What's At Stake

[Winstonm]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria..._the_proxy_war/

 

by Andrew Bacevich

 

Yet at its core, the McChrystal plan aims to avert change. Its purpose - despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq - is to preserve the status quo.

 

Hawks understand this. That’s why they are intent on framing the debate so narrowly - it’s either give McChrystal what he wants or accept abject defeat. It’s also why they insist that Obama needs to decide immediately.

 

From the New York Times Magazine:

The magnitude of the choice presented by McChrystal, and now facing President Obama, is difficult to overstate. For what McChrystal is proposing is not a temporary, Iraq-style surge — a rapid influx of American troops followed by a withdrawal. McChrystal’s plan is a blueprint for an extensive American commitment to build a modern state in Afghanistan, where one has never existed, and to bring order to a place famous for the empires it has exhausted. Even under the best of circumstances, this effort would most likely last many more years, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and entail the deaths of many more American women and men.

 

Even if this were remotely possible, what is the point?

[Al_U_Card]

They haven't discovered oil there, have they?

[kenberg]

The author's first sentence is:

NO SERIOUS person thinks that Afghanistan - remote, impoverished, barely qualifying as a nation-state - seriously matters to the United States.

 

If you accept this first sentence as true then there is no need to read further.Actually there was no need for him to write further. I guess someone should tell the President that the outcome in Afghanistan is of no importance, Tell him to get serious, no more clowning around about some stupid spot like Afghanistan.

[PassedOut]

If the government of Pakistan gets serious about confronting the Taliban there, the overall situation in the region changes: Taliban resist Pakistan onslaught.

 

The military, mobilising from three directions, is controlling entry and exit points in the region.

 

Reports from the area are sketchy as it is difficult and dangerous for foreign or Pakistani journalists to operate inside South Waziristan.

 

Local residents in Tiarza say that troops have forced their way into the town, and are using helicopter gunships to attack Taliban forces in the hills around.

 

Soldiers are also reported to have taken ground around Spinkai Raghzai.

 

Troops established a checkpoint en route to Kotkai, the home town of Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud, AFP reported.

 

But our correspondent says no clear picture has emerged about who has the upper hand at the moment.

Perhaps Pakistan is counting on US assurances that the Taliban will not be allowed to escape easily to Afghanistan, if defeated in Pakistan. And maybe the US (or Pakistan) will even be able to get bin Laden, after all these years, on Obama's watch.

[Winstonm]

As Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress says, McChrystal’s argument boils down to, “if we had a capable and legitimate Afghan government then more troops would make the difference so therefore we should send more troops.” And, as Yglesias infers, there’s no reason to imagine that more troops can make the Afghan government capable and legitimate.

 

Does anyone really believe we can turn Afghanistan and Pakistan into a couple of Mini-Me, small replicas of the U.S. Republic, by sending occupying armies to force change?

 

Joe Biden - oddly enough - seems to be the only person in the administration with a grasp of reality and suggests a Rand-like reduction in ground forces and a concentration on al-Qaeda targets rather than trying to rule foreign countries.

[Winstonm]

The author's first sentence is:

NO SERIOUS person thinks that Afghanistan - remote, impoverished, barely qualifying as a nation-state - seriously matters to the United States.

 

If you accept this first sentence as true then there is no need to read further.Actually there was no need for him to write further. I guess someone should tell the President that the outcome in Afghanistan is of no importance, Tell him to get serious, no more clowning around about some stupid spot like Afghanistan.

Ken,

 

You obviously disagree with the author's premise. Would you care to share you argument as to why Afghanistan is important other than we have an ongoing war being fought there - so it must be important.

 

I guess someone should tell the President that the outcome in Afghanistan is of no importance, Tell him to get serious, no more clowning around about some stupid spot like Afghanistan.

 

By the way, I happen to agree. We should tell the president to get out. It worked in the clusterf#&k Vietnam - the only reason those demonstrations aren't repeated today is because we have an all-volunteer army and no draft (read political) consequences to objectionable policies.

[kenberg]

Last year, during the campaign, I was not at all supportive of what I thought to be the very glib description of Iraq as a war of choice, Afghanistan as a war of necessity. But it was Obama's approach.

 

 

And now? He can hardly claim (as a serious person since that is what the author implies those who disagree with him are not) that he has just discovered to his horror that Karzai is not Mr. Kleen and that it will take money and troops to succeed in this, his characterization, war of necessity.

