What's At Stake

[kenberg]

Phil's description of Afghanistan fits my image, but I have no idea of the reality.

 

The existence of "Reading Lolita in Tehran" does not particularly surprise me. An Iranian woman holding meetings in her home with other women, studying western literature. "Reading Lolita in Kabul"? Can it be imagined? Tehran is not Paris or London, but I believe western values have strong support there. I don't have the same expectation in Afghanistan. My ignorance perhaps, but not entirely my ignorance I think.

 

i see both Iraq and Iran as being far more hospitable to an effort to "bring them into the west". If this is so, the question has to be asked: What was Obama thinking? If he was thinking of a fifty year time frame I must have missed that part of his speech.

[hrothgar]

Phil's description of Afghanistan fits my image, but I have no idea of the reality.

 

The existence of "Reading Lolita in Tehran" does not particularly surprise me. An Iranian woman holding meetings in her home with other women, studying western literature. "Reading Lolita in Kabul"? Can it be imagined? Tehran is not Paris or London, but I believe western values have strong support there. I don't have the same expectation in Afghanistan. My ignorance perhaps, but not entirely my ignorance I think.

 

i see both Iraq and Iran as being far more hospitable to an effort to "bring them into the west". If this is so, the question has to be asked: What was Obama thinking? If he was thinking of a fifty year time frame I must have missed that part of his speech.

The NYT had a piece yesterday titled Remembering Afghanistan's Golden Age.

 

Apparantly, Afghanistan was once referred to as “the Paris of Central Asia”

 

Not sure whether this is a compliment to Afghanistan or whether the Uzbek's have a bum rap...

[PassedOut]

The NYT had a piece yesterday titled Remembering Afghanistan's Golden Age.

Thanks for the tip; I had missed this one: Remembering Afghanistan’s Golden Age

 

But as President Obama debates whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, and whether, more pointedly, he might be sending them down a black hole of civic hopelessness, American and Afghan scholars and diplomats say it is worth recalling four decades in the country’s recent history, from the 1930s to the 1970s, when there was a semblance of a national government and Kabul was known as “the Paris of Central Asia.”

 

Afghans and Americans alike describe the country in those days as a poor nation, but one that built national roads, stood up an army and defended its borders. As a monarchy and then a constitutional monarchy, there was relative stability and by the 1960s a brief era of modernity and democratic reform. Afghan women not only attended Kabul University, they did so in miniskirts. Visitors — tourists, hippies, Indians, Pakistanis, adventurers — were stunned by the beauty of the city’s gardens and the snow-capped mountains that surround the capital.

Things have gone downhill.

[kenberg]

It is great to have this correction to my uninformed view. A place that once, and not so long ago, had some sort of reasonable coherence is perhaps not beyond hope.

 

But good god, we have been there as a military force for eight years or so and much longer in other ways. I hope to hell that facts such as these are not news to the geniuses who are planning out what to do! That I was unaware of this is understandable (well, at any rate I don't mind displaying my ignorance). Those who wish to plot our course in the world need to be able to say of course we know that.

 

Miniskirts! I am stunned.

[Winstonm]

Escalation is the answer?

 

Glenn Greenwald:

"In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza).  Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade.  Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking:  'why do they hate us??'  And their friends and neighbors and leaders will assure them:  'they hate us for our freedoms.'"

[kenberg]

And people write things such as this [from Greenwald] and then they walk around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking: "Why does no one listen to us?".

 

Your first commentator, Andrew Bacevich, begins with the announcement that no serious person thinks that Afghanistan matters. Glenn Greenwald asserts that those who disagree with him also do all sorts of things that they may or may not do. My first reaction at comment such as Mr Greenwald's is that the author has my complete permission to go ***** himself. Let me try for a more reflective response.

 

Violence among individuals and among groups is a fact of life. I would hope that we always think twice and maybe three times before bombing anyone. There are many reasons, both as strategy and on moral grounds, for restraint. I think, however, that any suggestion that if we would just restrain our military then peace would break out in the middle east or anywhere else is a pipe dream. In the time leading up to the Second World War, the US had very much a hands off policy. France fell, England was fighting for survival, we did nothing. Ok, there was Lend-Lease but we did not send troops or bomb anyone. I am willing to consider, and in fact I believe it to be true, that we have now swung to far in the other direction. Not all problems can or should be solved by sending American troops. But the issues are certainly more subtle than the quote from Mr. Greenwald suggests.

