…But in turning to the nation’s most prominent general, Obama has embraced a commander who may become a formidable advocate for slowing, or arresting outright, the pace of troop reductions next summer. [...] – Petraeus could provide calming influence after leadership change
Pres. Obama and the administration have succeeded in squeezing the left and the right on Afghanistan, with the vice grip tighter with the pick of Gen. Petraeus to replace McChrystal. Perhaps having Petraeus as a buffer is exactly what Obama and his national security team have in mind. According to the Times, Biden, Gen. James L. Jones, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Rahm Emanuel, who knows triangulation better than anyone in the Administration because of his Clinton years, were the most influential. Obama’s Afghanistan strategy is pure Clintonian. It has put the anti-Afghanistan war left in a box of their own making.
I’ve supported Pres. Obama’s Afghanistan strategy from the start, simply because we had to repair the damage done by the neglect of Bush-Cheney, but also because of the lift it gave women, without whom Afghanistan will never be stable. However, I’m now in a wait and see mode after McChrystal’s implosion. Along with the grim casualty reminders, which were predicted with COIN, McChrystal airing his frustrations publicly reveals a sort of pain that his strategy isn’t working. Nothing could be more obvious.
For 16 months I’ve been writing that what we’re doing in Afghanistan is nation building. Pres. Obama and his team have avoided that framing for a good reason. The COIN component allows for it, because of the military action that is coupled with the civilian interaction component, as well as other diplomatic features built in to COIN. As casualties rise, which was predicted through the COIN strategy, with little progress and the “surge” delayed, it’s clear that the U.S. and NATO allies are risking far too much for little results.
However, both the anti-Afghanistan left and right have blown it by being seduced by Pres. Obama’s “war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda/Taliban” talking point. The general American public understands this framing because of 9/11; we are also a country that doesn’t like the notion that we’ve lost a campaign, so any withdrawal or campaign against the “Afghanistan war” drives into the Administration’s framing that we must “win the war.”
But are we winning at nation building? That’s the question no one is asking, because Obama has succeeded in convincing people that’s not what we’re doing when it is.
As long as it’s framed as the “war in Afghanistan,” the right will be with Obama. However, if the right, including people like Sen. McCain was pressed on the nation building component by someone who knew the facts and wasn’t timid, he’d be in quite a fix with his Tea Party opponents.
What it would also do is get the debate where it belongs.
Anyone against the Afghanistan war, especially those openly campaigning against it, should be utilizing any variation on this theme: Why are we nation building in Afghanistan when we should be nation building at home? You could replace “at home” with “the Gulf Coast,” “by creating green jobs to get us off of oil,” the list is endless. I’m sure you have your own ideas on that theme.
Instead, the anti-Afghanistan left (and right, for that matter) is focused on the question: Can we win the war? It was shouted at Obama after his Rose Garden address yesterday and picked up by several, including Rachel Maddow. It’s the exact question Pres. Obama wants asked, because it accepts the framing that what we’re doing is a classic war situation.
For the left, nation building has always been important. However, Democrats have a history of what can happen when interventionism goes off the wheels, so they’ve been wary on this one. The problem is they’re fighting a Democratic president whose more right than left on issues of national security, though his supporters got sucked in by his anti Iraq war speech. If this weren’t true he would never have kept SecDef Gates or appointed Hillary Rodham Clinton to State. The gap between candidate Obama and Pres. Obama’s actions is what is weighing down his support.
For the right these two words, nation building, have been the battle cry against Democratic foreign policy strategy for decades. If Republicans were truly conservatives they’d pick it up and run on it in 2010 and beyond. But since they’ve been co-opted by neoconservatism they won’t. Even the Tea Party queen, Sarah Palin, has been snookered by Randy Shoeneman, with her foreign policy “strategy” anything but conservative.
Pres. Obama’s pick of Gen. Petraeus was brilliantly inspired because it keeps the framing where he wants it on “winning the war in Afghanistan,” ignoring that as we try to drive out the Taliban, who will be there long after we’re gone, what we’re actually doing is nation building.
