Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama’s war, Your war, Our war

By

NYT:

President Obama has decided to expedite the deployment of 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, in an effort to reverse the momentum of Taliban gains and create urgency for the government in Kabul to match the American surge with one using its own forces, according to senior administration officials.

Is this the Afghanistan policy you voted for in 2008?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. President Obama is about to stake his presidency on the viability of victory.

    <

    p>The verbiage of the address on Monday is going to be crucial. Where the Bush administration went wrong with Iraq (atleast in the PR game) was with the term “win” and by extension, “victory.” We were constantly reminded that the Iraq War was “winnable” but we never knew quite what that meant. Because Obama has committed to this “surge”, he’ll have to justify that, and I highly doubt he’s going to stick it to Bush. I believe he wants to appear “strong” and for that reason he’s going to use those previously mentioned words. If he doesn’t drag Bush in, what other option does he have but to seek “victory”?

    <

    p>The question isn’t whether victory is possible, but whether it’s viable in the hearts and minds of Americans.

    <

    p>I would urge the president to be careful.  Iraq is not Afghanistan.  

    • I really wish that politicians would find some other ways to appear ‘strong’ besides spilling young people’s blood. Especially since it does not make them look strong; it makes them look feeble-minded.

      <

      p>Where’s the damned change?

  2. It’s not what I voted for last fall. It sounds frighteningly close to the prior administration’s “surge” plan.

    <

    p>On the other hand, President Obama has access to a wealth of information and data that I don’t have. While it’s true that we’ve driven AQ out of Afghanistan, it’s also true that we’ve driven them into Pakistan. If the Pakistani government falls, we are faced with a Muslim Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons that harbors AQ (and Bin Laden).

    <

    p>I find it difficult to believe that the Afghanistan situation can be treated independently from the situation in Pakistan — not to mention the rest of the Muslim world. The prior administration did grave harm to US standing and influence in the Muslim world. As horrific as Saddam Hussein was, his government was secular and offered the strongest and most steadfast obstacle to Iranian and Muslim extremism.

    <

    p>The Taliban is a horrific political force whose agenda is repugnant to any civilized person. The average Afghan is, however, more concerned about the warlord that controls his or her neighborhood than anything the Taliban or the US does — unless the US makes the mistake of becoming the invading foreign occupier.

    <

    p>I think it’s time to listen to those who live in Afghanistan, who speak the language, who have grown up in the culture. I, frankly, don’t feel that you, me, or anyone else here meets that criteria. I certainly hope (and assume) that President Obama is in close contact with those who do. I’m quite certain that Barrack Obama has listened more carefully and has a firmer grip on the reality of the situation than his predecessor.

    <

    p>I believe there are no simple answers in Afghanistan or the Middle East. I want to listen to President Obama has to say.

    • *[new] No (0.00 / 0)

      It’s not what I voted for last fall.

      <

      p>I voted for a guy who said he’d take the process and decisions with a sober-minded focus and wouldn’t attempt to diminish the seriousness of the situation with a PR campaign designed to disguise the fact that a decision had already been reached.   I don’t agree with the outcome, but can’t say I feel entitled be all that upset about it.

      <

      p>

      It sounds frighteningly close to the prior administration’s “surge” plan

      <

      p>The outcomes are similar in shape and numbers, to be sure, but where the prior administration made a show of gathering opinions and views only to ignore them, I think the opposite is true with respect to the present administration.: it’s clear he Obama’s thought the thing thru about as much as can be done.  

  3. During the campaign, Obama was clear about his intentions to raise the troop levels so as to “win” in Afghanistan, as opposed to the previous administration’s policy of stringing it along at a low level.

    • I voted for and enthusiastically support President Obama. I opposed his intention to seek a “win” in Afghanistan.

      <

      p>I want to hear him out.

  4. I’m willing to listen to what he says, and I’m willing to say if I don’t like it. I hope he defines a clear goal, something achievable in a fairly short period.

  5. Aside from the obvious – putting my friends and family further in harm’s way, wasting the nation’s money, etc – Obama’s decision on Afghanistan displays a disturbing trend in his governance.  The President has constantly sought to govern from the center, but too often that intention has left him doing things halfway.  Thirty or thirty-five thousand troops will not be a true game-changer in Afghanistan.  It will not create the kind of victory that will allow us to leave sooner.  And, it is far from a withdrawal strategy that would be the other path out.  Just like the stimulus and health care, Obama’s plan on the war does both too much and not enough.

    <

    p>Half the country will not be satisfied with a continued war, a sluggish recovery, and an intangible health care reform (if the delay in implementation goes through) in 2010 and 2012.  The other half will be upset about a too small troop commitment, and ‘too much’ government intervention in the economy and health care.