 

 

I don't much care for the rhetorical approach of Bacevich and Greenwald. They begin by insulting people who disagree with them and then, perhaps, go on to present their case. This gets them an enthusiastic response from those who already agree with them but it is not the way to get a hearing from the rest of us.

[PassedOut]

Escalation is the answer? 

 

Glenn Greenwald:

"In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza).  Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade.  Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking:  'why do they hate us??'  And their friends and neighbors and leaders will assure them:  'they hate us for our freedoms.'"

Isn't Greenwald discussing Iran in this quote?

 

Getting back to Afghanistan, I think "escalation" is a misleading description of what McChrystal is asking for, even though he wants more soldiers. McChrystal has taken real steps toward reducing US violence against Afghan civilians. He has forbidden US soldiers to return fire when civilian lives would be put at risk. He wants to place the focus on protecting Afghans from Taliban violence, and needs more soldiers (maybe many more soldiers) to make that work.

 

To me, that certainly makes more sense than what the US has been doing, but I want to know what the objective is and whether that objective can be attained -- perhaps with a lot more help from Europe. It will create a much worse outcome for Afghan villagers if the US military more or less forces them to become collaborators now against the Taliban and then abandons them to their fates a couple of years from now.

 

I trust that is on Obama's mind during this evaluation period also.

[vuroth]

And people write things such as this [from Greenwald] and then they walk around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking: "Why does no one listen to us?".

 

**snip**

Eloquently put.

[PassedOut]

I don't much care for the rhetorical approach of Bacevich and Greenwald.

I kind of like writers who push me out of my comfort zone, especially when I don't automatically agree with them. In this discussion, it interests me that a conservative catholic military man, Andrew Bacevich, and a gay constitutional lawyer and civil rights litigator, Glenn Greenwald, appear to see eye to eye on Afghanistan.

 

Although I certainly don't share Bacevich's religious views, I do consider him a to be good representative of mainstream conservative thought concerning foreign policy matters.

[y66]

I don't understand the strong reactions to the questions Bacevich is asking. I'm glad to see that Rahm Emanuel is also publicly questioning what we can accomplish there. I agree with the OP that this is a defining moment for Obama. What an incredibly difficult problem. If ever there was a time to go into the tank, this is it.

[Al_U_Card]

No time like the present to beat swords into plowshares.....Worthy of the Nobel prize AND the bible-thumpers will be in "rapture" literally as well as figuratively. :)

[kenberg]

I don't understand the strong reactions to the questions Bacevich is asking.  I'm glad to see that Rahm Emanuel is also publicly questioning what we can accomplish there. I agree with the OP that this is a defining moment for Obama. What an incredibly difficult problem. If ever there was a time to go into the tank, this is it.

I would say that a year ago was the time to do it. The concerns are:

 

First and foremost: Whether the right decision gets made. Better late tahn never certainly applies here, but it is late.

 

 

How our allies will take a presumably pretty much unilateral decision to change course after they have publicly backed the course announced last March. Additionally, whether our allies will then be willing to participate in future joint efforts under American leadership.

 

 

What those who wish the best for us, those who wish the worst for us, an we ourselves will make of a sharp change of direction a few months after a decision that was claimed at its announcement to be made after extensive review and extensive discussions with our friends. I think it is fair to say that on the question of whether Obama is a man of deep principles or a quick study of prevailing winds, the jury is still out.

 

 

I think I could supply more reason for concern, but the above is roughly it, at least from my viewpoint. Few things are more important than the decision to send in more or pull out our troops. We have to be convinced that the man in charge knows what he is doing and is making his decisions based on his best assessment of what is good for the country. I will listen, as I imagine most will, but I must say I would have found arguments that he might make to be far more palatable if he had made them during the campaign.

[helene_t]

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. [....] So we need to work with our friends, Europe of course, and Australia, South America, and Asia.

I think USA is a superpower. Your military can't control the whole World but they have been able to achieve some significant goals in Panama, Grenada, Kosova, even to some extent in a big country like Colombia. And there was this American captain that was freed from Somali pirates. I am not being sarcastic, I really think it requires powerful military and the political will to make us of it to achieve such aims, and although some other countries have occasionally done similar things (the Falkland war), I think it is largely an American thing.

