Obama Talks Limp On Afghanistan
Steyn in the OCReg on Obama's "We'll be out by July 2011" speech:
If you happen to live in Kabul or Jalalabad, Ghurian or Kandahar, then a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is, indeed, about Afghanistan. If you live anywhere else on the planet, a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is really about America - about American will, American purpose, American energy. How quickly the bright new dawn fades to the gray morning after. In Europe, the long-awaited unveiling of this most thoughtful of presidents' deliberations got mixed reviews - some bad, some brutal. Der Spiegel called it "half-hearted," The Guardian called it "desperate." And those are his friends....So what do you think Obama's speech did for the enemy's will? He basically told 'em: We can only stick another 19 months, so all you gotta do is hang in there for 20. And in an astonishingly vulgar line even by the standards of this White House's crass speechwriters, he justified his announcement of an exit date by saying it was "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." Or, as Frank Sinatra once observed, "It's Very Nice To Go Trav'ling/But it's so much nicer ... to come home":
"It's very nice to just wander the camel route to Iraq. ... But it's so much nicer, yes, it's oh so nice to wander back."
As I said, Obama's speech is only about Afghanistan if you're in Afghanistan. If you're in Moscow or Tehran, Pyongyang or Caracas, it's about America. And what it told them is that, if you're a local strongman with regional ambitions, or a rogue state going nuclear, or a mischief-making kleptocracy dusting off old tsarist dreams, this president is not going to be pressing your reset button. Strange how an allegedly compelling speaker is unable to fake even perfunctory determination and resilience. Strange, too, how all the sophisticated nuances of post-Bush foreign policy "realism" seem so unreal when you're up there trying to sell them as a coherent strategy. Go back half-a-decade, to when the administration was threatening to shove democracy down the throats of every two-bit basket case whether they want it or not. Democratizing the planet is, in a Council of Foreign Relations sense, "unrealistic," but talking it up is a very realistic way of messing with the dictators' heads. A pipsqueak like Boy Assad sleeps far more soundly today than he did back when he thought Bush meant it, and so did the demonstrators threatening his local enforcers in Lebanon.
My imagination, or are you more hawkish than you were circa '05?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 4:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/05/obama_talks_lim.html#comment-1680724">comment from Crid [CridComment @ gmail]I was against the Iraq war because Saddam, who was a bad guy who did bad things to his people, wasn't responsible for 9/11. I thought we should have flattened the mountains of Afghanistan going after Al Qaeda, not destabilized a country that was kept down by its horrible ruler. I'm not a dove. I just found the Iraq war, as I've said before, to be like having bank robbery take place, and somebody must pay, and you're walking down the street -- and you haven't done it -- but why not you?
Amy Alkon at December 5, 2009 5:04 AM
Either have a war or don't, but don't be half assed about it.
NicoleK at December 5, 2009 7:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/05/obama_talks_lim.html#comment-1680737">comment from NicoleKIt sure isn't fair to the troops to not allow them adequate force.
Amy Alkon at December 5, 2009 7:26 AM
Our costs will be about a million bucks per American soldier per year. It costs about $400 a gallon to deliver gasoline to the troops posted in Afghanstan.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan
And at the end of the 19 months, which of course is a "goal" they have no intention of meeting, there will still be the Taliban, Al Queda and millions of acres of poppy fields. The only way we will stop going to war in America is if we have to pay a war tax.
Eric at December 5, 2009 8:39 AM
Yeah, Eric. They are not meeting the goal because they do not want to go for victory. They want to go for politically expedient, cover your assness. Wars guided by lawyers and half-steooing politicians are never won. We declare victory and go home. And Amy is right. All those places are observing and planning how they can take advantage of our limpness on the home front. And if you don't think they aren't doing that you are a damn fool.
Richard Cook at December 5, 2009 10:08 AM
Yeah, Eric. They are not meeting the goal because they do not want to go for victory. They want to go for politically expedient, cover your assness. Wars guided by lawyers and half-stepping politicians are never won. We declare victory and go home. And Amy is right. All those places are observing and planning how they can take advantage of our limpness on the home front. And if you don't think they aren't doing that you are a damn fool.
Richard Cook at December 5, 2009 10:09 AM
Consider the following my opinion on the majority of the evidence. I'm open to argument.
We went to war on Irag because Saddam Hussein had previously invaded Kuwait, had killed his own people, repeatedly carried out border skirmishes and air raids, and violated his promises not to rearm. He claimed to have nuclear and biological weapons, threatened to use them on his neighbors, and was thought to have used biological weapons within Iraq. His commanders thought he had those weapons ready for use.
He and his sons were psychopaths. That is not enough reason in itself to invade, but it added to the evaluation that he might do anything.
There was widespread agreement on this in the US and Europe. It is revisionist history to say that Bush lied about this just to start a war. This was the practical war that defended American and European interests. Europe was cynical enough to let the US carry 90% of the burden.