How the American people and voters would react to Pres. Obama doing nation building in Afghanistan versus “a war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban” remains to be seen. Given our economic challenges and the money being spent in Afghanistan for such little payback, the anti-Afghanistan left should try to find out.
There is no “winning the War” in Afghanistan. Its BS. It is never going to happen.
We are spending 100 billion dollars a year in a country with a GDP of 14 billion a year. Its nuts. One would have to be high on opium to do that, but that’s another story.
In 6 months nothing will be different from the way it is today other than a few hundred more Americans would be dead and billions more would have been wasted. The Republicans would be happy of course, because their friends and allies at Blackwater and other major war contractors would still be gainfully employed and continuing to fatten themselves at the Pentagon trough. War is business.
THIS is Obama’s waterloo. The ONLY way we leave Afghanistan is when he gets the nerve to confront the neo-cons & Republicans who want never ending war. If they had their way this country would be killing Muslims forever. They actually think its good for the economy.
After yesterday, I do not expect another display of spine in the near future.
Great post!
You somewhat over simplify the position of what you call the anti war left, to which I guess I would belong. I think that the question on which many of us are focused is “can we afford this, and does it still make sense”? It doesn’t really matter if it is called a “war” which it still is to a certain extent as the Taliban are a real threat, or if you call it nation-building which would be a very worthwhile cause if we could afford it and if other countries or even the UN shared the cost and the burden.
Obama is doing both in Afghanistan, fighting against Al Quaeda and the Taliban AND nation building, in my opinion, given the challenges we face here, he should be doing neither. Europeans are against this war, their leaders (facing tough elections or having just won elections) are listening and the very few that committed are planning to withdraw, same with Canada in 2011. I really don’t understand why Obama, Clinton, Gates and all these generals feel that it is the US’s manifest destiny to fight wars that others do not want to fight even when the country cannot afford it.
Heya Isis.
fighting against Al Quaeda and the Taliban AND nation building
You’ve got it partially right, except that COIN demands that our soldiers put stopping civilian casualties above their own safety, unless they’re convinced to a certainty about the situation, which is hard to do in Afghanistan.
If the anti-Afghanistan left wants to win you *must* change the narrative & the framing. You will never succeed by asking “can we win the war?”
While my heart goes out to the women of Afghanistan and to the people in general, I think we need to do some “nation building” in our own country. I think the quote is “charity begins at home.” We are pumping billions into Afghanistan while Americans are jobless and some will be without unemployment benefits. In trying to nation build in Afghanistan, and I’m not optimistic about the success of nation building, I don’t see the Taliban going away anytime soon, throw in the corrupt Karzai government, we’ve got the makings of a mess. We need help in this country.
One day the Democrats would figure out that there is a Republican plot to squander the country’s precious resources on unnecessary wars so that the social programs that they so despise (medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, etc) can be starved or ill-afforded.
Think about it, a Republican would vote to send billions to Afghanistan while at the same time denying unemployment benefits to American citizens.
More to the point: Republicans spend lavishly on their wars so that Democrats cannot spend on their social programs. Indeed, being the responsible problem solvers that they are, Democrats are forced to cut programs.
Winning what? Afghanistan has about the same GDP as the Burlington VT metro area. That’s what we’re fighting over?
Al Qaeda is not there, and this has been acknowledged by administration spokesmen. Al Qaeda might return? There are lots of places for them to organize — Afghanistan is a transportation and communications hell hole. There’s no reason for Al Qaeda to use it as a base. It’s not like there’s a train every hour running to the mountains.
Do you realize that “uplifting women” was a CIA campaign for getting leftist support for Afghanistan? I believe you can find those documents on Wikileaks — at least that’s where I recall they were.
