President's upcoming speech on Afghanistan

Reading the Inky's Afghanistan reporter's take on the issue of President Obama's speech on troop escalation there, one particular phrase jumped out at me "If the United States pulls out of Afghanistan precipitously, without ensuring the security of the population..." [emphasis added]. What Rubin ignores is the option of gradual disengagement. This reminds me of people who defend George W. Bush's reaction to being told that the 9-11 attacks were underway and that Americans were burning and falling out of the World Trade Center towers at that very moment. "Well, you don't expect the President to jump up, look wildly about and then to run screaming out of the room, do you?" No, I expect our President to give the schoolchildren a quick, calm "Seeya" and to walk calmly out of the classroom, giving quiet instructions and then getting to a command post as quickly as possible.

No, there's no need for a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, but Rubin doesn't credit opponents of escalation with wanting a gradual, phased disengagement. It was also quite notable that a particular name was completely missing from the article, that of the former American Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. Eikenberry is a former general and has extensive experience in Afghanistan. I don't expect a local newspaper to insist that their reporter pay attention to all kinds of different aspects to the story, but couldn't someone else have been assigned to provide us with the former ambassador's point of view and then placed that view alongside that of General Stanley McChrystal (as presented by Rubin)? Why are we limited to just McChrystal's point of view?

The projected plans for US forces in Afghanistan are also very hard to take seriously, "...more troops would make it possible to funnel more economic aid to troubled regions and intensify training of Afghan security forces," "The new troops would even improve the chances for a negotiated peace between Afghan leaders and top Taliban leaders...," "This could stabilize the situation sufficiently to pour in development funds and offer substitutes for poppy-growing...." These all sound like very good and positive developments, but they also sound like wishful thinking, like strategies that might work IF there were a real national commitment from the US and IF the US's whole population were engaged in the effort.

Unlike during World War II, when pilots would perform so many missions and then go home, the US is sending troops back to the front time and again because there simply are no people in the pipeline to replace them. After the fall of Baghdad but before the guerrilla war in Iraq got going (May to July 2003), President Bush tried to get volunteers to go to Iraq, not even to fight, but to do administrative work. Virtually no one took him up on his request. US civilians in Iraq were pretty much limited to the "Green Zone" by September because they had completely failed to establish any real presence in Iraq as a whole.

And we can't even count the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai as a solid friend and ally. After President Ahmadinejad of Iran "won" a highly questionable electoral victory, Karzai was among the first foreign leaders to congratulate him.

The US is simply in no shape to conduct an imperial war halfway across the world. It's time to start the drawdown and leave that country to those who live there.

Comments

Sooo Rich

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 8:31pm

if you were President, what would you do?

The TomDispatch piece has a good idea

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 12:17am

The idea there is gradual disengagement. US troops reduce their presence, spending generous amounts of money to build up the Afghans as we leave. Negotiate as good a settlement as we can with the Taliban. Don't see much danger of al Qaeda taking advantage of the US withdrawal as the Taliban blame al Qaeda for their loss of office in the first place.
Can't guarantee that things'll turn out fine. As the piece puts it, such a strategy will be a step off into darkness. But to stay and escalate pretty much guarantees a repeat of the Soviet experience.

And we can't even count the government of Afghan President Karz

Submitted by RichardKanePA on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:55pm

One of your paragraphs got things twisted around. If you click on [“we can't even count’] one gets this link,
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50581,news-comment,news-politics,iran-neoc...

This link claims that Iran is actually a silent allie of the US in Afghanistan since the Iranians hate al Qaeda. Another similar link is about al Qaeda all but declaring war on Iran,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75663&sectionid=351020101

There happens to be some good reasons to fight in Afghanistan. However, there are even more reasons not to. The hawks are fixated mostly on what they consider ending backward and oppressive customs, not just stopping groups that are picking for a fight with the west. Trying to change Muslim customs, more than a few Muslims find offensive. Perhaps there should be a world government division that sanctions governments from going too far. But if the US meddles in everyone else’s private business, they may worry about the west even outlawing polygamy.

Obama wisely said fine when Pakistan allowed the Swat Valley to have Sharia Law because it’s none of our business. But the hawks who support the war have different plans. It would be wonderful if someone stops al Qaeda’s madness but the US is like an elephant fighting with some mice, knocking down the circus tent in the process.

Obama thinks he can control America’s private prejudices, but anti-Muslim sentiment could end up angering much of the Muslim world.

Some of the criticism of Obama is particularly unfair, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/01/wartime-presidential-speeches-tr...

Anyway, I am spreading the idea of “Backing Obama not the War”, google it and even if you are a far leftist you can encourage groups like Move on dot org to take steps to oppose the war this way.

I join Rich and the others who had so much hope a year and a half about, and now worry about the US descending into backwardness, but to exaggerate Obama's blame can only lead to someone worse not better ending up in charge.

RichardKanePA.blogspot.com,
RichardKanePA

Don't understand

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 12:23am

You said the link was "twisted around," but the link you included in your comment led to precisely the same piece.
Oh well, if the link is wrong, it's your fault. It fit in well with the story I was trying to tell, so it's all good.

Drugs not congraduating Ahmadinejad is why the US should be warr

Submitted by RichardKanePA on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 3:02am

Karzai isn't an unreliable allie because he congratulated Ahmadinejad, if the link you posted is right, that Iran is actually part of the anti-Al Qaeda effort.

I guess I was being picky however elsewhere in a so-called comedy act George Carlin said that the US stopped the Germans during World War II because they were in-crouching on our turf,
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17059

At least no one yet stooped to calling Obama a baby killer like the antiwar movement did during Vietnam.

I am going to bring my "back Obama not the war",google it, paraphernalia, to the next Obama heath-care rally that in the past pretended the war wasn't even an issue,
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/backing-obama-not-war

RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
RichardKanePA

Not good

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 11:44am

This is a bad idea. More money and troops is not the solution.
Youtube Mp3 free,Youtube to Mp3,Convert Youtube to Mp3

Recent Posts by Rich Gardner

Recent Similar Articles