 

 

So it is not so much that I agree or disagree with the author's assessment of the importance of Afghanistan. My ignorance of Afhanistan would stun a geography teacher. My not very informed guess is that it is (a.) important and (b.) hopeless. Iraq seems far easier, and that is not the mission accomplished that was once claimed. But I neither ran for president nor became president. Mr. Obama ran, and ran on the basis that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. Any candidate for that office, running on such a such a view, has to mean it and and he had better be well informed.

 

I don't know where Obama is going with this but if the American people come to the conclusion that "Irag was a war of choice, Afghanistan is a war of necessity" was a bunch of election bullshit, then he may occupy the office for three more years but his presidency is over. However misguided LBJ may have been about Viet Nam, no one I know doubts that he thought it was of critical importance. Wrong he may have been, the sun still rises after the renaming of Saigon, but it was not a campaign ploy. People simply will not tolerate advocating war in Afghanistan, or anywhere, as an election gimmick.

 

We will see how this flows. Imo, Obama absolutely cannot say oh well that was then this is now, no one gives a hoot what happens in Afghanistan.

 

As for the author of the piece, I have no idea what he was saying a year ago, but if he thought the fate of Afghanistan was of no consequence, last October or so would have been a good time to say so.

[luke warm]

As for the author of the piece, I have no idea what he was saying a year ago, but if he thought the fate of Afghanistan was of no consequence, last October or so would have been a good time to say so.

that seems to me to be an excellent point, if i wasn't so lazy i'd try to find out what he said/wrote

[hrothgar]

As for the author of the piece, I have no idea what he was saying a year ago, but if he thought the fate of Afghanistan was of no consequence, last October or so would have been a good time to say so.

that seems to me to be an excellent point, if i wasn't so lazy i'd try to find out what he said/wrote

The author of the piece in question is Andrew J. Bacevich

 

He's been quoted several times on these forums.

He appears on NPR all the time...

 

Its VERY easy to find quotes from him.

[Winstonm]

If anyone truly does not know Bacevich, here is his Wikpedia entry:

 

Andrew J. Bacevich, Sr. (born 1947 in Normal, Illinois) is a professor of international relations at Boston University, former director of its Center for International Relations (from 1998 to 2005), and author of several books, including American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002), The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (2005) and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (2008). He has been "a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure."[1] In March 2007, he described George W. Bush's endorsement of such "preventive wars" as "immoral, illicit, and imprudent."[1][2] His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May 200

[Winstonm]

Mr. Obama ran, and ran on the basis that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. Any candidate for that office, running on such a such a view, has to mean it and and he had better be well informed.

 

It would be nice if candidates were well-informed, but we have had Presidents engage in wars who were even less well informed (or just criminals), so it is a little over-the-top to say a junior Senator should have insider's knowledge about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

These people lean on advisers to help create their world views - and one of Obama's most serious errors in judgement (IMO) and my greatest disappointment in him was on the parties he elected to hold over from the Bush-Cheney administration and who still have his ear - people like Gates and Patraeus and Odierno. And he made super hawk Clinton his Secretary of State, and almost every week we have to work hard to avoid another war over something outlandish she says.

 

Bacevich understands this and it is what his article suggests - that Afghanistan is a proxy war for the war cartel who promotes and profits from war, and is promoting this long war.

 

To think the junior Senator-turned President who surrounded himself with leftover Bush war advisers should have a better grasp of the significance of Afghanistan in military history after having been in office for 10 months than Andrew Bacevich has who as a military officer was schooled in warfare and as a historian holds a PhD is rather a strange position to take as far as I am concerned.

 

Myself, I would much prefer a President with the balls to say, "You know, I made a mistake. Afghanistan is not critical."

[Winstonm]

Btw, if anyone cares to know, he or she may want to read about the serious people who actually believe the "long war" is in America's best interest:

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/hayden

[kenberg]

Mr, Bacevich is generic. Those experts who think Afghanistan is not of consequence could have done both the nation and Obama a great favor by making these views known a year ago. Perhaps Obama would have listened and changed his ways, perhaps not.

 

He has now painted himself onto a corner. He can try "I made a mistake". I think he will not be believed. I am one of many who were uneasy about his easy answers to many issues; Iraq war bad, Afghan war good. One had to hope he was not that stupid. saying "Oh, I was just a junior senator, how could I be expected to know anything" is not a winning approach.