    <

    p>This is a recipe for failure.

    <

    p>PS –  Call Senator Kerry’s office to urge he not flip sides to support the war (617) 565-8519 or (202) 224-2742.

    • I have stated this elsewhere but I can’t agree more with your statement. When you have a losing hand you either fold or go all in. Either way is more effective than just dumping a few more chips down the drain. In this case those chips are valuable American lives and dollars that can’t be replaced.

      <

      p>I find two ironies in tonight’s speech. The first is that Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln and lauds his divided cabinet model. The problem is, Lincoln also kept governing from the center and the North lost a fairly winnable war because Lincoln was unable to commit early to a total war strategy like General Scott argued. It was not until the Army of the Potomac kept losing battle after battle because it fought limited engagements where the Union advantage in arms, men, and supplies was eclipsed by the South’s advantages in commanders, morale, and knowledge of the terrain that Lincoln finally gave Grant and Sherman the commands, the two generals that had been consistently fighting a total war in the West and it was they that won it.
      Obama seems to be committing the same errors Lincoln did for the very same reasons.

      <

      p>Similarly LBJ made the same mistake. He knew the left wanted out and the far right wanted to start dropping A-bombs. He tried to keep the New Deal center together by waging a limited war but again waging a limited campaign ended up negating the US advances-just like the South the VC had better commanders, morale, and knowledge of the terrain and were able to at least force the US into a stalemate. LBJ placed limitations on where bombers could fly, where they could bomb, and who soldiers could open fire on to make a ‘cleaner’ war for the American people to stomach. Obviously it failed miserably, it also left LBJ politically isolated since the hawks deserted him for Wallace and Nixon and the doves deserted him for Gene and Bobby.

      <

      p>Obama is committing an error that will simply continue the stalemate in Afghanistan wasting the incoming casualties he is sending over and boxing himself in politically at home. Already the challenges from the left are emerging over the airwaves, and to be sure soon the McCains and Kristol’s will be urging further escalations.

  6. In July 2008 (and consistent with his message throughout the entire primary and general campaings), Obama said:

    <

    p>”The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism,”

    <

    p>He continued (these are all direct quotes from a Face the Nation appereance):

    <

    p>”I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq,” he said.

    <

    p>On troop levels, he added:

    <

    p>”For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three. I think it’s very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities.”

    <

    p>Now it’s your turn, Bob.  

    <

    p>Show me, please, anywhere at all, that Candidate Obama said, suggested or implied that his policy in Afghnastan would be any different than that which he has pursued throughout 2009 and/or the 2010 plan he will reportedly announce tonight.

    <

    p>I honestly don’t understand the point of your post.

      • What happened to “reality-based commentary”?

        <

        p>I agreed with his campaign stances on almost everything, strongly agreed with most, and strongly disagreed with his position on Afghanistan.

        <

        p>So I voted for him — and not for Afghanistan.

        <

        p>Isn’t that what we do around here?

      • I paid pretty careful attention to what he said on the campaign trail. He said we needed to finish the war against Al Qaeda. If that group has now been driven out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan, the logic of his prior position suggests that he should advocate a focus on Pakistan. If he has decided to start a new war against the Taliban — who are not the same as Al Qaeda and, while they have harbored terrorists have not themselves attacked the US homeland to the best of my knowledge — I suggest that is different from anything he suggested during the campaign.

        • than for the President to say he’s going to focus efforts on attacking targets in Pakistan?

          <

          p>That is basically insane.

      • Just like they are supporting the idea of Khazei as opposed to the results and records of Capuano.

        • There may be some people who have pinned all their hopes and dreams on Khazei, but in general he is a wonkish lefty candidate running as a wonkish lefty candidate supported by people who recognize him as such.

          <

          p>With Obama, there were many people who never dug deeper than the “Hope” and “Change” rhetoric and therefore ascribed to him all sorts of policy positions that he never espoused.  I don’t see the same thing happening with Khazei.

    • AP 9/11/09:

      <

      p>

      The top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan said Friday he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country, but says the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents.

      <

      p>I voted for Obama to win the war against Al Qaeda, who are the central actors in the war formerly known as the GWOT, which is what he is talking about in the quotations you cite.

      <

      p>I did not vote for him to begin a new US involvement in a civil war against the Taliban.

      <

      p>If al-Qaida is gone from Afghanistan, so is Obama’s argument, at least as he made it on the campaign trail, for the US presence there.

      <

      p>It will be interesting to see what he comes up with tonight.

      • I invite you to read Obama’s major speech given July 15, 2008 in which he clearly lays out a robust Afghanistan policy entirely consistent with the policies he has pursued as President.  

        <

        p>Full text here:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html

        <

        p>A few highlights for you and the rest who cannot seem to remember who it is they voted for:

        <

        p>”[A]s President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

        <

        p>”Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.”

        <

        p>”Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made – not just in Kabul – but out in Afghanistan’s provinces…The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.”

        <

        p>Semantic games aside, Obama was very clear that the War in Afghnistan would continue and be expanded under his watch.

        <

        p>Agree or disgree with the underlying policy, there was none of the deception you imply from candidate Obama.

        • From the campaign’s Blueprint for Change:

          <

          p>

          Finish the Fight Against Al Qaeda and the Taliban

          Obama has been calling for more troops and resources for the mission in Afghanistan for years. Obama and Biden will refocus America on the greatest threat to our security – the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. …

          Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

          The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban is resurgent in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2008 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks. …

          Get on the Right Battlefield

          Obama will end the war in Iraq responsibly and focus on the right battlefield in Afghanistan. He will deploy at least two additional combat brigades and $1 billion in additional non-military aid to Afghanistan. He will condition U.S. military aid to Pakistan on their making progress to close down training camps, evict foreign fighters and prevent cross border attacks. He will ensure U.S. military aid provides the Pakistani Army the training and capability to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda. If the United States has actionable intelligence on the location of high value terrorist targets like Osama bin Laden and Pakistan will not or cannot act on it, the United States will.

          <

          p>It sounds to me from all that as though al Qaeda was the target (note the sub-head “Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan”) and the Taliban was something we had to go through to get at them. The new policy sounds like it’s al Qaeda OR the Taliban, and that the war in Afghanistan will continue until BOTH are crushed.

          <

          p>I agree your interpretation, which I take it is the latter, is perfectly plausible.

          • Candidate Obama (whom I strongly supported, BTW) was pretty clear that the War in Afgahnistan should and would be expanded if he became President.

            <

            p>While candidate Obama perhaps too-often emphasized the easier applause line (“we must defeat the terrorists”), he also made it very clear that he believes “the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.”  

            <

            p>Even more telling then the ubiquitous “and the Taliban” lines was the very strong emphasis on the Marshall plan.

            <

            p>The Marshall plan was  “nation building.”  Along these lines, candidate Obams stressed that defeating al-Qaeda,  was a phyric victory unless we ” join overwhelming military strength with sound judgment.”  He stated clearly that refocusing our efforts from Iraq to Afghanistan “would shape events not just through military force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence and diplomacy.”

            <

            p>In applauding the Marshall plan, candidate Obama makes it clear that President Obama would use the War in Afghanistan to promote “our ideals of liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law.”

            <

            p>I expect a speech tonight that recognizes the progress made in forcing al-Qaeda to move in to neighboring Pakistan but that returns to the general Marshall-plan themes in arguing for a renewed efforts to bring security, democracy, and lasting peace to Afghanistan.

            <

            p>    

            • alongside those other ideals (democracy, liberty, the rule of law) sounds a little off-key. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about Afghanistan’s import/export policies, so long as people don’t suffer unduly as a result of those policies. i would rank “protection of human rights” and “equality under the law” over “open markets” any day of the week.

      • …the TALIBAN gave al-Qaeda sanctuary in regions of Afghanistan controlled by them?  Pakistan and Sudan did not.  Yes, Bob, the Taliban is absolutely a key enemy of ours in the GWOT.  This isn’t about civil war; we could have entered that fight long before 9/11.  Only when we were attacked did we get involved and with very good reason.  Even if al-Qaeda is currently not active (I have a hard time believing them to be completely gone.) they could easily come back on the heels of a resurgent Taliban, which we must take all necessary and proper steps to prevent.

        • We didn’t attack Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, despite their brutality, and presumably we wouldn’t attack them now either but for Al Qaeda, which according to our top commander is no longer in Afghanistan.

          <

          p>Our fight is with AQ. The Taliban is incidental. Or was, until Obama took charge, apparently.

        • You write as if we are in the midst of a game of Risk with well-defined sovereign boundaries, clearly colored chips, and where everybody knows who everybody else is.

          <

          p>When we “crushed” the Taliban and AQ, we essentially moved them into the western provinces of Pakistan — where they receive widespread local support. The government in Pakistan is unstable, corrupt, and has nuclear weapons. If you believe that the Pakistani people support the goals of crushing Al Qaeda and the Taliban, I fear you are sadly misinformed.

          <

          p>The Pakistani government and military have consistently and relentlessly resisted US pressure to rein in the Taliban and AQ. They do so because their own grip on the Pakistani people is itself very tenuous. I invite you to read this, from earlier this year, for more specifics (emphasis mine):

          American missile strikes have reduced Al Qaeda’s global reach but heightened the threat to Pakistan as the group disperses its cells here and fights to maintain its sanctuaries, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

          The officials acknowledge that the strikes and raids by the Pakistani military are proving effective, having killed as many as 80 Qaeda fighters in the past year. But they express growing alarm that the drone strikes in particular are having an increasingly destabilizing effect on their country.

          They also voiced fears that the expected arrival of 17,000 American troops in Afghanistan this spring and summer would add to the stresses by pushing more Taliban fighters into Pakistan.

          <

          p>Here is another datapoint, also from earlier this year:

          As Taliban militants push deeper into Pakistan’s settled areas, foreign operatives of Al Qaeda who had focused on plotting attacks against the West are seizing on the turmoil to sow chaos in Pakistan and strengthen the hand of the militant Islamist groups there, according to American and Pakistani intelligence officials.
          (snip)
          Intelligence officials say the Taliban advances in Swat and Buner, which are closer to Islamabad than to the tribal areas, have already helped Al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts. The officials say the group’s recruiting campaign is currently aimed at young fighters across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia who are less inclined to plan and carry out far-reaching global attacks and who have focused their energies on more immediate targets.

          “They smell blood, and they are intoxicated by the idea of a jihadist takeover in Pakistan,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former analyst for the C.I.A. who recently led the Obama administration’s policy review of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

          <

          p>There is similar dark news from a more recent October report (emphasis mine):

          Analysts see the potential for a countermove relying on Punjabi militants to unleash a wave of terrorist strikes in Islamabad, the capital, and Punjab’s largest cities, Lahore and the garrison city of Rawalpindi.

          “In terms of difficulty, this is high up on the chart,” said Khalid Aziz, an Islamabad-based defense analyst and a former chief secretary of the North-West Frontier Province, which oversees South Waziristan and the other tribal areas. “Punjab is beginning to crop up as a real issue. . . . This could be highly destabilizing.”

          In recent months, the U.S. has pushed the Pakistani government to forge ahead with an offensive in Waziristan. President Obama now is considering a shift in focus of the war in Afghanistan to emphasize Al Qaeda rather than the Taliban as the biggest threat to American security. However, the Pakistani Taliban has been a major source of destabilization in Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism.

          <

          p>We find ourselves in the very difficult position of needing to wage war on our ally in order to protect our interests in the region — in other words, we need to destroy the village in order to save it. If we are not extraordinarily careful, we may find ourselves in the position of occupying Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan — simultaneously. That sounds like a course that results in the defeat of the American Empire — and if so, we won’t be the first western power to founder on the dangerous rocks of the region.

          <

          p>We’ve been down this road before. Some of us remember it.

          • “The government in Pakistan is unstable, corrupt, and has nuclear weapons.”

            <

            p>Although Pakistan is basically a basket case, the so-called government has questionable control over the nuclear weapons.  As far as I can tell, the ISI (military intelligence) controls the button, and they don’t particularly trust any of the civilians in charge.

            • I do tend to assume that the military and the government come together — a rash assumption in Pakistan.

              <

              p>So I guess that leaves us with a Pakistan who’s government is unstable and corrupt, and with a military that is (a) not under the control of a civilian government and (b) has nuclear weapons.

              <

              p>Thanks for helping me feel better 🙂

              • When you look at the procession of kakistocrats leading Pakistan recently (an anti-democratic general, followed by the unprepared widow of an inspiring yet corrupt family scion — and those are the best faces on those regimes), you should feel better.  I trust the Pakistani military more than the government, frankly.  Same as in Turkey.

                • I think President Obama has partnered with the Pakistani military to squeeze the Taliban/AQ — I think the Pakistani’s push from the east, while we keep the back door closed under the cover of “protecting Afghanistan.” I don’t think President Obama does or should care what happens to the government in Afghanistan.

                  <

                  p>I think the threat to US security comes from a Taliban/AQ Jihad based in western Pakistan and armed with Pakastani nuclear weapons — and I think President Obama has laid out an effective (while nuanced) strategy for addressing that threat.

                  <

                  p>I support the approach President Obama presented last night.

          • …I’m talking about Afghanistan.  I think Obama understands the Pakistani situation, which is a lot more important than my understanding it.  However, from what I’ve heard I would dispute your suggestion that the people are all lining up behing al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

            • that’s the problem. I think President Obama, the Pakistani military, and the Obama administration are three moves ahead of you.

              <

              p>He is proposing to deploy the US surge at the Afghanistan/Pakistan border — precisely where they are needed to block a Taliban/AQ return to Afghanistan as they are pressured by the Pakistani military to leave Pakistan. So long as the Pakistani nuclear weapons remain in the hands of the Pakastani military, the civilian government doesn’t matter.

