« Tiger’s Scars show we are not all equal
Banks Must Shrink or it’s Disaster Again: Financial Times Deutschland »
Person Most Likely To Stand In Front of Tank With Flowers Says It’s OK To Not Withdraw from Afghanistan Post-Haste
Dec 4th, 2009 | 17 responses
If there was a high school yearbook category Person Most Likely to Stand in Front of a Tank To Stop It, I’d be the winner hands down.
And yet, there’s no way I would support a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan post-haste. This blog entry, A Commitment Strategy to Afghanistan, by Lorelei Kelly offers a great explanation but here’s the crux for me (I recommend reading the whole column though):
The left and the right are too often defaulting to Iraq-era talking points for Afghanistan. On the right, Vets for Freedom is running anti-Obama ads, using the Iraq surge as a bludgeon against him. On the left, the California Democratic Party just adopted a resolution calling for increased humanitarian aid along with a military withdrawal.
But what if you can’t have one with the other? The consequences of a complete withdrawal would leave a violent, chaotic hole in the middle of a tense neighborhood. The US would deal a potential death blow to the world’s premier military alliance (NATO) and crackpot messiahs across the globe will claim credit. Troops need to be in the mix. Most Afghans want us there. They overwhelmingly dislike the Taliban. Girls attending school has risen to 44% since we’ve been present. Far more Afghans have access to basic health care. We need to start seeing these benchmarks as part of a broader set of objectives — all thus far achieved with the help of American troops. [emphasis mine]
A month before that, Lorelei wrote, in Commander-in-Chief, Yes He Is, a pre-emptive strike that Obama critics from any point on the spectrum would be wise to read:
It still kills me that so many neoconservatives claim to value the military, yet demonstrate so few military values. Like: looking after the general welfare, shared risk, sacrifice for common goals and longterm planning. And here’s the kicker: public service. Here are some other reminders of how progressive the military can be:
- International human rights law: U.S. military lawyers have been human rights champions for Guantánamo prisoners and for the Geneva Conventions.
- International treaties: The U.S. Navy is one of the strongest advocates for the Law of the Sea.
- Conflict resolution: The Air Force has a prize-winning office of dispute resolution.
- Renewable energy: The U.S. military is the largest renewable consumer in the country.
- AIDS prevention: The Defense Department has an extensive program to help foreign militaries.
And her conclusion really says it all for me:
The idea that power comes not from dominance, but from the ability to influence change, is a lesson learned from recent experience. Contrast the tea-drinking and negotiating experience of Afghanistan with the linear, engineering mindset of the Cold War–where a rigid worldview fit nicely with hardware-heavy solutions. Low-tech is our future. Afghanistan is the test. Finally, we have a President who hears what the military has been saying for nearly twenty years now: Security is about people.
But the lefty blogosphere is tense and in tension with itself. Read more here at the original post.
17 Responses to “Person Most Likely To Stand In Front of Tank With Flowers Says It’s OK To Not Withdraw from Afghanistan Post-Haste”
I suppose in an ideal world we could have a huge humanitarian force that went around the world helping other peoples develop and achieve self-actualization. But the fact is there are a lot of bad people out there, people who want to take advantage of their neighbors and kill people, including Americans. Whatever their motives are (and some might at some level be legitimate), we cannot help everybody without at some point providing security for ourselves and the ones we are trying to help.
Afghanistan is a country with virtually no modern or national institutions. Iraq has a large middle class and established institutions. It just took getting those institutions aligned to ease a lot of the tension in the country, particularly that directed at us. This is a much more difficult task in Afghanistan, where it may take much longer than 2 or 3 years to develop those institutions even with effective military “space”. There's no guarantee that Iraq will be stable and a semblance of a democracy in 10 years. In Afghanistan this is much more in question. But if we were to pull out immediately, we have an almost certain probability of the late 1990s status quo returning.
At the end of the day though, I think the large majority of us, including me with this post and many (most?) of our policymakers dont really understand the operational and socioeconomic details in Afghanistan. Without that understanding, its hard for any of to really make any informed calls about the policy going forward.
That is a really reasonable take – I agree with everything you've said. Thanks for leaving the comment.
One thing I'll add is this: do people remember how, after 9/11, we were constantly told how poor our human intelligence was in this region and in this topic areas? When was the last time you heard a story on that? I know I haven't in ages, maybe years. What does that tell us? What was the CIA and the Bush admin doing to get that going, after 9/11? They were demanding that gays in the military who could speak Arabic be decommissioned – that's one thing I recall. I don't know what if anything has changed under Obama to do better in human intelligence gathering, but what you close with reminded me of this issue- and if we don't do better in that, well…
“I’d be the winner hands down.”
When I saw your headline (thread title), I thought instead of Kathy “1968 Forever” Kattenberg.
Jill, the first quote you provide from Lorelei Kelly adds, interestingly, to the difference in how Afghanistan is viewed by the Left now that Obama is president, compared to what was said while Bush was still the president — at least, by all but the “get everyone out now” extremists and how it is like Iraq and how our persistence in Iraq has been justified. What was said (in the quote) would probably be true now of Iraq, and would be if Afghanistan weren't a bigger issue right now.
Less politically-oriented, the view of what this person said reminds me of Iraq in the details that are being mentioned, and how it resembles the claims of quiet, largely un-newsworthy progress in the country — in Iraq, this was noted by the US Institute of Peace, and my very-lefty friend in DC sent the related material to me. “Hutwa bi hutwa” — or as Kathy K. dislikes to contempate, slow, small steps — incrementalism.
DLS – interesting observation. I've met Lorelei a couple of times now, I have enormous respect for her and suspect that her position on this type of approach has been consistent. How others choose to use it, I can't say. I've said this ad nauseum so I apologize but I'm not a big party girl of The Left. Frankly, I'm quite sure I'm not progressive enough for the loudest voices these days, but I can live with that.
Now – what was said during Bush's time as president – I only recall the exhortations that we pay heed to the cultures of these communities, regions & peoples. And Bush never gave voice to that, he really didn't, in my opinion. That was and has always been one of my biggest frustrations with him and his admin. But frankly, the guy just isn't wired to think that way about many things at all – and nothing any of us say is going to change that – that's who the electoral college and SCOTUS got in there and that's that. It's past.
Obama is a far more malleable individual, for better or worse. I've not been enamored from him from the get go (and I've had a sitdown with him and several other bloggers for about 20 mins in 2006 in Ohio – he's very bright – duh – but as far as being someone with his own opinions that he will put out there and assert and back up…I have my doubts, always have and I'm not sure how you have a leader without that kind of conviction based in one's core that the rest of us can see in how he envisions what we are to be as a country).
So – look – we're talking millions and millions of voters along an ideological spectrum. I try to find and pluck out the ones that make the most sense on the matters that mean the most to me. I think Lorelei is one of the ones worth listening to – I don't really see what she says in terms of alignment – which is why my first comment in this comment was, “interesting observation.”
[...] You can see comments that have been elicited by that post as cross-posted at The Moderate Voice where I’m still a contributer here. [...]
Nice new angle try, but, I'm not interested in the Afghan people, I'm interested in preserving our resources before we go bankrupt and before half our veterans become mental cases. Low tech, high tech or no tech, we are fulfilling the goal of the insurgency by continuing a protracted war. Time favors the insurgent not the anti-insurgent. We can indeed defeat the Afghan insurgents, but we will need a hell of a lot more than 30,000 additional troops. Our allies will not commit more soldiers unconditionally and we cannot afford to do this alone. At the high point in Iraq we had 160,000 military personnel in theater and Iraq has no massive mountain ranges or a border we cannot cross where the insurgents can run and hide behind. Substitute the mountains for jungle and Pakistan for Cambodia, suddenly it’s Vietnam all over again. Worse, because we cannot carpet bomb Pakistan.
Leave Afghanistan now.
Leave Afghanistan now.
That would have been my preference as well. What I see is Democrats making the some of the same mistakes many conservatives (including me) made under Bush, namely going along with things you would normally oppose because you trust the guy in the White House to do the right thing.
Well, wait, DaGoat – what you've written, I read it as saying that conservatives' mistake with Bush was going along with what he did (go to war, a lot) because you trusted him, but that normally you would oppose going to war? Are you saying that you are more of a pacifist kind of conservative – that's all I want to be clear on. Because I'm admitting – I've always accepted the conservative as a supporter, in general (not everyone, just in general) of the industrial war complex and its ability to drive an economy etc. I'm not saying I think that's why Bush overcommitted us and stitched together lousy reasons for getting into Iraq and Afghanistan, but I thought that, and the GOP response post-Tuesday seems to support the idea that conservatives do tend to prefer going to war/staying w/a military option, than getting out – no?
