from Iran.….
The man can write.
Mark Helpprin – the guy who works for Mickey Mouse? Yeah, he’s a fountain of wisdom.
Look, leave aside the cliche of how Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. It is primarily a graveyard for other Afghans. So long as Pakistan holds on to its paranoia about India invading it from the east, Islamabad will contain to view Afghanistan to the west as a source of “strategic depth”.
Al Qaeda is largely limited to issued audio cassettes in a digital download world. I’m not sure it’s worth more American lives. The drones have proven to be very effective, and they can fly for 24 hours.
I’m not sure what to think about Afghanistan at this point. At the core, I want to say we need to accept the inevitable: that it is a hopeless wasteland, and all we can do is cripple their capacity to launch terrorism as best we can. I fear the political consequences of that approach, though. I have no idea what they might be.
No, KXB, you’re thinking of Mark Halperin (assuming you were thinking-I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt).
Not being able to adjust one’s strategies and tactics in the face of changing conditions is how we get into royal fuckrumbles like Vietnam and Iraq.
Obama, Biden, and every Democratic on the Left labeled Bush a failure for not capturing/killing Osama.
Now that this Administration wants to give up and go home without accomplishing their primary objective, I guess we can label them failures as well.
This could be a great idea, or the worst idea ever.
It’ll work out great if everything in Pakistan stays fairly stable. If things in Pakistan do not, we will probably find ourselves drawn into a Pakastinani Civil war, and possible a greater war involving India.
While extremely unlikely, the potential for a very serious downside is there. I am not sure what an upside really looks like. We could spend 50 years there and not see any progress at all.
Obama, Biden, and every Democratic on the Left labeled Bush a failure for not capturing/killing Osama.
That was only one of an entire brickyard of reasons why we labelled Bush a failure. And in case you hadn’t noticed “strikes against Qaeda cells primarily [not exclusively] in Pakistan” would actually increase our chances of nabbing OBL.
Plus, don’t forget, Farris, Bush succeeded in moving the goalposts to the back of the cheap seats: his failure to pursue OBL when he had a decent chance to do so only made it that much more difficult for the next guy.
Obama, Biden, and every Democratic on the Left labeled Bush a failure for
not capturing/killingforgetting about Osama.Fixed.
This is the same Joe Bidden that advocated the splitting of Iraq into 3 different ’states’?? And the same one that wanted to send Iran $200 mil as a show of good faith, no string attached after 9-11 Oh, ok.
Oliver – you are enlisting soon, right? If not, doesn’t this make you a chickenhawk?
(I couldn’t help myself.)
And the same one that wanted to send Iran $200 mil as a show of good faith no string attached after 9-11 Oh, ok.
Of course it was a rhetorical question (picked up only by the low-tooth-per-capita blogs) and not a policy decision. Besides would ever commit bribery with Iran or other rogue states?
Moran.
low-tooth-per-capita
Thanks, Paul, I’ll be using that one if you don’t mind.
Now that this Administration wants to give up and go home without accomplishing their primary objective, I guess we can label them failures as well.
Where did it say that?
Chickenhawks are the cowardly douchebags who holler for invasions of other countries but are too scared to enlist themselves.
That said, a troop pull-out from Afghanistan won’t be 100%. We’ll keep intelligence and forward operators there.
A Predator drone is more likely to kill Osama bin Laden than a column of troops.
And for all we know he’s probably in Pakistan anyways.
‘The drones have proven to be very effective, and they can fly for 24 hours.’
The drones seem to kill at least as many civilians as ‘insurgents,’ if not more.
That doesn’t seem very effective to me when the idea is to gain the trust and support of the population that already feels as though yet another invader has come for an uninvited and extended stay, simply because their country happens to have geographic significance to Western oil interests.
‘Obama, Biden, and every Democratic on the Left labeled Bush a failure for not capturing/killing Osama. ‘
Keep trying to rewrite history; Bush IS a failure, but only in part because he ALLOWED bin Laden to escape capture when their best chance arose during the battle of Tora Bora, and then compounded the mistake by pulling troops and resources from Afghanistan to his Iraq folly.
It’s actually well documented; try the Google.