 

As for Europe, don't count on it. OK some European countries are willing to send peace keeping forces once peace has been obtained. But since the disgusting non-involvement policy of Europe during the Bosnian war I have zero belief in Europe's will to take military action.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that US has been over-active in many cases. Sometimes it is easy to be wise in retrospect: I was in favor of involvement in Afghanistan for some time, and I am not sure what I would have thought about Vietnam if I had been older. But the latest Iraq never seemed to have any merits.

[PassedOut]

I will listen, as I imagine most will, but I must say I would have found arguments that he might make to be far more palatable if he had made them during the campaign.

Yes. And, failing that, definitely before embarking upon and enlisting support for his original approach. A dramatic change now will hurt him, and by extension, US credibility both politically and diplomatically.

 

Obama now owns this war. I hope he is talking with sane people (including republicans like Colin Powell) about the most practical approach now. The credibility Obama has lost already will be nothing compared to what he will lose if he gets the US into another Vietnam.

 

The fact that he's taking the time needed to work out what to do will not matter much compared to the impact his actual decision will make. My guess is that Obama will identify some reasonable objective that does not leave the Europeans looking stupid, and deploy accordingly. We'll find out, I think, after the November runoff in Afghanistan.

[mike777]

I expect the election to matter little, after all with all the info on the ground can the last election be a surprise to the President? Do we not expect that whoever wins, there will be corruption, claims of an illegal government etc in Afghanistan?

 

 

Keep in mind the Taliban and its supporters claim they are the only legal government.

 

 

As I mentioned before I expect him to try the surge with 40-60 K more troops. If we dont see alot of improvement in a year, send them all home. If the Afghan army and people will not support the govt , I just wish the Prez would send the troops home now. Granted even this is an ugly option.

 

I frankly dont understand the media reported "Biden" option at all. BOMB who, when, on the basis of what inaccurate information?

[mike777]

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. [....]  So we need to work with our friends, Europe of course, and Australia, South America,  and Asia.

I think USA is a superpower. Your military can't control the whole World but they have been able to achieve some significant goals in Panama, Grenada, Kosova, even to some extent in a big country like Colombia. And there was this American captain that was freed from Somali pirates. I am not being sarcastic, I really think it requires powerful military and the political will to make us of it to achieve such aims, and although some other countries have occasionally done similar things (the Falkland war), I think it is largely an American thing.

 

As for Europe, don't count on it. OK some European countries are willing to send peace keeping forces once peace has been obtained. But since the disgusting non-involvement policy of Europe during the Bosnian war I have zero belief in Europe's will to take military action.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that US has been over-active in many cases. Sometimes it is easy to be wise in retrospect: I was in favor of involvement in Afghanistan for some time, and I am not sure what I would have thought about Vietnam if I had been older. But the latest Iraq never seemed to have any merits.

Helene, I am not sure what you or many in Europe wish the USA to do?

 

 

Send the middle east troops home today or other?

 

Pull all our troops out of Europe today or other?

[Winstonm]

Let me try to address some posts without doing too much cutting and pasting.

 

Ken,

 

I appreciate what you said and perhaps I have to take a lion's share of the blame for choosing the quotes to paste - many times it takes a reading of the entire article to get the total point but I try to pick a short part in order to emphasize the message and not have you guys having to go back and forth all day reading articles to which I refer. That could be my bad.

 

Sometimes, as in the case of Glenn Greenwald, it requires a continuous reading to know his intent - the case he makes against the troop increase in Afghanistan is countered by his encouragement of prosecuting terrorists and adhering to the rule of law. He is not pacifist so much as against military involvement when no military goal seems attainable.

 

I am quite surprised by your position on Andrew Bacevich - if you have ever heard him speak I believe you would find him one of the least pretentious persons you have ever heard, quite contemplative and non-confrontational.

 

Blackshoe,

 

I believe you are confusing tactics with strategy. Strategy encompasses the goals and politics to accomplish those goals. Tactics are more like battle plans. It often helps if you can get the opposing civilians to agree with your strategic goals - and you wouldn't want the enemy to know your battle tactics in advance.