And, ok – this is TMV.
In all candor, most of the voice I'm hearing from the left anyway – not sure you can say Dems, could be indies, I'm not sure – is against the troop increase. I'm really not sure this is something that can be broken down easily by saying The Left or The Dems or even The Republicans (myself included).
Father_Time – it's interesting that someone with a handle of Father Time would say he's not interested in the Afghan people and then focus on the insurgent/anti-insurgent aspect of this situation. We supposedly when in there to break up and eliminate Al Qaeda training bases since Bush ID'd them as the source for 9/11 terrorist training (right or wrong – and you can re-read what I wrote – I don't think we've ever gone after the right parties in the right places).
But to boil this down to the narrow focus you have – I think that's anachronistic. It's punditry, but it's not about finding a real solution, IMO.
Well, wait, DaGoat – what you've written, I read it as saying that conservatives' mistake with Bush was going along with what he did (go to war, a lot) because you trusted him, but that normally you would oppose going to war?
I was more in the libertarian conservative bunch. I was against Clinton's war in Kosovo but was OK initially with the Iraq War – in retrospect that was inconsistent on my part and influenced by partisanship. After a time I (and I suspect many others) realized the party didn't reflect my beliefs, not just in Iraq but also with the budget, big government and personal privacy.
What I am hearing from the left is being against the troop increase on a personal level but accepting of it nonetheless. By the title of your post it sounds like you are anti-war/pacifistic but then go on to support the troop increase. There's an inconsistency there, and what I am saying is be careful not to put aside your beliefs because you trust the guy in charge.
I am probably less anti-war than you if your post title is correct, but I would like to see a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan mainly because I don't think the war is winnable on a practical level. You can come up with all kinds of good reasons to stay in Afghanistan just like the GOP came up with all kinds of good reasons to invade Iraq.
Thank you – this is helpful. But continuing the dialogue, I would argue that being anti-war or pacifistic does not necessarily have to preclude the use of military force, ever. My preference will always be for non-violent, non-military methods to procure change. If you recall, many on the left – myself included – were horrifically frustrated by Bush because we felt that he was going through an utter charade in terms of how and when he decided to go into Iraq – and we were, for the most part, proven correct (there were no WMDs and Al Qaeda wasn't there either, then). So that would be a good example where being anti-war really means exhausting all other methods, esp. if there's imminent danger (which we now know there wasn't – at least to us).
I have to tell you, I've had a hard time even calling these incursions “wars” because frankly, for me, they don't really meet the definition I always have thought of as related to war. But I'll cop to 21st century notions of “war” being in flux and certainly not the same, necessarily, as what it was in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and maybe even 60s. I think Vietnam changed that.
I appreciate the warning – you are right, and I agree with you – people should be careful not to put aside their beliefs because they trust someone. This is why, perhaps, my position holds more water than others – I was never on the “O” train as they called it – and I was vilified in this very blog forum because people assumed and thought I was a Clinton supporter (for the record, again – for those who might not recall – I wanted Biden, voted for Clinton when I had to vote in the primary – because I won't not vote – and ultimately did vote for Obama, but I've never been comfortable with him; it's just that McCain and Palin were never a viable option for me due to many reasons, nearly 100% policy-related).
I would FAR prefer to come up with reasons to support an immediate withdrawal, but the fact is – there are not enough. We have work to finish there – it's our fault, and we do. There's no escaping it – doesn't matter where you are on the spectrum – it can't be ignored. IMO.
“I only recall the exhortations that we pay heed to the cultures of these communities, regions & peoples. And Bush never gave voice to that, he really didn't, in my opinion.”
The stories early in the occupation were stories about failure to pay heed, you could say (notably with cultures, from what I remember). More generally, the occupation was fumbled early (made worse by scandals) and the public has reached its limit of what commitment it wants to make in Iraq (even with progress later in the occupation, note the election results in 2006 as well as in 2008. Iraq wasn't the only reason for that, but it was obviously a large part why.) Though I agree with the decision to commit more troops now — we need to leave on our terms, preferably, not on the enemy's, or more on the enemy's, terms — I'm not naive about public (including my) loss of interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which is a potentially worse problem).
“Obama is a far more malleable individual, for better or worse.”
He's not only smart (didn't make the blunder of fleeing from Afghanistan, obviously), but clever and, oh, I like that word you used, and synonyms for adjectives, and a description for a noun that promptly comes to mind. What a good poltician he is. In addition to being charming, telegenic, articulate, and charismatic, gee, he's malleable — flexible — maneuverable — chameleon-like. Aren't we so lucky!
“you trust the guy in the White House to do the right thing”
I'm a critic and I trust him to make standard, typical Presidential-level decisions like this, and in this case (Afghanistan), I believe he did the right thing. (I'd like to know just why, too, but some things can't and won't be revealed for years, if ever.)
I'm not so concerned about the enemy but that we leave (for that's what we'll do and what we should do, eventually, I believe) on our terms or on terms favoring us rather than the enemy. That includes our global reputation, for which fleeing would be lauded by Europeans and other critics who either actually and naively do consider such a decision more noble and corrective, or secretly join the typical other members of the audience who would see us as weak and cowardly for fleeing and would be moved to challenge us and the West more as a result. (The decadent-Western alternative case would be, out of envy of and resentment of the USA, relishing in a setback and admission of failure and retreating before an enemy or an adversary, by the USA.)
“We have work to finish there – it's our fault, and we do.”
What is our fault? We aren't obliged to do any nation-building; to the extent that we have, that elevates us, makes us better than typical combatants. “Fault” implies we've been bad or done something wrong.
Note that Afghanistan is barely functioning as a country and wasn't before we intervened, and it may never function as a country. Its boundaries were arbitrarily drawn by colonialists — it hosts multiple ethnic groups that have more in common with and who bond more with people of their own kind across the boundaries than they value the modern Western nation-state.
What we need to worry about is the presence of terrorism and prospects for it in the future in Afghanistan if we don't try to suppress it now and forestall it later, and how it's related to Pakistan next door, which hosts similar people involved in terrorism, but who also threaten Pakistan's weak government. We have supported governments in Pakistan for the same reason we support Saudi Arabia's, because the alternatives should the government of either fall would probably be much worse. In the case of Pakistan, we're also trying as an outsider to help defuse a part of the world, like Israel and its neighbors and the Korean Peninsula, where there is hostility and the prospect of war. In the case of Pakistan and India, it could involve a nuclear exchange (not just the use of one or two, but numerous bombs) as well as things like attacks on reactors that release more radioactivity (another form of nuclear warfare — the targeting has been discussed and would be intentional, truly vicious), in addition to massive conventional-arms attacks. We can't prevent that (though we're willing to try — you can bet that is what Colin Powell did several years ago when war almost happened there and Powell was sent to brief both governments, probably on what the consequences would be), but we can at least try to prevent the Pakistani government from being replaced by openly terrorist parties.
To be able to remove the worst troublemakers and hope to make the future more stable, to enable the country to develop (with our and other nations' assistance if we can and choose) is how we want to leave Afghanistan.
As for Afghanistan and the nation-state's failure to correspond to where boundaries have been drawn, it makes me note aloud that the same can be said for parts of Pakistan, but even more, to the other “Stans” that used to be Soviet republics and part of its Asian empire.
Anyway, I believe there's a sore (largely independent of what we've done), that we need to clean; we can't get rid of the sore, but we can disinfect it greatly and even patch it up a bit and hope it either heals or at least doesn't get open and infected so badly again, soon, after we've left. That's my view of it.
“I would argue that being anti-war or pacifistic does not necessarily have to preclude the use of military force, ever”
My very liberal friend in DC is a pacifist but doesn't foreswear all violence — she still thinks that in theory the UN world-government ideal is great (perhaps substituted in the real world by a collectivity of nations — hmmm, a league or confederation) and would include the use of force to do things like step in when there is the equivalent of kids making trouble or two kids fighting (either as an overreaction to a dispute or in a dispute over something ridiculous, in this scenario). “Break it up — break them up.”
Wow – you were busy last night. I'm going to have to get back to these after I work on my campaign finance reports for my election.
But it doesn't sound to me like we're very far off on several of these points. Thank you for taking the time.