An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Defining Victory Downward in Afghanistan? Not Yet

Newsweek called Afghanistan Obama’s Vietnam. Conservatives made the argument for victory.

Barack Obama made a significant decision and chose to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. I won’t call it a hard decision, but it was certainly the right one, so the President deserves credit for that.

Still, the President cautioned the dispatch of additional troops would not prejudice the outcome of the comprehensive strategic review being conducted by his administration. Then, last night, Richard Holbrooke refused to say that Obama’s goals were any different from Bush’s:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Ambassador, the Bush administration’s stated goal in Afghanistan was roughly to keep al-Qaida out and to try to build a democratic government. How is the Obama administration goal in Afghanistan different?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Well, broadly stated, the way you defined it, it falls within the same framework as any American government would do, particularly one inheriting the very difficult situation which President Obama inherited in the last month.

It took a lot more words than necessary, but the basic message is that the goals are the same. I hope it stays that way.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

  • greenschemes
    "(O)nce war is forced upon us," said MacArthur, "there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war, there is no substitute for victory."
  • Elyas
    "I hope it stays that way."

    I hope it doesn't. Obama needs to take it a step further and help rebuild the basic infrastructure and social fabric of Afghanistan. Bush gave it lip service but got distracted by Iraq and never really gave it the time and money.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    The reason we're in Afghanistan is to keep it from becoming a launching pad for terrorists.

    And yet, terrorists have safe haven right next door in Pakistan. So they already have a launching pad.

    If I'm just seeing this the wrong way, please let me know why.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC