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

Frank Rich on Afghanistan and the Three Amigos

mccain-graham-lieberman

Although I have written a couple of commentaries on the Afghanistan war, mainly illustrating the complexity of that conflict, I will be the first one to admit that I am by no means an expert on that issue and that I have no relevant suggestions on how to proceed. The real experts are hard at work, hopefully to come up with a successful strategy, corresponding troop levels, etc.

However, when I say “real experts,” I would not include those who have taken our country and our troops into disastrous military adventures in the recent past.

In “Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco,” in today’s New York Times, Frank Rich makes exactly the same point, albeit he does it much better and in a much more colorful way.

Starting with

Perhaps the most surreal aspect of our great Afghanistan debate is the Beltway credence given to the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place.

Rich points out, blunder by blunder, miscalculation by miscalculation, misrepresentation by misrepresentation, exactly why those who gave us Iraq and those who “demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 — when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq,” bear full responsibility for the present situation in Afghanistan.

He is aghast, as many of us are, at how these same actors now “have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess…”

Rich focuses on this crowd’s “noisiest standard-bearer, John McCain,” and the other two of the “Three Amigos,” Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, and blasts their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed where the trio asserts that “The U.S. walked away from Afghanistan once before, following the Soviet collapse,” and “The result was 9/11. We must not make that mistake again.”

According to Rich:

This shameless argument assumes — perhaps correctly — that no one in this country remembers anything. So let me provide a reminder: We already did make that mistake again when we walked away from Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003 — and we did so at the Three Amigos’ urging.

Rich further ridicules the Amigos’ and “their fellow travelers’” criticism of the Obama administration’s alleged lack of urgency on making troop levels decisions for Afghanistan: “Two years after 9/11 [McCain] was claiming that we could ‘in the long term’ somehow ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan. He now has the chutzpah to accuse President Obama of wanting to ‘muddle through’ there.”

Lots more from Frank Rich on his views of the war and strategies, troop levels, corruption in Afghanistan, and on costs of the war.

On the latter:

Those demanding more combat troops for Afghanistan also avoid defining the real costs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the war was running $2.6 billion a month in Pentagon expenses alone even before Obama added 20,000 troops this year. Surely fiscal conservatives like McCain and Graham who rant about deficits being “generational theft” have an obligation to explain what the added bill will be on an Afghanistan escalation and where the additional money will come from. But that would require them to use the dread words “sacrifice” and “higher taxes” when they want us to believe that this war, like Iraq, would be cost-free.

While I do not necessarily agree with Rich on everything in his extended critique, I must admit that I would not go back for surgery to the same surgeon who had botched up a previous procedure.

Image: Courtesy crooksandliars.com

  • Father_Time
    You know, I used to believe that McCain was just an old man that is a tiny bit little senile. If you notice, when he is being interviewed, he gets this little psychotic smile every time he thinks he has a "gotcha" on the interviewer. However the "gotcha" isn’t really a, "gotcha", but he seems to be the only one that don't realize it.

    The guy scares me and I am VERY glade he is not President.
  • DaGoat
    While I would guess articles such as Rich's may be cathartic for some, they aren't particularly productive. The meme that the battle in Afghanistan would somehow be better if the US had not invaded Iraq is speculative, and really beside the point. As others have pointed out Afghanistan may not be winnable, and that might have been as true in 2003 as it is now. We are where we are. If we had left Hussein in power the Middle East dynamics would be different today, and we don't know if they would be better or worse.

    By saying we should not listen to McCain is he also saying we should not listen to McChrystal? If Obama ultimately agrees with McChrystal is he saying we should not support Obama?

    My inclination, and I'm no expert either, is that we should look for a way out of Afghanistan. That opinion is based on the situation at hand, and McCain et al have nothing to do with it.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    "The meme that the battle in Afghanistan would somehow be better if the US had not invaded Iraq is speculative, and really beside the point."

    DG:

    I appreciate your candor to admit that you are not an expert (just as I am not).

