Dithering and Dicking
That’s quite a nifty election Afghan President Hamid Karzai just won. He cheated in the first round. Got busted. His opponent withdrew. And now he gets “re-elected” without so much as a vote. Nice work if you can get it! Barack Obama, in what must be the understatement of the year, called this sordid little affair “messy.”
Y’think?
Messier would be committing even more troops and treasure to defend what is now a completely discredited and virtually non-existent Afghan government.
This whole enterprise is looking scarier and scarier. And as I mentioned in last night’s post, we can really thank Bush-Cheney for all this. Obama will have to take responsibility for the course he will now set. But Holy Jesus, talk about a no win situation. It seems ever clearer that there can be no military victory in Afghanistan. Even the talk about a so-called surge of 40,000 troops as recommended by General McChrystal seems a fool’s errand. The Afghan insurgency is really a Pashtun uprising inter-mingled with the Taliban. And the Pashtun belt, if you will, runs right through Pakistan. Dropping in the extra troops would be like parachuting in the NYPD to control 25 million people who hate you. And who hate the puny and completely corrupt government that you are trying to defend and who can barely colllect the trash, if that, in Kabul.
Our mission, our just mission, was to disarticulate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we did. But then Cheney-Bush detoured into Iraq and completely bungled the original mission in Afghanistan. Now Cheney has the audacity to say that Obama has been “dithering” around, taking too much time to compose some sort of rational policy in a war that is now irrational. This from the guy who dicked us around for eight years turning Afghanistan into the horrid mess it is today. The absolute gall of those who are impatient today when they sat quietly and complicity by for eight solid years as the Bush White House dug us methodically into TWO bottomless holes.
Obama faces a crushing decision. Either escalate –in some form or another– and risk the fate of LBJ. Or do the right thing and start to wind down the hopeless mission in Afghanistan but at what would unquestionably be a very, very steep political price.
I was watching this week’s episode of Mad Men –and without being much of a spoiler– it unfolds during the days of JFK’s assassination. As his family sits stunned and shocked and uncertain, Don Draper re-assures them, repeatedly, that everything will be alright. It will all be OK.
No, it won’t. Not always.
P.S. My daughter, Natasha Vargas-Cooper, who is finishing a book on Mad Men has more to add on this week’s episode, comparing media then to media now.
————————————————————
Our Neon Tommy piece of the day comes from reporter Rebecca Haithcoat who dings The New Yorker for its premature requiem for Hip Hop.
————————————————
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Join me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/marc.cooper1
Jon our Neon Tommy facebook fan page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Neon-Tommy/141769103535
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
After reading both General McChrystal leaked report to Obama and Matthew Hoh’s resignation letter and latest election fiasco, I have come to believe that we should get out Afghanistan as soon as possible without creating a blood bath.
I am hoping that conservitive take a good hard look at Hoh’s aguments.
Our troops have nearly doubled in Afganistan since Obama became president and it is looking as if Obama/Clinton are about to send 20,000 more.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:09 am
I have no idea what the right thing to do is…except for simply increasing troop levels without using them in some sort of effective population-protection and training-indigenous-army strategy. And that’s probably not possible in Afghanistan. Increasingly I think that creating a network of alliances by paying off local chiefs and possibly even elements of the Taliban has to be part of our getting out over time. One thing I do know is that while Pokey may be proved right on policy, he’ll be proved wrong on politics. Whatever Obama does it will be used as a club against him by the GOP. It’s part of their ethic of “responsibility”, i.e. shirking theirs and blaming others. Whatever Obama does he has to explain it plausibly to the American people and take ownership of the policies from here on out. I don’t know what he’ll decide, but I’m certain he will be clear in making his case and setting limits on expectations. I just don’t think withdrawal is in the cards. My guess is that Obama will increase troop strength, limit and clarify the mission and set some benchmarks for withdrawal – both positive and negative. I supported the war and Obama was clear in his campaign that he believed it was an appropriate mission that had been bungled, so if he increases the troops I’m not going to act like there’s been some bait and switch. What I’m looking for more than anything is some clarity and coherence. If he can present that, he’s still got my support and I’ll give him another year-plus to produce some results on the ground. The one thing I don’t want to hear is the kind of triumphalist bullshit we were treated to by Bush, or a “Dead-Ender” strategy such as is advocated by Cheney.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
Sorry for the mess above…Should have written: “…except simply increasing troop levels without using them in some sort of effective population-protection and training-indigenous-army strategy IS A LOSING PROPOSITION and an effective alternative is probably not possible in Afghanistan.” (I.E. I DO “have an idea” but also a sense of dread about “just getting out” and abandoning any attempt to rescue this bungled mission.)
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:20 am
Marc – I think Obama will pay a steep political price whatever he does in the near term. If he gets out, the GOP noise machine will go into high gear and if he stays in, especially with a strategy that requires an initial troop increase, he’s playing a long game that will not provide instant gratification to the nervous mainstream and will alienate those on his left. That messy set of facts is why I also am convinced he’ll do what he believes is the right thing. I’m sure in the minds of most successful politicians the “right thing” can’t completely be unbraided from their political strategies, but the good news about Obama taking his time is that one gets the sense of authentic deliberation, rather than “gut feelings”, intimidation by either the generals or his “anti-war base”, or raw politics.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
“I think Obama will pay a steep political price whatever he does in the near term.”
Reg is right there will be a price to pay no matter what, so Obama should do the right thing which is get out of Afghanistan and ignore the political fall out.
The only reason to have gone into Afghanistan should have been to destroy Al Qaeda and the Afghanistan government that was protecting them. Anything else is nation building which Bush campaigned against, but obviously did the opposite.
We need to ABANDONE any attempt to rescue this bungled mission that is getting more bungled by the day and has only been made worse by the 20,000 new troops that Obama added to the mix.
We have directly killed between 9-12 thousand civilians in this war. Since Obama took office 1,500 Afghan civilian were killed between January 1 and August 31, 2009, representing an increase of 31% over the same period in 2008. (Source – UNAMA)
A further increase of the U.S. military force will potentially Talibanize the rest of the country.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Anything else is nation building which Bush campaigned against, but obviously did the opposite.”
I’ll say–that would be the understatement of the century (so far). You forgot to add that thanks to the Bush fiasco we also fought the wrong war.
A complete disaster. Disgusting.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
The char
Iraq is looking like a complete succcess, but Afghanistan is turning into a blood bath.
IRAQ OUR-DEAD
2009 137
AFGN OUR-DEAD
2001 12
2002 69
2003 57
2004 60
2005 131
2006 191
2007 232
2008 295
2009 455
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Last month we lost 76 in Afghanistan, which anualized (912 dead) would be greater than any year in IRAQ.
All for a war without end, a war without a WHY.
All (NOW) because Obama has painted himself into a corner.
Yes, yes, yes, … I know Bush got us into this war, but this is Obama’s now.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
Afghanistan has always been a weak federation of ethnic groups (if even that). The current gov’t contains representatives from each of the militias that were fighting the Taliban (i.e. Northern Alliance warlords and thugs). In order to leave without civil war, it would make sense to integrate the Taliban into the gov’t if possible, while continuing to provide reconstruction aid. Let each of the groups control their ethnic regions and leave the federal gov’t as a figurehead. Bribe the groups to maintain the peace.
Robert Greenwald has made an interesting film about the situation :
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/videos.php
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Wasted resources in Iraq = dangerous failure Afghanistan. I shouldn’t even have to point that out–it’s 2009, not 2003, for Christ’s sake.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“Iraq is looking like a complete succcess”
Wow! Pass the Kool-Aid !
That’s a completely insane statement, Pokey. Also cruel in its implications, given the hundreds of thousands of dead and the millions displaced because of our invading on false pretenses (KNOWABLY FALSE, incidentally)
Read this for starters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinreview/01RUBIN.html
And check out Thomas Ricks’ blog at Foreign Policy and his book on the “surge” – The Gamble. Iraq was a disgrace and a total policy pig-fuck promoted by a bunch of bastards who may constitute the most incompetent, dishonest, amoral cabal ever to control the Executive Branch of our government.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“Iraq was a disgrace and a total policy pig-fuck promoted by a bunch of bastards who may constitute the most incompetent, dishonest, amoral cabal ever to control the Executive Branch of our government.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQVyznw2zE
Passed 98-0.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Rob – I’m not negating the Democratic complicity in the Iraq war or Clinton’s overheated opportunistic rhetoric back in 1998, but I don’t believe any plausible Democratic President would have argued in the wake of 9/11 that Iraq was some sort of clear and present national security threat to the US that would require an invasion – ESPECIALLY while we were still dealing with Afghanistan, which did have a clear connection to the attack on NYC and DC. There was zero evidence supporting the notion that we needed to knock off Saddam to forestall attacks on the United States. None. There was clear history that Saddam was some sort of regional threat to his neighbors, but I don’t think that the crazies who promoted the Iraq war as our Crusade would have had much influence in a Gore cabinet, the godawful Lieberman notwithstanding. Just don’t believe things would have played out the same at all.