And why “save” the women in Afghanistan versus a ton of other places? Why not pick a place where women would have a fighting chance? Afghanistan really is a 15th century society. It’s a harsh truth but people have the government they deserve. I have read many experts say it will be almost impossible to alter that Afghan mind set. Remaining in Afghanistan is akin to running into a burning skyscraper to save a kitten. A noble gesture perhaps (though I think the gesture is nothing more than more work for our defense complex) doomed to little reward even if there is some sort of success. Better to save the kittens already in shelters. There are lots of places in Asia and Africa where there are cultural bases on which to build.
I don’t understand why you continue to support the mission there. But as Marjah’s problems continue, and as soon as the Kandahar campaign is found to be a hopeless folly, this will be all a memory.
Just think what $130 billion could do in Africa in terms of HIV work, hospital building, etc.
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf Here’s the CIA/women reference.
Note: I wrote too hastily above and wanted to clarify that I was not suggesting you were approving of a CIA position; your early support on the issue of saving women there is completely different and precedes the current cynical CIA campaign. And I too thought for a long time that saving women was a good justification for staying there past the bin Laden time. It was only after much contact with people returning from Afghanistan that I altered my position, determining that the war was unwinnable. And so is any kind of nation building. If you examine recent polls of Afghans, you’ll see NATO popularity is sinking. They want us to leave–and I can say this after having talked to Afghan experts. And this is a feeling shared across Afghan society and across the political spectrum.
I think all of your points are valid.
But to win the media campaign against Obama, Petraeus and the right, the anti-Afghanistan left *must* reframe the debate but changing the subject.
Why are we nation building in Afghanistan when we can’t afford to spend money in our own country for –fill in the blank–?
Asking the question Can we win the war? will never bring a change in policy or bring the majority of American to getting out of Afghanistan until it’s way, way, way too late.
I used 3 “ways” because I know many think it’s already too late.
Taylor, I agree with this, BUT, do you believe that “the left” can win a media campaign?
WHO leads such a campaign?
Absolutely. …and there’s no one “leader,” but many on the “left” “Dems” “progressives”, etc. want out of Afghanistan, so they’re all asking “can we win the war?” It’s the wrong question. Regardless of that they’re on the same side pushing against the Administration.
As for winning a media campaign, absolutely. They didn’t succeed on health care, but hey drove the debate so that the bill ended up a lot better than it was.
It takes time. Want proof? Read this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/105195-liberals-battle-on-defense-budget-hits-turning-point
A growing number of centrist Democrats say they’re open to trimming Pentagon spending in the face of record budget deficits and mounting public debt.
Liberal Democrats for years have called for cuts to the massive defense budget to no avail. Even after Democrats regained control of Congress in 2007, their few attempts at reining in defense spending have proven futile, partly because of opposition from centrist Democrats hawkish on defense issues.
Now that opposition is softening amid rising concern about the nation’s fiscal future and the fact that defense makes up more than half the country’s discretionary spending.
“We are going to have to adopt the philosophy that nothing can be off the table,” said Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), one of the first members of the class of 2008 to be admitted into the Blue Dog Coalition. “And that is increasingly becoming the dominant view of the Blue Dogs.” …
Taylor Marsh says:
24 June 2010 at 3:20 pm
Taylor, I think you know why I asked the questions that I did. Although I admire your persistence I do not share your faith in congressional Democrats. I could not care less what they SAY or what their present pose is at the moment what I do know is when the time comes to VOTE, they will cave. There will always be a reason for a congressional Democrat to justify NOT doing the right thing or making the hard choice. They are always able to claim “a lousy bill is better than no bill”, or something to that effect. Taylor, I have placed my hopes in these people far too often only to see it shattered to believe in them again.
All this is not to say there will not be intermittent successes, I will applaud them as I see them as I did yesterday, but to count on them? No way. Not from this bunch. Once they enter the halls of bordello that is congress we lose all influence.
So right now I root for them and I keep my eyes open for change.