    But then the question begs, what is your basis for claiming that our efforts in Afghanistan may not have been any more successful if we had not focused all our attention and resources (men, money and materials) on Iraq. And, furthermore, why is such an important strategic decision and event "beside the point"?

    "By saying we should not listen to McCain is he also saying we should not listen to McChrystal? If Obama ultimately agrees with McChrystal is he saying we should not support Obama?" I don't know if Rich (?) is really saying that we should not listen to the generals presently in charge. I believe he is talking about the neocons who made such a mess of Iraq and now want to call the shots in Afghanistan.

    " As others have pointed out Afghanistan may not be winnable, and that might have been as true in 2003 as it is now." I realize that many are saying so. I haven't made up my little non-expert mind on that yet. I hope that we can find an intelligent strategy to wind that war down successfully, destroy as many terrorists capabilities as possible--and any exisiting threat to the U.S.---and extricate ourselves without spilling too much American blood. I believe you are saying the same later on

    Thanks
  • dduck12
    Rich really got his shorts in a bunch on this one, but a little balance may be gleaned from former democratic Sen. Bob Kerry. He is somewhat more pragmatic about Afghanistan. WSJ, 10/10/09:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487...
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Interesting article, dduck12. Thanks

    I agree, we all hope that Obama will make the right decisions on Afghanistan.

    I would only hesitate to thunderously applaud the following comment,

    "Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat."

    For two reasons:

    1. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and furthermore it is that involvement that took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistam

    2. I don't know if I would call the present situation in Iraq "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat," even with 400,000+plus troops still there, the violence, corruption continues. Eventually our troops will have to come home--or go to Afghanistan--. What then in Iraq?
  • dduck12
    Kerry's was a more pragmatic viewpoint. Rich seemed to be ranting a bit, although in the past I have enjoyed and agreed with his columns.
    1. Of course "shouldn't have been there" would have been nice, but 100% hindsight. . But we were there, and many people feel that at least the surge did not fail and some feel it worked (I know there were additional factors at play).
    2. Please allow Kerry to use a little rhetoric, you allowed Rich plenty.
    Thanks for reading the piece.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    OK, touché.
  • dduck12
    you too.
  • DLS
    CNN is normally lightweight. (Stupid gimmicks like flippant behavior by personnel on the air, playing with techno-toys like the "magic wall" and Twitter and Facebook, and programming that includes fast motion, i.e., stupid programming for stupid people, as well as cheap -- replaying earlier broadcast clips as well as e-mail and text messages is not only unimpressive, but undisguisedly cheapskate -- and they want to charge people for an application to let them send information to CNN, too!) However, it was a rare exception yesterday, or featured some rare exceptions, more accurately. McCain was on King's show and asked about Afghanistan. He struggled as usual to say little, but it was a vast improvement over the two Dems later who blathered rather than answer the question, "Do you approve of gay marriage?"

    But regarding Afghanistan, the more important broadcast was on Zakaria's show, "Global Public Square" (often accompanied by the acronym "GPS" as another cheap CNN gimmick). Zakaria's own comments, as usual, were whiffs; but his two guests, Haass and Biddle, were discussing Afghanistan and it was a good exchange. The essential question is to recognize that the real problem in the area is Pakistan, not Afghanistan, and that affects what we should or may wish to do, if anything still, in Afghanistan. There is a limit to what we can expect in Pakistan, and if we leave Afghanistan, we risk its loss again to the Taliban or to similar terrorism and terrorism-support threats later. To direct our efforts to Afghanistan or in Pakistan, or how much toward each, is the question, not merely do we continue what we're doing now, boost the troops and try to do more in Afghanistan (to do what?), or do we leave Afghanistan more quickly than we had been anticipating before.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    I am sure you have some very enlightenig comments, DLS, but I just can not get through the fog of your incessant attacks on those stupid, blathering, etc. etc. Dems and Libs, to finally get to those nuggets of wisdom.

    Sorry!
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC