Republicans go around saying that the president has mismanaged the war in Afghanistan but if he defends himself, he’s just politicizing our successes. It’s a version of ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’ and it’s pretty annoying. Rather than the constant bitching, the GOP should be asking important questions, like Joe Gandleman:
President Barack Obama’s lightning trip to Afghanistan to address the nation about ending a war that has lasted longer than Veitnam, sign a long-term partnership pact with the Afghanistan government, and mark the the anniversary of Al Qaeda terrorism chief Osama bin Laden’s death with American troops could re-ignite Afghanistan as an issue on several fronts. The trip and news that the U.S. will formally have a long term relationship with Afghanistan that will involve keeping troops there is getting a mixed response. A way to keep Afghanistan from returning to its old role as an Al Qaeda base? Another Vietnam? Smart strategical policy? Or the U.S. (again) getting enmeshed in a quagmire?
If you were expecting Republicans to ask these questions, you haven’t been paying attention to how they go about their business. Joe Scarborough explains:
Be more concerned with the president’s declaration that U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan until 2024. That reality means Americans who were not even born on Sept. 11, 2001, will be occupying Afghanistan 20 years after those attacks. Never mind that the epicenter of Al Qaeda’s operation has moved to Yemen or that U.S. taxpayers are doling out $2 billion a week on a war whose main purpose is propping up one of the most corrupt regimes on the face of the Earth.
Making matters worse is the fact that Mr. Obama’s opponents in the GOP want to stay longer.
I’m kind of inclined to Scarborough’s view, but I have to note that the president was fairly clear in his remarks that the goal is to end the “occupation” of Afghanistan in 2014.
Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.
Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.
In the best scenario, we’ll get our combat soldiers out of the country, the government will not collapse, and we’ll be able to convince Congress to give the Afghans aid for up to a decade. We will, along with our NATO partners, still have some military presence in Afghanistan, but it will be more like our military presence in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. That’s the plan, anyway.
I’d be more enthusiastic about it if I didn’t know that Karzai is a hopeless leader.
Explosions in Kabul today, 2 hrs after Obama left the country.
Ok, 2014 end of combat operations? I’ll give him that. But why not 2012? The plans are already drawn up.
For the same reasons that the drawdown in Iraq was gradual: to avoid a power vacuum, to facilitate the political negotiating process, and to allow the local forces enough time to take up the slack as we leave.
What’s the difference if there is a power vacuum? The administration wants the Taliban to join the government. This is just Nixon’s “decent interval” all over again.
What I get from the news is that the Afghan military are deliberately targeting American soldiers and the civilians want the Americans to die.
There is nothing here but saving face and damned if I want American soldiers to die for that again.
“Power vacuum” has a specific meaning, and it’s not “replacement of one actor with another.” The question is not who replaces the departing power, but how that happens.
Think about how a tsunami starts on the ocean floor. A large section of the floor drops away suddenly and violently, leaving a vacuum. A large amount of water then rushes to fill it from all directions, the different surfaces crash into each other, and a giant shock wave radiates outward.
Now, there is settling on the sea floor all the time. The rock moves a little, gradually, and the water flows in, gradually. No shocks, no crashes, not tsunami.
A power vacuum is like the former, and we want the latter. We want our withdrawal to be smooth and gradual, so that whomever fills in when we leave does so in a peaceful, controlled manner – instead of our exit happening in a way that sets off a chaotic shock.
It’s not a question of who takes up the slack, but how that happens.
A good reasoned answer, joe. I don’t really have a response as I can see that my view is dominated by hate and the memory of Vietnam. So, I must unfortunately conclude that due to emotion I am unable to think rationally on this topic.
It’s hard not to think of Ahmad Shah Massoud at times like this and wonder if he had not been assassinated but instead survived what a different Afghanistan may have reached for its promise.
His ethnicity would have limited his ability to lead the country, I think.
Ahhh yes, but he was sane! His courage and his charisma were a recognized threat, hence the Sept 9 assassination to tie up loose ends before the 9/11 attack.
The trouble with carpet bombing is not just the obliteration of the geography but you have to wonder how many true leaders that may have actually resolved this war successfully were drilled into the ground.
.
See my new diary: Ahmad Shah Massoud – Prelude to 9/11 Attack on U.S.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I hope they’re planning for Karzai’s collapse.
http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9781400030897-4
Read that book and get back to me. Things haven’t changed in Afghanistan so much since then. What are we expecting here??
I could start to think about this in a reasonable way if I saw anybody thinking about how to build a sustainable economy in that barren, rocky, landlocked place, but I don’t. What then will there be but opium, corruption, violence and lots of ambiguously purposed mercenaries roaming the mountains?
All on the taxpayer dime.
George Macdonald Fraser, who knows his history, wrote a scathing essay about what he called the Fourth Afghan War. (The first Flashman novel was set in the First Afghan War.)
I find it very comforting that the administration isn’t setting its goals too high. If Obama had set that as the goal we need to achieve in his speech last night, that would have been a real problem.
Unrealistic expectations for Afghanistan, and the determination to keep waging a war until they were achieved, was one of Bush’s biggest mistakes there. A country that is not a base for al Qaeda and isn’t subject to being gobbled up by its neighbors is as ambitious as I want our policy to be.
Well, it’s modestly less patronizing than “When the Afghan people stand up, we will stand down.” But only modestly.
Not sure why you need to continually point out right wing hypocrisy– we get it. We all know had smirky managed to successfully take out OBL, the right wing noise machine would be cheering wildly, chewing the carpets, and declaring we need to amend the Constitution to allow bush/cheney a third presidency.
The larger issue is that some hawks like Scarborough are finally questioning the timeline and cost of the fiasco in Afghanistan. When clownservative talking heads start questioning the timeline/cost, you know the “war” effort is in deep doo-doo.
In addition, we don’t end occupations. Example being only now after continuous U.S. military presence in Japan since 1945 are 9,000 troops (out of 40,000) being withdrawn from Okinawa.
And thanks to lamestream media that people like Scarborough are a part of here- almost nobody knows part of the reason we’re drawing down troops in Japan is because of the massive protests there after the rape in 1995 of a 12 year old Japanese girl by three U.S. personnel. That’s just one of the numerous offenses over the years.
No discussion of total withdrawal from Japan, which is what the majority of the Japanese people want.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-27/asia/world_asia_japan-us-okinawa_1_okinawa-futenma-military-perso
nnel?_s=PM:ASIA
The larger issue is that some hawks like Scarborough are finally questioning the timeline and cost of the fiasco in Afghanistan.
Huh? Joe Scarborough was against the first mini-surge in the Spring of 2009. Finally?
In addition, we don’t end occupations.
…with the exception of the one we just ended in Iraq.
Correct- and the main reason why we are (partially) withdrawing from Iraq is their government would not sign the typcial SOFA agreement granting immunity to our personnel for whatever crimes they committ while in Iraq.
We’ll still have troops guarding our embassy and there’s up to 10,000 private security personnel (most of those comprised of ex U.S. military) in Iraq.
It’s not a full withdrawal, we still have people there looking out for “our interests”.
the main reason why we are (partially) withdrawing from Iraq is their government would not sign the typcial SOFA agreement granting immunity to our personnel for whatever crimes they committ while in Iraq.
Really, you think that’s “the main reason?” Tell me, has your reading of American history led you to the conclusion that basing our overseas military presence on the consent of the locals is standard operating procedure?
Because mine tells me that that is very rarely the case, and that “the main reason” our military ended the occupation in Iraq is that we currently have a President breaks with tradition, and allows such considerations to play a large role in his decision-making.
We’ll still have troops guarding our embassy… As we do every other embassy. This is a discussion about the end of the occupation.
there’s up to 10,000 private security personnel (most of those comprised of ex U.S. military) in Iraq. Incorrect. There are 10,000 total contractors in Iraq, including truck drivers and tradesmen and construction personnel, of which perhaps a third of security personnel.
It’s not a full withdrawal, we still have people there looking out for “our interests”. This is a discussion about the end of the occupation. Occupation means something, and it’s not “any presence of any military or former military or government personnel at all, for any reason related to our national interest.” I certainly hope the State Department has people in Iraq looking out for the interests of the United States, and I certainly hope they have security details to protect them as they do so. Frankly, it seems a rather absurd exercise in goalpost-moving to say otherwise.
Driversmith have a massive collection of drivers from all the major manufacturers.
Great Work
Great Work