And, as I keep harping, the Iranians will end up being the external power that “wins” the Iraq war. A Shiite political alliance is “normal” for the region and they may well all be better off for it in the long run from a local (or sectarian) perspective. It’s just that I’m not happy paying for that outcome with American blood and treasure, nor can I morally justify our unilaterally deciding to inflict the chaos that wracked Iraq – the wounds are still fresh, with no certain end in sight.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Very good response reg. However, the one basic problem about Iraq, Clinton, and the US Senate having passed the Iraq Liberation Act, imo, is that it did line the US up for a confrontation with Saddam at some point. When should that confrontation have occurred? How should that confrontation have been carried out other than by military force? I don’t know. But it is done now. We’re not going to kick that can down any street. I’ll simply agree with President Obama when he says the Iraqi people are far better off now than they were under Saddam. Even if this means, yes, the Shiite dominion of the gulf region. I’ll say Shiite, not Iranian. Shiite ‘hegemony’ I think can be tolerated, massaged. I’m not convinced Iran is the terrible juggernaut it’s made out to be. (I’m claiming a mulligan – to be carried later – because I haven’t had a chance to read Mr. Ricks’ last two books)
However, I have read pretty widely of Ahmed Rashid now. I agree with him that Obama has dithered a bit on Afghanistan – a criticism one earns from Rashid, and ignores from Cheney. Rashid also says that Afghanistan is finally in “year one” because of the election of Obama. Eight years after we originally chased out the Taliban, the US is finally trying to put up a comprehensive strategy to help stand up perhaps a minimalist-nation-state that could actually cohere. (Personally, I’d say in for penny, in for pound — call it nation building and get on with it) So perhaps we do have to give the President some space to actually get this right.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The irony of the “Iraq Liberation Act”, of course, is that when the Shiites DID rise up Bush 1 sat on his hands. I don’t think we should have gone in with ground forces even then – but we could have, as the “conventional wisdom” goes, given the uprising air cover since we were right at the border with a huge military presence. In this case, I think the conventional wisdom was right. But, of course, at that point the Iran piece of the puzzle came into play. I agree that Iran is hyped as a threat – but it just seems nuts to me that with one hand we’ve been shaking a fist at them and with the other, we eliminated their worst local enemy. Saddam was the bad guy in that equation, but the whole business seems remarkably incoherent and bizarre. I think both Ahmedinijad and bin Laden are quite happy that we ventured into Iraq. I’m not against nation-building in Afghanistan, given the border situation and the volatility of Pakistan – along with humanitarian considerations – but I have little-to-no confidence that it can actually be done. If Obama goes in deeper, he’s really going to have to sell this thing to me. I’m willing ot listen. But if he can’t do that credibly, it means he’s making a big mistake, playing politics and just crossing his fingers like W.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“Iraq is looking like a complete success”
My satirical point comparing the US dead in IRAQ (137) to US dead in Afghanistan (455) this year was obviously lost on Reg.
I assume everyone has read Matthew Hoh’s letter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Sorry, but I simply don’t understand this:
“The irony of the “Iraq Liberation Act”, of course, is that when the Shiites DID rise up Bush 1 sat on his hands”
The ILA passed in 1998. Under Clinton. Not GHWB. I thought passage of ILA was due to “lessons learned” in the ’91 uprising and the subsequent delay and dodge tactics of Saddam in re the inspections…
Also, what do you mean by the “Iran piece of the puzzle came into play”?