 

The analogy that comes to mind, and that I have mentioned, is De Gaulle and Algeria. But De Gaulle had years and years to draw on. He could perhaps summon some to the belief that he was acting in the best interests of France rather than being simply politically cute. Still he was reviled in many quarters of France. The fiction "Day of the Jackal" is based on the real assasination attempts by the military. Out military, I am sure, would not do that but he will certainly not have their respect.

 

"I made a mistake" just really is not going to cut it here. We have been there for what, eight years? Karzai has been in power for several years. Obama's diehard fans will believe him, no one else will.

 

 

I wiah him luck, as always with any president. I do not envy his situation.

[luke warm]

As for the author of the piece, I have no idea what he was saying a year ago, but if he thought the fate of Afghanistan was of no consequence, last October or so would have been a good time to say so.

that seems to me to be an excellent point, if i wasn't so lazy i'd try to find out what he said/wrote

The author of the piece in question is Andrew J. Bacevich

 

He's been quoted several times on these forums.

He appears on NPR all the time...

 

Its VERY easy to find quotes from him.

yes, but i meant what he said a year ago, prior to the election... that also, i'm sure, is easy to find, but my laziness hasn't improved...

[kenberg]

A low key piece:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9101801460.html

 

I woould say that the thrust of the piece is that interviews with European leaders show that they are anxiously awaiting news of exactly wtf Obama has in mind. They (the ones quoted anyway) are on oard with the policy announced in March and would like to know, and rather soon, whether it is still the policy. Thhis seems like a reasonable expectation.

[PassedOut]

Last year, during the campaign, I was not at all supportive of what I thought to be the very glib description of Iraq as a war of choice, Afghanistan as a war of necessity.

...

My not very informed guess is that it is (a.) important and (b.) hopeless.

...

However misguided LBJ may have been about Viet Nam, no one I know doubts that he thought it was of critical importance.

I did not like the phrase "war of necessity" either, and Obama will clearly be hurt politically for using it no matter what he does now. If the war in Afghanistan is indeed "(a.) important and (b.) hopeless" as I too suspect, Obama has to figure out what to do -- and this is a very serious business.

 

We know now that LBJ realized early on that the war in Vietnam was hopeless, despite the fact that US generals kept telling him that one more "surge" would carry the day. But LBJ did not want to be the president who "lost Vietnam to the communists," so he kept escalating and escalating. I knew young soldiers who died because of what LBJ did then, and I know families devastated by those losses, and I suspect that you do too.

 

If LBJ had pulled out of Vietnam when he realized that the war was hopeless, he most certainly would have been pilloried as the president who lost Vietnam to the communists. But a lot fewer people would have been killed and maimed. And if Obama does not give General McChrystal 40,000 more soldiers now, he'll be pilloried as the president who lost Afghanistan to the Taliban. We know that and he knows that.

 

General McChrystal has been outspoken about the stupidity of the strategy that was employed for eight years in Afghanistan, particularly the killing of civilians we depend upon for support. He's working hard to reverse that, but a lot of damage has already been done. He says he needs 40,000 soldiers soon to avert a military defeat at the hands of the Taliban. It would not surprise me to learn that he'll need many more "surges" of the same size or larger in the future.

 

McCain urged Obama to authorize McChrystal's request right away (although McCain said during the campaign that the US could "muddle through" in Afghanistan as things stood). And, of course, the "real men don't think things through" crowd is also yelling at Obama to authorize those troops immediately.

 

But I'm glad that Obama is taking the time to figure this out. He needs to settle upon a reasonable objective and on a concrete plan to achieve that objective. That's what was missing before, and is why we are in such a bad position now.

 

I've mentioned in the past that I voted for McCain in the primary but for Obama in the general election. The way the two men have reacted to McChrystal's request for 40,000 more soldiers reinforces my belief that I made the right choice.

 

I did read with interest the article you referenced in the Washington Post: Europe's angst over Afghanistan

 

It's fair to say that Obama has tried harder than Bush to coordinate policy with U.S. allies. But his deliberations on Afghanistan are demonstrating how some fundamentals of being a superpower never really change.

 

For example, when you're supplying 70 percent of the troops for a war and doing 90 percent of the fighting, your allies may just have to cool their heels while you decide whether to escalate, hold steady or blow up your strategy.

 

And while they wait, they will stew.

If this war is really important to Europe, they'll be ready to pony up a lot more soldiers as well.

 

It's hard for European leaders to argue that Obama should send the 40,000 or more reinforcements that McChrystal is seeking, since they will be accompanied, at best, by only 2,000 to 3,000 more Europeans. So they tend to focus on the other half of the equation: why the West cannot give up on the effort to stabilize Afghanistan under a decent government.

Or not.

[kenberg]

As to European contributions, I hope I am not one of those guys that is always bitching about Europe. I would put it this way: I think a good deal more could be done if our views were closer together, but they aren't and that has to be taken into account.

 

 

To come at this differently, I think the word "superpower" should go into early retirement. We are a superpower in the sense that we can nuke the bejesus out of whomever we might choose, but that's not really where the action is. We are not, I hope, going to reduce Afghanistan or anywhere else to a radioactive wasteland so any effort we make will require troops, support staff and lots of money. In these departments I do not see us as all that much a superpower. We have a large economy, true, but we are a large country. It is only in our capacity to go nuke someone that we are really a superpower, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. So we need to work with our friends, Europe of course, and Australia, South America, and Asia. Africa to the extent possible but they have major problems on their own continent and it is not reasonable to think they can be a large part of multinational efforts elsewhere.

 

I recall some Philadelphia bloke saying someting about hanging together or hanging separately.

[blackshoe]

You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life. But if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.

 

The book was This Kind of War, about Korea, in which Fehrenbach fought. But it's equally true of every war.

[PassedOut]

To come at this differently, I think the word "superpower" should go into early retirement. We are a superpower in the sense that we can nuke the bejesus out of whomever we might choose, but that's not really where the action is. We are not, I hope, going to reduce Afghanistan or anywhere else to a radioactive wasteland so any effort we make will require troops, support staff and lots of money. In these departments I do not see us as all that much a superpower. We have a large economy, true, but we are a large country. It is only in our capacity to go nuke someone that we are really a superpower, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. So we need to work with our friends, Europe of course, and Australia, South America, and Asia. Africa to the extent possible but they have major problems on their own continent and it is not reasonable to think they can be a large part of multinational efforts elsewhere.

My view is the same.

[Winstonm]

I challenge any one to explain the U.S. strategy for winning in Afghanistan. And I would like to know if you believe it is imperative to fight a war in continuum for the next 50 years rather than handing the battle over to politics and policing, as the Rand Corporation suggested as the better course of action. And finally, do you believe the Military-Industrial-Complex would support war for a profit/power motive rather than necessity?

[PassedOut]

I challenge any one to explain the U.S. strategy for winning in Afghanistan.  And I would like to know if you believe it is imperative to fight a war in continuum for the next 50 years rather than handing the battle over to politics and policing, as the Rand Corporation suggested as the better course of action.  And finally, do you believe the Military-Industrial-Complex would support war for a profit/power motive rather than necessity?

I challenge any one to explain the U.S. strategy for winning in Afghanistan.

 

Obama will have to explain it -- no one else has yet.

 

And I would like to know if you believe it is imperative to fight a war in continuum for the next 50 years rather than handing the battle over to politics and policing, as the Rand Corporation suggested as the better course of action.

 

No.

 

And finally, do you believe the Military-Industrial-Complex would support war for a profit/power motive rather than necessity?

 

Of course. General Eisenhower saw that coming and he was right.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to explain your strategy for winning a war where your enemy can see it. Perhaps that's why no one has done so.

[kenberg]

I cannot explain the US trategy but then I very much doubt that me father could have explained US strategy during the Second World War. At any rate, neither Eisenhower nor MacArthur ever called him for advice. Like father, like son.

 

 

I try to decide in whom I should put my trust. I will listen to Mr. Obama as he explains what apparently will be a sharp change in direction. He doesn't have to give satisfactory answers to all of my questions, but right now I am extremely skeptical of his ability to lead the nation. Here are some started questions:

 

During the campaign, Obamawas very critical of Bush for having pulled troops from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. I felt that however misguided the Bush action was, that was history and pulling them now from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan may be making the same mistake in reverse. Does he now think in the same way?

 

During the campaign, Obama was not at all supportive, at least not until late, of the surge. The policy announced last March seemed, among other things, like a surge. Even like a surge on steroids. Does he now think that his decision last March was as stupid as he felt Bush's was?

 

In March, Obama made a show of having consulted with our allies and then he announced a policy that had their support. If we now unilaterally announce our renunciation of that policy, what sort of reception does he imagine he will get the next time he consults with our allies to plan a common military action? Leadrers of other nations do not like to be left to explain what the hell just happened.

 

And of course most important: Did he come to realize the error of his ways by reading Winston's posts on the forum?

 

 

There are many things that I do not understand but I have learned to trust my instincts when they warn me that I am being conned. I am getting jittery about Obama.

