For the first time in history, I actually agree with Byron York. Almost. I think he’s completely uncharitable to neglect to mention the deterioration of Karzai’s government as a possible reason for some Democrats to now reject what they once supported in additional troops. I know that I make a critical distinction between doing nation building in a place where we are welcomed and the government has credibility, and doing it where we are propping up a corrupt and unpopular government. Karzai has moved from the former category into the latter over the last few years, and that is enough of a change to make me change my thinking on the wisdom of being in Afghanistan. Others’ mileage may vary, but I’m really, really skeptical leading into tonight’s speech.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
15 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
I don’t have enough details to judge the strategy yet.
If the strategy revolves around the Karzai central government, it will be a mistake. If it recognizes the decentralization of authority in Afghanistan, it might work.
If it seeks to deploy the additional US troops widely through the country, it will be a mistake. If it concentrates troops in provincial capitals or the top ten cities–average garrisons of 6000 US troops per city–and focuses on standing down and promoting stability, that relocation in itself can be a prelude to more rapid withdrawal. Especially if civilian-quality airports can be constructed to be left behind for within country air transport. That way withdrawal would not be bottlenecked at Bagram.
If there is not diplomatic initiative and established agreements with frontline states announced, then it will be a mistake. If there is clear consensus with the strategy by frontline states, Russia, China, and India, then there is likely to be a way of winding down the war. (The frontline states are China (barely), Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turmenistan, and Iran.)
If US troops are to provide security directly, it is a mistake. If they are to train an Afghan National Army, it will be a mistake to use them for internal security. If they are going to work with regional authorities to train local police forces and provincial guards, there might be a way to stabilize most of Afghanistan very quickly.
Skeptical is the right attitude, given the bouquets that Karl Rove and the RNC have been throwing at the lead announcement of policy.
My thoughts exactly, Tarheel. Essentially that’s the strategy I’ve been hoping for since Kerry. Regardless of Karzai’s corruption, using a central government in an area that does not approve of it is certainly a fool’s errand.
Mini-projects were done in India where money was funneled directly to the people, and it’s reaped fairly good results.
Exactly pitch-perfect on every point, Tarheel. I wish you could get some face time with the administration.
It’s an odd almost weighty feeling to post something like this and come back an hour later and find this in my email inbox:
Without knowing what’s in the president’s speech, do you have any questions you think I should ask (assuming I get the chance)?
But specifically for me –
What will be the regional players contribution to our escalation? Will we be working with Pakistan to discontinue their support for Taliban elements?
What role will our international allies play?
What is the mission and distribution of soldiers (not specifics of course, but general strategy)?
And anything along the lines of a retrospective question on how the decision was made, a la what voices and what historic examples played key influential roles in the strategy announced today?
Aside from that I’m sure there is a ton more, but I’m taking a quick jab at the Obama=Bush folks with a quick – this is what you call redistribution of access and increase in transparency. If you want to inform a public that is ill served by the current media outlets, then this is what you would do. I commend this conference call, and think it is a good indicator that while the WH will always try and spin the narrative in their favor they are not restricting the gateway in the way that the Bush admin did.
What exactly does “winning” and “victory” mean? How does what you’ve announced get us there?
Hell, even I agree with Byron York.
You should ask why, when Obama said during the campaign that we can’t use the same failed strategies of the past, why is Obama’s basically using the Bush Surge ‘N’ Split playbook in Afghanistan.
Zandar, Bush never planned to split. He was forced to by the end of his term and the Karzia government’s refusal to sign on a SOFA agreement without a withdrawal timeline.
Booman – this is so very impressive – both that they are offering it and that you are included. Congratulations!
What are American troops dying for? Is there a point where this is not worth the money anymore? Will the government actually pay for these troops? What are the specific goals? What is the specific plan to help the Afhgan people/women? What is the plan on the Opium trade?
I understand completely the dysfunctional Senate and how they are hindering the President’s agenda and Obama has always been hawkish on Afghanistan but our country is in flames and we are committing more money/American lives to putting together a country that has never been whole, nor wants to be put back together.
Does anyone really believe that we will leave in 2011? Give me a break. The American Empire never ever leaves, period.
http://washingtonindependent.com/69268/afghanistan-speech-preview-30000-troops-july-2011-is-the-begi
nning-of-the-end
I would love to know how this intends to be paid for.
The one question I would ask, given the chance, is:
What is the regional framework diplomatically that will allow this strategy to work, and what sorts of commitments do you have already (that you can talk about) do you have already from nations like Russia, China, Pakistan, and India?
I think York’s whole column is basically petty silliness (which seems to be par for the course). What is so mysterious about a situation changing or becoming clearer and prompting a change in strategic views? Would we rather just “stay the course” no matter how pigheaded that might be? Is it possible that the polls are reflecting some genuine wisdom among the respondents?
Most people I trust on the issue point out that it’s Pakistan, not Afghanistan, that is the real issue. Afghanistan seems to have become largely a pointless proxy for action we don’t dare take (and shouldn’t) in Pakistan. Early on there was hope that Afghans would have a representative government to mark the end of the path. That hasn’t happened.
I’m one who thought a military “solution” in Afghanistan was counterproductive from the start. I hope Obama will outline tonight a reasonable plan for getting out from under Bush’s folly and aiding Afghan resistance to quaida and the Taliban by other means. But the pressure to look “tough” has led every war-situation president since FDR into disaster. I can only hope Obama somehow manages to be the exception.
If it’s true (according to politico.com) that we will start to leave in July 2011, then I’m fine with the build-up now. I’m guessing they are even putting this out there tonight for you and other bloggers because they feel confident that they have a pretty good plan that will win support with the American voter at large (not necessarily the hard left).
Is it too much to hope that troop deaths would decrease rather than increase due to our increased presence?
Well, my “solution” for Afghanistan would have us condemned as war criminals by at least 99% of the civilized world and a good chuck of the remainder as well, so the only workable solution that I see is a total and immediate withdrawl.