One more point. Thus far, I have not seen Obama favorably influenced by pressure from the left. Indeed, he prides himself on being able to resist and defy it. Its his way of proving to Republicans that he’s tough. If he yields, he will tinker but that is all. And of course the left will take the crumbs he offers and be satisfied. It is why neither DADT nor EFCA has passed. The Republicans on the other hand, seem to know exactly how to get him to do their bidding. Imagine drilling in the Arctic.
Excellent analysis. And what about Pakistan? As long as we don’t solve the problem of Pakistan’s intelligence agency being riddled with Taliban and actively undermining our efforts in Afghanistan, we will get nowhere.
…which is why nation building doesn’t exist in a vacuum…another point that doesn’t get discussed. Nation building is a luxury when our own country is in need of jobs, infrastructure, etc. And the U.S. taxpayer appears to be footing the whole bill…But the truth is that nothing will get resolved without leadership…either on foreign policy or domestic policy…and our leader is an amateur..who listens to the gurus in Washington or academia and has no independent insight. Again, what is striking is Gen. McChrystal’s characterization of Obama’s process as uninvolved and uninformed. Look what happened in Australia when the Labor party and voters got frustrated with their leader….a strong woman was selected to actually lead. It’s an interesting development. We need to select a new leader for 2012.
I am one liberal who is for us being in Afghanistan and if I am in the minority that’s ok.
I understand everyone’s anathema to us being there and everyone has valid points for us not being there.
My reasoning for how imperative it is for us to be there is because of
these short but concise histories of our involvement with Bin Laden and the Taliban (1) http://tinyurl.com/29g4sz3 and (2) http://tinyurl.com/2ccgp45 from Carter through Bush.
If you don’t already know, Mica’s daddy played a really nasty role in all of this as you will read.
And, this mission statement from the State Department on “Empowering Women Through Education”. http://tinyurl.com/39rza9x
As I’m sure most of us know, the US has played a notorious and very large part in enabling and empowering Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan who have reigned terror on the Afghan people and especially the women and girls. I fully support the idea that it’s the women and the girls and their education which is the key to stabilizing a country.
Are women and girls abused and terrorized in other countries? Yes, of course. Africa is notorious and has the highest incidences of the rape of women than any other Continent. But, I truly believe we have a moral responsibility for being in Afghanistan because we were in part responsible for the women and girls being terrorized there and for destabilizing that country.
Am I living on another planet and don’t think there are other reasons why we are fighting in Afghanistan other than helping the people live a terror free life especially women and girls? No, I also believe we are there because of the history of Afghanistan as a weigh station for the religious hysterics and thugs in Pakistan (and other rouge thugs)many of whom are still part of the military and the real fear that they will get hold of nuclear weapons that will pose a threat to the US and India at the least. And, to form an alliance with the corrupt Karzai who will change partners with those thugs (as he’s threatened already) unless he feels we are there to help. (Don’t think I don’t realize how full Peatreus’ hands are.) Also, we’ve known for a long time that Afghanistan is rich in minerals even if it has only recently come to light to a wider audience. I realize that we’ve been in countries before not only fighting the Commies and promoting the domino theory but to gain access to their resources. Viet Nam and Chile come to mind.
But, I have to believe our purpose there is overwhelmingly for nation building one of the most important steps in getting there the education and empowerment of girls and women and defanging/declawing the Taliban.
I don’t think COIN has been used as it was meant to be used since the nation building part of this engagement has not really begun full speed ahead meaning the diplomatic part of COIN.
I think Peatraus will take a step back and reassess where we are and make the necessary changes in the engagement to a more fully implemented COIN.
I also think he will need more than one year to accomplish this. But, I think we can at least give him a chance to see if he can try to turn things around for the reasons I annotated in my belief we have a moral obligation to being there.
I also realize I’m safe and not in harm’s way by being in country so it’s easy for me to sit here and express my opinion while my compatriots are in harm’s way. And, I feel every bit as passionately about those men and women (who have sacrificed so much and have had some success but not as much as we all would want) as I feel for the girls and women whose very existence is so precarious.
But, our moral obligation over there is paramount for me.