[PassedOut]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to explain your strategy for winning a war where your enemy can see it. Perhaps that's why no one has done so.

It's a good idea to have a clear, easily stated objective. In WWII, it was achieving the unconditional surrender of the fascist powers.

 

Contrary to your statement, it's often good to have a well-understood strategy, particularly when you need to maintain public support for achieving the objective. Voters can then see that the strategy has at least a reasonable chance of achieving the stated objective, if that is truly the case.

 

General McChrystal has been very open about his changes in strategy, and the Taliban surely knows about it. And that doesn't matter.

 

Until we know the objective, though, we won't be able to determine his chances for success. I hope that the objective will be clear soon. If it is too grandiose (imposing a western-style democracy on Afghanistan, for example), no strategy will succeed and public support will evaporate.

 

If you meant to say tactics, not strategy, you were correct.

[phil_20686]

I think that part of the apprehension that europeans feel about afgahistan, is about our history. How can i put this delicately - in the conversations i have had with some american firends, i felt that they didnt really understand what it meant to be a truly divided nation. Despite your civil war america has never really suffered from tribal hatreds the way that europe has, and there doesnt seem to be any focus on european history in your schooling.

 

Lets put this in persepective, the usa is about 250 years old, give or take, and parart from the civil war you have mostly got along. If you look at, for example, british history, you find that scotland and england were at war pretty much continously for over 600 years. Its easier for us to imagine then a state where there are tribes that feel great loyalty to each other, and non at all to their supposed country. And this is the situation in afganistan. Its not just that they hate foreigners, they hate and fear each other. Every ethnic group lives in permenant fear that some other ethnic group will acheive dominance and use it to exact some kind of prejudice or revenge against some other. This is why building a democracy in afganistan is an almost impossible task, voting will be divided along ethnic lines, and if there is a clear majority it will use it to impose itself on the smaller groups. This is indeed similar to the conflich in northern ireland, there the Pretestant unionists feared what it would mean to be part of an independendednt country dominated by catholics, and chose to seceded from teh irish republic. The nationalists objected to britian carving up the boundaries of its country to cater to a minority view. Further, the boundaries would never really reflect the distribution of ethnic groups and there where now two states with minorities who feared for their future. The result was 30 years of viloence.

 

Realistically, if you want to build a successful democratic state in afganistan, you are talking about 3 generations at the very least. Enough time to establish a sense of shared history that will replace tribal hostility, enough time to educate people about their past, and about each other, and for old er generations set in their ways to die off and be replaced. The problem in afganistan runs far deeper than in Ireland, as Afgansitan as a modern state has no roots to draw on. Further most of its elite moved abroad under the taliban, leaving it with a severe shortage of educated teachers doctors and the like to help with modernisation. The USA faces particular problems in the region because it funded guerilla war against the soviet union, but did little to help rebuild the country after the Soviets withdrew. No-one appreciaties being used as pawns, and i imagine it is a real mistake to imagine that all the violence against the USA troops is religiously motivated, or because they liked the taliban so much. Much of it is simply because they don't trust the west, and why should they.

 

We destroyed afganistan by using it as a pawn in the cold war. Britian caused a huge amont of suffering in the region when it created pakistan (pakistan - india is another largely tribal conflict, the BE bused all of one ethnic group into pakistan when they left the country basically. Booting millions of peoples out of their homes in each direction didnt endear them to anybody.). Lets not forget the establishment of Israel, although that was far enough away that probably doesnt matter that much to afgahans except as a sign that the west cannot be trusted.

 

My only real point here is that we expected nation building in afganistan to take 50-100 years. Its not like rebuilding europe after the second world war, which was mostly a case of give us some money and we will get on with it, and was done in twenty or so years. It could realistically take two ceturies to make afganistan a truuly stable place, judging by the roman emires efforts it typically took countries bettwen 50-100 years to settle and feel happy as a part of the roman empire. I think it will take at least that long in afganistan.

 

However, i feel that america should commit. In fact so should europe. The only way to build a reputation as a benevolant force and reliable mediator is to be there putting in the effort for a long time. If you leave now you will be seen to be breakign promises. To ahve destroyed afganistan for a second time, and america will never have credibility in the region. If you stay then in twenty years as educational and living standards rise america will be seen as someone who came to help people. A country that can be trusted to do the right thing. A friend of the region in general. Only then will you be able tomediate effectively, and achieve a genuine peace and prosperity in that region.