However, one thing you did say, in fact way-understated, is that while we sacked Iran’s number one enemy – Saddam – and woke up on Sept 12, 2001 with a mutual set of goals with the Iranians regarding Afghanistan, the Bush Administration completely and utterly failed to draw any influence over Tehran. Criminal incompetence.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I was just comparing the two episodes – seems ironic to me in retrospect, after we blew a shot at helping oust him. And my understanding is that the reason GHWB let the Shiites get trounced and allowed Saddam to fly helicopters (gunships) to put down the uprising was that they were ambivalent about simply eliminating Saddam because he was anti-Iranian. That’s an impression, but I’m pretty sure I’ve read that was a consideration. It would certainly be consistent with the Reagan-Bush1 policies toward Iraq. Remember the mealy-mouthed meetings of Bush1′s ambassador with the Iraqis just prior to the Kuwait invasion ?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Okay, Pokey. Glad that was intended as satire. Sorry I missed what I guess should have been obvious.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“…given the border situation and the volatility of Pakistan – along with humanitarian considerations – but I have little-to-no confidence that it can actually be done.”
Well, that is right at the heart of the thing, isn’t it? Pakistan. President Obama has one hugh advantage over GWB — not having to deal with that motherfookin’ Musharraf. Musharraf played an 6 year or so game of double-dealing; fronting for the Islamist ISI, which funneled men & material to the Taliban in Afghanistan, while playing Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush — by extension the US & NATO — as fools. There’s a part of this whole theater we hardly see and understand even less. Right now, the Pakistan military is putting the screws to the Taliban bases in Pakistan. Some Pakistanis are finding our drones useful.
Begs some questions: namely, what’s going to be the endgame of the ISI? Who’s side are they really on? AND, how much Saudi $ is going into the Taliban? Wouldn’t we love to know the extent of that expenditure?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
ugh. “huge” not “hugh” among other probable writing errors…
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Bitter, costly and tragic as it may be, there is a silver lining to the current conundrum: the public death of the notion that we are at war with “radical Islam.” The situation in Afghanistan is complex and evolving but, at last, it’s at point where it has become impossible to claim that the war there is between the forces of democracy and “radical Islam.”
Whatever happens in Afghanistan, you can be sure that the moronic “neoconservatives” who begged for a global religious war against Islam — taking it to insane extremes by actively denying the very existence of a non-militant Islam — will have no role in formulating whatever response there is to the morbid clusterf@ck they worked so hard to create.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Honestly Rob, I’m more agnostic on Afghanistan right now than anything and I just want to be convinced by Obama that whatever he decides, it’s based on something more than “hope.” I didn’t understand when the surge was being debated the degree to which Petraeus had an alternative strategy that actually made a lot of sense. So while I became completely cynical about the Bush White House (who were not even aware of the most successful aspects of the Petraeus strategy, i.e. negotiating with and buying off Sunni warlords, at least according to Tom Ricks’ account), I’m open to being convinced that somebody involved in this thing knows better than I do. (Talk about a low bar – it was a pretty hopeless, horrible feeling when I concluded that wasn’t actually the case with BushCo.)
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of Afghanistan, gringos de mierda.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Understandable position.
I dunno what Obama’s going to do either. Maybe remembering the international support that is available is a good place to start.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/nov/02/ban-ki-moon-afghanistan-elections
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
My last comment was in response to reg @ 7:45 pm, not the gentlemen @ 8:57 pm.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
“..not the gentlemen @ 8:57 pm.”
You’re so diplomatic Rob.
“…public death of the notion that we are at war with radical Islam.”
It is a war on terrorism. You used the term ‘war on radical Islam’ BB. But of course it a reasonable and logical substitution, since Islamists are in fact doing most of the terrorism. Are you saying an attack on or mainland did not warrant a war on terrorism? An attack that took more American lives than the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor?
You are also play th perpetrators game of trying to define the conflict as a religious war. How so? Who’s side are you own? Are you one of those Bush did it truthers, or one of those we deserved it truthers BB?
Or are you just a naive immature basement dweller trolling jihad sites. Stop it. It is dangerous stuff for impressionable and confuse young men trying to find themselves.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:51 am
“You are also play th perpetrators game…” is “You also play the perpetrators game…”
November 4th, 2009 at 8:57 am
“Who’s side are you own..” is “Who’s side are you on..”
November 4th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Jim’s hitting the vodka again.
Some advice, Mr. R: Log on BEFORE you get smashed. When you pour that seventh drink, shut off the computer.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Latest stuff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8296245.stm
November 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
[...] Dicking and dithering in Afghanistan [...]
November 6th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Malalai Joya is promoting her book. Next couple speaking events:
http://authors.simonandschuster.com/Malalai-Joya/49986851