              <

              p>My perception is that the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan line up behind whoever is (a) least different from them and (b) kills the smallest number of them. I don’t think they care the slightest about government or politics. I think they fear warlords and foreign invaders.

              <

              p>That’s why I think it is far better for the assault against the Taliban/AQ of Pakistan to come from the Pakistani military, and that’s why I think the best role for the US military is to defend the border from the Taliban/AQ “invaders”.

              <

              p>I share you opinion that President Obama knows and understands more about the Pakastani situation than either of us, and that’s why I support the strategy he articulated last night.

              • Maybe it was each other’s comments we were misinterpreting or maybe at least one of us wasn’t being very articulate.  I too very much support the strategy he outlined at West Point.

        • I suppose the oil pipeline was as good a reason as any reason to go to War can be, but let us not pretend that this war was in any way justified. I should imagine most readers of this blog, at least, realize how the war with Afghanistan was planned at least a year preceding 9-11 for reasons Brzezinski noted in “The Grand Chessboard” of 1997.

          <

          p>How quickly we have forgotten. The Taleban had offered to try bin Laden before a court of Sharia law as an initial point of negotiation – and instead of negotiating, we just turned around and destroyed as many civilian lives as we possibly could.

          • The war was absolutely justified by 9/11 (not to mention African embassies, USS Cole, etc.) and I for one reacted to our invasion by saying it’s about time!  You’ll need to cite that there was a plan for Afghanistan prior to that because the only other time we slapped them around a bit was in 1998 and Clinton got grief for allegedly “wagging the dog”.  I distinctly remember the Taliban being offered a chance to co-operate which they turned down, but Pakistan and Sudan took us up on.  Pakistan joined our effort and Sudan expelled al-Qaeda, and therefore were not targeted by us.

            • US ‘planned attack on Taleban’ 18 September, 2001

              By the BBC’s George Arney

              A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s attacks.

              Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

              • First I’m hearing it, but I’m probably not as upset by it as you are since I think Afghanistan had it coming for a while.  I guess 9/11 proved we couldn’t delay any longer.

                • News to me that thousands of innocents somehow had it coming

                  <

                  p>3200 slain as a result “starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones”, by January 2002

                  <

                  p>From 1,067 and 1,201 slain by the bombing campaign from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002

                  <

                  p>20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion, per the Guardian

                  <

                  p>From October 7, 2001 to June 3, 2003, 3,100 to 3,600 civilians killed directly by US forces

                  <

                  p>O, what a glorious War this was!

                • …how to hit back at a country in the way we need to sometimes without ANY innocents suffering I’d love to hear it.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki did quite a bit of civilian damage too, but brought a swift end to WWII.

                • Your post suggests that the nation itself was somehow culpable for what the Taleban did or did not do, and it suggests that the Taleban played a role in orchestrating 9-11

                  <

                  p>Neither is true

                • The Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan absent a functioning government.  Said regime also gave haven to the orchestrators of 9/11 and refused to co-operate/repent when given the chance.  So yes, you basically do interpret my comments correctly and I stand by them.

                • I have often been puzzled at your apparent warphilia, Christopher. Now I think it may be that you think of other countries as being no more than their governments. Some of us try to remember that those countries are also people, who often have no influence on their governments whatsoever. They are, in effect, hostages held by their government.

                  <

                  p>When another country uses the full force of its military against that government, many of those hostages are inevitably killed. If it were a domestic hostage situation, where some group of desperadoes held a bank full of bystanders hostage, a police assault that got a bunch of the hostages killed would be considered a failure. That’s how I look at the attack on Afghanistan – a failure, because of the use of warfare.

                  <

                  p>Do you honestly think that the Bush Administration exhausted every avenue short of war to end the Taliban harboring Bin Laden? I don’t.

                  <

                  p>Taliban Envoy Seeks Negotiation With US – Thursday, March 22, 2001

                  <

                  p>Earlier this month, [Oct., 2001] President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over,” Bush said.

                  “We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one,” said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. “We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities.”
                  . . .
                  “We never heard what they were trying to say,” said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. “We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.'”
                  . . .
                  “Every time the Afghans said, ‘He’s lost again,’ they are saying something. They are saying, ‘He’s no longer under our protection,’ ” Bearden said. “They thought they were signaling us subtly, and we don’t do signals.”
                  . . .
                  “I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,” Bearden said of bin Laden. “It never clicked.”

                • Bush is another story, but I think he was right on this one.  We did give the Taliban a chance to mend their ways and were EXTREMELY patient with them given previous harborings of al-Qaeda while they were planning other attacks.  If we were talking about Iraq I’d agree with you, but by your standard we would never have any war even when there’s no other way.  Your Abraham-pleading-for-Sodom tactic may be noble in the abstract, but again was every resident of Hiroshima and Nagasaki guilty of war crimes?  I’m all for narrowly targeted strikes to take out specific sites which our intelligence says ae relevant, BTW.  I’m not sure I would consider a situation where hostages dying would be a complete failure, though certainly tragic.  Part of me thinks that if the police go in with the attitude of we will kill the perpetrator if we have to regardless of other casualties, others considering the same would be detered knowing that the taking of hostages is no longer a bargaining chip.  Really, though, I have no desire to go to war and I wouldn’t try to make up excuses like Bush did on Iraq.  If we really did ever all beat our swords into ploughshares I could not be happier.

                • We did give the Taliban a chance to mend their ways

                  <

                  p>The Taleban hoped to negotiate. The Bush administration did not. At various junctures, the Taleban offered to try bin Laden within a court of Sharia law (rejected outright), and then to deport him to a neutral third state (rejected outright). They felt an obligation owing to pashtunwali to provide sanctuary to a returning war hero who helped liberate Afghanistan from Soviet occupation, and were quite understandably reluctant to hand him over to a US president who declared him guilty even before the evidence was in.

                  <

                  p>Indeed, the Taleban ultimately had agreed to deport bin Laden to the US to answer for his crimes – IF the Bush administration would only but provide them with evidence of his culpability. This, the Bush administration resolutely refused to do. Being undoubtedly quite familiar with cultural obligations of pashtunwali, the Bush administration surely well understood that the Taleban would feel honor bound to decline if this evidence was not provided

                  <

                  p>He wanted this war. He compelled it.

                • As usual.

                  <

                  p>Christopher, if you object to being called a warphiliac, I suggest you stop apologizing for our use of it.

                  <

                  p>Our clumsy use of warfare has caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and has made the rest of the world view us with apprehension and disdain.

                • Unfortunately, I do believe action against Afghanistan was necessary, but warphilia makes it sound like a positive good, which I don’t believe.  Philia is the Greek root for love, remember, and I certainly do not love war!  You’re also wrong about the rest of the world when it came to Afghanistan.  NATO invoked Article V for the first time ever in our defense (rather than us coming to Europe’s defense which was the original assumption) and I don’t remember any nation, even those not big fans of ours, objecting to our course.  You are looking through the prism of eight years of horrible policy pursued by a bullying administration whereas I remember what was being said AT THE TIME.  It was Iraq most recently, but also our other meddling, that has led to the “apprehension and disdain”.  I don’t deny that there are plenty of things we have done over the past decades that provoke this attitude (and rightfully so, frankly), but Afghanistan isn’t one of them.  PLEASE do not put words in my mouth or tell me what my attitude is.  I can respect what appears to be ideological pacifism on your part, but I’m trying to keep this discussion, as they say, “reality-based”.

                • Since you did not know that Bush planned to invade Afghanistan long before 9/11, and did not know that the Taliban were trying to negotiate right up to the invasion, I do not think your support of that invasion is reality-based.

                  <

                  p>Afghanistan isn’t one of the clumsy uses of war that led to our being perceived the way we are? Not the first year, maybe. Eight years later, we’re not looking so great. Thank Bush for the most of that, certainly, but we aren’t doing any better under Obama. I’m not ‘wrong’ about the rest of the world thinking we’ve botched it. You may argue that the original purpose of the invasion justified it. I don’t agree, but whatever. That original purpose has nothing to do with why we’re still there. AQ is done. OBL is somewhere else, if he’s still alive.

                  <

                  p>I don’t have to put words in your mouth, nor have I done so. We’ve gone around on this before. I say our wars are making life Hell for innocent people, and you come back with some justification for why it’s worth it. You don’t seem to see the human cost.

                • There you go again, trying to say what I see and don’t see.  The situation certainly has changed in eight years, but we can’t just say never mind and leave a country we invaded a mess.  President Bush was wrong to not focus on Afghanistan and get us out more quickly rather than go to Iraq.  President Obama is doing yeoman’s work trying to clean up President Bush’s mess.  BTW, do you have access to intelligence the rest of us don’t, because I for one don’t know where bin Laden is, but it DOES seem al-Qaeda still has some presence there?

