John McCain and Joe Lieberman Learned Nothing

So they decided to get together and prove it by writing a Post op-ed today on “winning in Afghanistan.” As someone who wants a limited troop increase, but most importantly more soft power and civilian involvement, which is exactly what Obama is doing, I find myself once again smack in the middle, between the “get out group” and the “we must win” coalition. There is no “winning” in Afghanistan, there is only losing the country and a failed state if we don’t stay engaged. However, with Joe and John pushing “winning” in Afghanistan, I’m going to make sure their position is not confused with mine or what Obama is about to do. Segue to John and Joe, the “we can win in Afghanistan” coalition.

The political allure of such a reductionist approach is obvious. But it is also dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it. Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success — a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary — can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever “middle way” that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security.

The delusion in this op-ed is as unyielding and it is frightening.

Not once do you get any hint of how different Afghanistan is than Iraq, and that’s just for starters.

The authors of this ludicrously overoptimistic op-ed never acknowledge that a central government in Afghanistan will never lead to our “success,” and they never mention the Taliban. Their “winning” prescription is a stupendously naive old school prescription, which has never worked before.

But I do agree with one thing, we do need a “comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency approach,” though we can all do without the “greatly increased resources and an unambiguous U.S. political commitment to success in Afghanistan over the long haul” rhetoric. Conveniently, John and Joe never say where those “increased resources” will come from.

Obama and his team have other ideas.

For starters, Peter W. Galbraith is going to be announced as deputy to Norwegian Kai Eide, the head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. This is a huge move by President Obama, which will become fodder for the wingnuts, simply for investing energy alongside the U.N. Secretary Clinton’s State Department is headed to make hundreds of civilians part of our Afghanistan mission. Call it a “civilian surge” if you like, but it’s clearly putting the focus on something other than what has been done before. Francis J. Ricciardone will be headed to Kabul as deputy ambassador.

[...] Obama has pledged to improve the civil-military balance in U.S. operations, and to put more of a civilian face on development and governance efforts. Although the overall civilian deployment plan for Afghanistan awaits Obama’s approval, the State Department has already solicited applications for 51 new positions it expects to fill by July. Up to 300 additional civilians are anticipated under the strategy proposals.

… In addition to increasing its own civilian component, the administration seeks better coordination among the many other governments and international and nongovernmental agencies operating in Afghanistan, often with different rules and objectives. The strategy proposals include a strengthening of the United Nations as a clearinghouse and overall coordinator of nonmilitary efforts…

Muscular diplomacy, led by Clinton’s State Department, and civilians inside Afghanistan will certainly make a big target for enemies, which President Obama no doubt knows. The next issue will be to make certain they’re protected.

There is a brief mention of Pakistan in the article, where our options are few, the risks great, and the chance for improvement minimal, with no military option there at all. That’s likely one reason Obama is putting so much energy into Afghanistan. But also because after 9/11 Bush broke it we never fixed what we screwed up through negligence due to the war in Iraq.

Oh, and before you get any misconceptions remember that there is no guarantee this strategy will work, but it’s the best idea we’ve got. But don’t expect our involvement to end soon. This is a long haul civil-military commitment based on a strategy that is yet untested. Shorter: it’s risky.

To add, Spencer Ackerman thinks we’ve got consensus, with John and Joe basically arguing the conservative version of what Obama’s going to do anyway. I think there’s more to it, but he’s got a point.