“… and we need to really, really put to bed the issue that I think is behind everybody, which that this is another Vietnam. And I think it’s a terribly debilitating analogy for our country. Every time something is difficult we say Oh! It’s Vietnam. Afghanistan and Vietnam have nothing to do with each other. The whole world is on our side in Afghanistan. The world was clearly not on our side in Vietnam. The people in Afghanistan prefer an outcome that’s not the Taliban. While in Vietnam, as you know, the situation was different. So, let’s take that analogy and throw it out of the window and deal with the facts on the ground. It’s going to be hard enough with those facts to win the argument.” – Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesman (today on “Morning Joe”)
Mr. Rubin said it better than I ever could. It’s an argument I’ve been having over several months with people from all over the spectrum, including the respected Middle East expert Juan Cole. (Here’s our back and forth we had over Juan’s “Obama’s Vietnam” back in January.) We need to remove the knee jerk Vietnam description if we’re going to evaluate Afghanistan correctly.
That said, the most stunning thing to be heard from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen was that the political and military decision making and leadership on Afghanistan during Bush-Cheney was “very badly under-resourced.” This is what put Pres. Obama and his administration in the position they’re in today. Let’s remember this the next time someone says Afghanistan is Obama’s war, which it may well be. But what he inherited from Bush-Cheney is making his job much harder, which is now no longer in doubt.
… Mullen said the United States has “very badly under-resourced Afghanistan for the better part of five years.” He said it’s “very clear we need more resources to execute the president’s strategy,” though Mullen said he’d await McChrystal’s report “to evaluate specifically what that means.”
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., warned about comparing Afghanistan to Iraq, saying Iraq is “used to a strong central government” and that Afghanistan “has never been governed centrally.” Mullen said he favors a “relatively weak central government that isn’t corrupt.” …
As Mullen implies at the end of his quote above, one of the biggest challenges we face is an incredibly corrupt Karzai government, which is making our efforts a whole lot tougher.
Spencer Ackerman reports that the report from McChrystal may be presented in a manner that leaves Obama room to actually perform his civilian commander in chief role, rather than automatically being told what needs to be done from the military, with the inherent expectations to follow them no matter what implied. Below is a pertinent section, but the whole piece should be read.
Pending Obama’s approval of McChrystal’s strategy review, the subsequent resource request will present “several different ways forward, with [a presentation of] the risks and benefits of each,” said one U.S. official. “It wouldn’t neccessarily be ‘here is the way to do it,’ but rather really hashing through a combination of approaches for what makes sense.”
Support for the war in Afghanistan is waning, with leading Democrats like Karl Levin very skeptical about escalating further.
Meanwhile, leading conservatives wrote an open letter to Pres. Obama last week imploring him to “Properly Resource War Effort in Afghanistan.”
Today, Pres. Obama is scheduled to have what can only be interpreted as a serious meeting with former general Colin Powell; the timing of which presents an opportunity to fully discuss Afghanistan. A national security issue that will likely prove to be one of Pres. Obama’s most important decisions.
Escalate and put in more resources or continue the current course, surging on Afghanistan training, while getting more civilian aid to the people. Never giving up the cause of aiding the release from bondage of the Afghan women and girls, something I contend is as important as any mission we’ve got in the world.
Comments are closed.