                  <

                  p>All I can say finally is for crying out loud, YES I KNOW war is hell for innocents, and YES it’s sometimes justified anyway, and NO those two statements are NOT mutually exclusive!  I have learned some interesting things about 2001, but given that I can’t turn back the clock I am comfortable with our decision given that ultimately we could not negotiate our way out of being hit.  I’m not terribly upset that plans were being discussed before 9/11 and since I wouldn’t trust the Taliban farther than I can throw them I am sceptical to say the least of crediting them with negotiations.  I’m sorry, but we can’t just keep subjecting ourselves to that.  We turned the other cheek often enough already.

                  <

                  p>We obviously disagree, but I firmly believe that we were right at first, right again now (post West Point), and negligent (and yes, maybe clumsy too) in between.  Until recently Afghanistan was almost universally seen as the “good war” and before this year I think I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I encountered who opposed this action.  Obama campaigned on refocusing on Afghanistan, so I don’t understand the disappointment and surprise, though I sometimes think primary supporters of Obama based that support entirely on a single 2002 speech opposing the war in Iraq against two other first-tier candidates who voted for authorization, and extrapolated from that what they wanted to.

                • There you go again, trying to say what I see and don’t see.

                  You even quoted my use of the word ‘seem.’ You do not seem to see the suffering caused by the policies you favor.

                  BTW, do you have access to intelligence the rest of us don’t, because I for one don’t know where bin Laden is, but it DOES seem al-Qaeda still has some presence there?

                  Maybe I do:

                  Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

                  I sometimes think primary supporters of Obama based that support entirely on a single 2002 speech opposing the war in Iraq against two other first-tier candidates who voted for authorization, and extrapolated from that what they wanted to.

                  Yet you claim I’m putting words in your mouth.

                • That last paragraph of mine which you blockquoted above was a more general statement, not necessarily refering to you.

                • Yet a great many within Afghanistan have been urging that we leave precisely because we can’t help but leave a mess.

                  <

                  p>Malalai Joya has consistently defied the Taleban in providing feminist education and has long been a stalwart and very vocal critic of the warlords and drug lords that infest the Karzai government. Our presence there continues to bolster his government. How does this not create its own mess? This is how Joya has described the government that we’re supporting in Afghanistan: “a group of warlords, criminals, who [waged the] civil war in Afghanistan from ’92 to ’96. They are photocopies of Taliban, but with suit and tie, talking about democracy.”

                  <

                  p>Regarding that argument that our continued involvement is the principle roadblock against a Taleban takeover, Joya has noted that our continued involvement actually strengthens the Taleban and provides it a popular base who view them as the primary resistance movement against foreign occupation. Here’s a recent article by her from the Guardian:

                  <

                  p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…

                • Corporate owned American media seemed largely consumed with beating the war drums rather than actually practicing journalism.

                  <

                  p>BBC News reported 9/12/01: “The Taleban’s ambassador to neighbouring Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, told reporters when asked about Mr Bin Laden’s possible extradition: “We can study the evidence and take action in light of that”. “

                  <

                  p>BBC News reported again 9/20/01 that “the high council” of the ulema had urged that bin Laden be persuaded to leave, and that the Taleban advised that bin Laden would willingly stand trial in Kabul or any Moslem nation if evidence of culpability was provided. Fleischer said that this was “inadequate”.

                  <

                  p>BBC News reported again 9/22/01 that the Bush administration “has rejected Taleban calls for proof that Bin Laden was responsible”

                  <

                  p>On 9/25/01, CNN reported that the Taleban accepted the recommendation of the ulema that bin Laden be requested to please leave Afghanistan of his own accord.

                  <

                  p>BBC News reported on 9/28/01 that the Taleban now claimed to have delivered bin Laden a letter requesting him to leave

                  <

                  p>BBC News reported on 9/30/01 that White House spokesman Ken Lisaius asserted “The president was extremely clear… that the demands that he outlined were not open to negotiation nor were they open to debate”, and yet that the “Taleban ambassador said Washington could break the stalemate if it were willing to provide proof of Bin Laden’s role.”

                  <

                  p>I’m no fan of Sharia courts, either, btw – but it seems clear the Taleban had no particular desire for bin Laden to remain in the country. CNN observed on August 19 of 2005 that envoys of the Taleban met with US embassy personnel in Pakistan on November 28, 1998 to suggest US assassination of bin Laden. The Taleban envoy noted at this meeting that for the Taleban to expel bin Laden outright could result in the fall of the Taleban regime.

                • …to pay more attention to outlets such as the BBC for international news.  I don’t understand the stake the media has in war.  Is it simply the White House says so and we want access so we won’t cross them (which kind of makes a joke of the first amendment) or is it just a good story going back to when William Randolph Hearst basically single-handedly started the Spanish-American War with instructions to his correspondent, “You furnish the pictures…”?  This is an interesting thing to explore and am glad you have added this perspective, though I’m still comfortable with our decision in the immediate aftermath.