 

Others,

 

Obama certainly has a difficult decision - but it is not entirely of his own making. There was not a real problem until McChrystal started his PR campaign in favor of his troop increase - and now the NYT is jumping on the bandwagon - it is almost a replay of the buildup to Iraq.

 

Gates, Mullen, Patraeus, Odierno, McChystal - these are all holdovers from the Bush-Cheney administration. Is it any surprise that these men and their publicists are promoting a continuation of the endless war over which the Neocon salivated so?

[Winstonm]

Escalation is the answer?

 

QUOTE

Glenn Greenwald:

"In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza).  Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade.  Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking:  'why do they hate us??'  And their friends and neighbors and leaders will assure them:  'they hate us for our freedoms.'"

 

Isn't Greenwald discussing Iran in this quote?

 

Yes, but the quote is from a larger piece talking about increasing the size of the troop disbursement in Afghanistan - and how American forces in Muslim lands cause increased terrorism to occur.

[blackshoe]

I believe you are confusing tactics with strategy.

Of course. I only spent half my adult life in the military. How could I possibly know the difference?

[mike777]

I dont get all the critics of General M. He was hired by the President to do a mission. He asked for resources to do the President's Mission....not one the General is forcing on the USA.

 

Keep in mind all these speeches, 60 minutes tv show are cleared by his bosses (more than one).

 

 

Now the President has said he may or may not change the mission. We are awaiting his decision.

 

 

 

"... and how American forces in Muslim lands cause increased terrorism to occur....." this could be its own thread.

 

 

--------------------

[kenberg]

With regard to Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Bacevich, let me borrow from Will Rogers: I only know what I read in the forum. I get along fine with (most) mathematicians. Getting along with a a gay constitutional lawyer and civil rights litigator, and a conservative catholic military man, would be a piece of cake.

[Winstonm]

I dont get all the critics of General M.

 

 

 

 

--------------------

Maybe it's because of statements such as this:

 

Gen. Stanley McChrystal set out a clear marker for what he considers “success” in Afghanistan:

 

    American success in Afghanistan should be measured by “the number of Afghans shielded from violence,” not the number of enemy fighters killed, he said.

[helene_t]

Helene, I am not sure what you  or many in Europe wish the USA to do?

 

Send the middle east troops home today or other?

 

Pull all our troops out of Europe today or other?

Obviously the vast majority of Western Europeans are very happy with Obama, although the picture is more diverted in Eastern (Central?) Europe.

 

Personally I would say that the USA is doing fine in international matters. I like the US position better than the European one on most issues, but maybe it would be a good idea to spend more money on humanitarian and development aid and less on military aid.

 

I never understood why international politics is so important to USA. USA is much less vulnerable to external security and trade issues than are Europe and Japan, so it would be perfectly understandable if you decided to focus on cleaning up your domestic mess (health care, education, crime, CO2 emissions, lawyer mafia etc) and leave the rest of the World to its own devices. Maybe the fact that most Americans have roots on other continents make you more concerned about global security issues? Here in England nobody gives a damn about what happens in Scotland let alone Europe (to say nothing about other continents) although we are much more dependent on them than you are.

[luke warm]

I never understood why international politics is so important to USA. USA is much less vulnerable to external security and trade issues than are Europe and Japan, so it would be perfectly understandable if you decided to focus on cleaning up your domestic mess (health care, education, crime, CO2 emissions, lawyer mafia etc) and leave the rest of the World to its own devices. Maybe the fact that most Americans have roots on other continents make you more concerned about global security issues? Here in England nobody gives a damn about what happens in Scotland let alone Europe (to say nothing about other continents) although we are much more dependent on them than you are.

absolutely right, helene... yet another thing i'd do as dictator is (almost) totally withdraw from the rest of the world until i got my own house in order

[Winstonm]

Every military counter-insurgency strategy hits up against the probability that it will, in time, create more enemies than it kills. So you blow up a suspected Taliban site and kill two of their commanders – but you also kill 98 women and children, whose families are from that day determined to kill your men and drive them out of their country. Those aren't hypothetical numbers. They come from Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, who was General Petraeus' counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq. He says that US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qa'ida leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. He says: "That's a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It's not moral." It explains the apparent paradox that broke the US in Vietnam: the more "bad guys" you kill, the more you have to kill.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...an-1806191.html

US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qa'ida leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives

 

They hate us for our freedom.