      • I voted for Obama to win the war in Afghanistan completely and I supported that mission when it was started in 2001 and continued to support it in the summer of 2008 when Obama ran as the Afghan hawk. McCain ran as the Iraq hawk and the Afghan dove which people seem to forget. I felt that Afghanistan was the more legitimate war to fight both because this is where the forces that attacked us came from and also because defeating the Taliban seemed like a more achievable and worthy goal than defeating the insurgents in Iraq.

        <

        p>I also voted for a President who said he would alter his position if the facts on the ground changed and would not send troops into harms way if it did not benefit the security of the American people. In July 2008 winning in Afghanistan was justified by the facts on the ground and sending more troops there was legitimate because of the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

        <

        p>Since then the facts have changed, the war is un-winnable from a politically feasible stand point (I think a meaningful surge of 100-200k could do a lot of good but know the American people won’t support it and also know the military can’t handle it) and from a military one as well if we can’t get the troops.

        <

        p>My position has changed because the facts on the ground have changed, unfortunately my president has not followed suit. His is still committing us to an unwinnable war with an ill defined mission and I have no idea why.

        • I applaud this:

          My position has changed because the facts on the ground have changed, unfortunately my president has not followed suit. His is still committing us to an unwinnable war with an ill defined mission and I have no idea why.

          When the case for waging war becomes questionable, JUST SAY NO.

          <

          p>A newly arranged public forum on The Obama Strategy takes place tomorrow at Harvard. Details:

          <

          p>”The Obama Strategy in Afghanistan: Troops, Timeline and the Taliban”
          Forum Event on Afghanistan
          Thursday, 3 December 2009 6:00 PM
          JFK, Jr.  Forum
          John F. Kennedy School of Government, 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138
          617-495-1380.
          Free and Open to the Public

          <

          p>The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and The Institute for Politics Present a Conversation with:
          – Rory Stewart, Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Ryan Family Professor of the Practice of Human Rights
          – Lt. Gen Tad Oelstrom Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy;Director, National Security Program
          – Dr. Meghan O’Sullivan Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs;Fall 2007 IOP Fellow
          – Graham Allison (Moderator)Director, Belfer Center for Science and International AffairsDouglas Dillon Professor of Government;Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative

          <

          p>Note: Stewart is the Scotsman who wrote “The Places in Between”, his amazing memoir of literally walking across Afghanistan, often alone through snow, in 2001-2002, shortly after we invaded. He got to know the locals.

          <

          p>

  7. …it’s EXACTLY what I voted for, though not necessarily as THE determining factor.  This President is FINALLY shifting our focus back to Afghanistan where it always belonged.  If the last administration had done this seven years ago instead of persuing Iraq there’s a good chance IMO that we would have been out of Afghanistan by now.

    • And if they are in fact gone, why would our interest in maintaining a presence in Afghanistan outweigh our interest in maintaining a presence in Iraq? Will organized terrorist groups just go wherever we’re not? Do the Afghan people want us to stay? What are we trying to accomplish there right now?

      <

      p>I guess all I’m saying is, just because it would have been better to focus on capturing Bin Laden and helping Afghanistan to form a stable (democratic?) government capable of policing itself back in 2001-2002, instead of commiting to the Iraq invasion, doesn’t mean that it is a wothwhile or feasible goal right now.

      <

      p>Fighting alongside, and in defense of, what appears to be a corrupt regime sounds like a no-win situation like defending Diem and his dubious successors in South Vietnam. Hasn’t it been a very long time since America has had any lasting success with nation-building?

      • …though I am very disturbed by this and outraged if true.  I’m also still concerned about the potential for Taliban resurgence.  Karzai’s government may be corrupt, but I’ll take corrupt over terror-sponsoring if I have to choose anyday.

  8. Many many many times while campaigning in 2007 and 2008, Obama said he thought Afghanistan was where we should’ve kept our troops instead of moving them to Iraq, that Iraq was “the wrong war” in part because it took our focus off Afghanistan, and many other similar things.  Now, the situation in Afghanistan has changed enough over the past few years that I’ve come around to the view that we ought to withdraw more quickly than the 3 year timeline Obama seems to be planning on, but anyone who was under the illusion that Obama campaigned on opposing sending more troops to Afghanistan was really not paying attention.

  9. I don’t accept Islamic fundamentalists of any preferred made up name are more of a threat or rather ever were a threat of us.  Our own government failing to arrest financial criminals is far more of a threat,  messing up health care is far more of a threat.  Ignoring the now worldwide 911 truth movement is more of a threat.  Ok, so I won’t bring up what NASA found on Mars, ancient cities.

Archives