- -
Afghanistan seems to me to be an elective war of revenge, not supported by sufficient threat from Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has bases there, and trains militants. They can do that anywhere. The 9/11 attack was horrible, but required only a kitchen table for planning; then money and flight training to carry out. It did not require those bases.
We would like to catch Bin Laden and his officers, but war doesn't seem appropriate or efficient to do that. We could offer $1 billion to the Afghan government or factions within Afghanastan, and they might do the job for us. It isn't worth killing 1,000 american soldiers and injuring 5,000 to catch Bin Laden. These are resources better spent on intelligence and deterrence.
An argument for the Afghan war is that a failed Afghanistan is a threat to Pakistan, and Pakistand must remain stable, being a nuclear power. This argues for friendly support of Pakistan, who can contain Afghanistan more easily than we can.
An argument for the Afghan war is that it would be a blow to American prestige to accept defeat. Defeat is when you attempt a reasonable goal and fail. It is not defeat to proclaim a reasonable and effective policy that defends our vital interests and that the world believes we will indeed carry out. Our poilicy is not now dependable. People doubt the American will to fight to the end, because we don't know what interests we are fighting to protect. If we win in Afghanistan, we intend to give it back the next year.
- -
Iran is a true danger. We know that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them. They have threatened and attacked their neighbors. They have waged a proxy war with the US in Iraq and want dominance there. They designed and supplied effective penetrator-bombs to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
They took US diplomats hostage during the administration of Jimmy Carter to make a political point. Ahmadinejad was a leader of that operation. They have proclaimed a willingness to trade Muslim lives for Israeli lives, if that would eliminate Israel.
Iran is the real, verified threat that we thought Iraq was. What are we doing about it?
Andrew_M_Garland at December 5, 2009 11:10 AM
This myopic groping of this opinion piece starts with the dimwitted premise that we even have to look strong to the punk tinpot dictators of the world, or the mentally ill cult of terrorists hiding up in the hills of Stupidstan somewhere.
Leave the Stupidstans of the world to their fates--our role is not global nanny.
If the men of Pakistan want to stand down the Taliban, left them arm themselves, get off their butts, and go for blood.
I am hardly the fighting type, but if some people in the US wanted to force their religion on me by force, yes, reluctantly, I would take up arms.
Somehow the men of Itaq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are not men enough to set up secular democracies, so we have to do it for them.
So Bush jr. establishes an Islamic Shiite state in Iraq, and a narco-Islamic state in Afghanistan--and we have to spend $1 million per soldier a year doing it, a trillion dollar boondoggle and counting.
Would it not be cheaper to keep Afghanies guns, and tell them to protect themselves?
Obama is making his first real mistake--he should pull out yesterday. We have been there eight years already, and the only thing that has blossomed is opium production.
We have "experts" counseling opposite course of action in Afghanie. Ever think we simply don't know what we are talking about, when we try to address and entire foreign nation?
Mr Big Sphincter in the Sky at December 5, 2009 11:20 AM
Steyn, of course, would have been cheering GWB on had he made the same speech and decision.
But because Obma is not Bush, Steyn claims that Obama is projecting weakness by adding 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan - the amount of men his (and GWB's) SecDef apparently recommended, a larger increase in troops than the vaunted Iraq "surge", and a giving our soldiers couple of more years in Afghanistan before starting removal of troops from pacified areas subject to "conditions on ground" (where have we heard that before?).
A right-winger writes a piece about the president ordering a massive troop increase, and this is an indication of unseriousness when combating our enemies. We currently live in Bizarro-world. In Steyn's mind (and those of numerous others on the right) only the total and utter commitment to "victory"*, regardless of how long it takes, how many American lives are lost, or whatever the cost is acceptable. It's madness. There is absolutely no limit to what we are obliged do.**
If our policies were even remotely sane, we'd be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan now. It's up to the people of those places to fix them or not; our presence there does not do us any good.
*I'll let Balko take this one:
**This has been discussed in McCardle's blog of late. How many people in favor of the limitless war approach would favor a war surtax to fund it?
Whatever at December 5, 2009 11:27 AM
This was the practical war that defended American and European interests.
LOL
Iraq was a pure war of choice. The inspections all showed they had nothing. It was undertaken for murky reasons - maybe because we didn't get Bin Laden, maybe because Bush wanted to one-up dad, maybe because they were sitting on so much sweet, sweet crude, and maybe because it was important to make an example of what happens to naughty Middle Eastern dictators in the post 9/11 war. The Iraq war was sold to us on the thinnest of garbage intelligence, much of it fed to us by the crook Achmed Chalabi, and people like "Curveball" (remember Nigeria everyone?).
It was justified by the the most ludicrous pie-in-the-sky dreaming of people, some of whom apparently thought that one can make a democracy at gunpoint in a pluralistic country (whose groups have hated each other for millennia) that had only been held together because they were ruled by a brutal and repressive regime.
This was the practical war? Again, we are living in Bizarro-world.
Whatever at December 5, 2009 11:36 AM
Okay, I dunno whether it's capital Whatever or lowercase whatever, but wrong is just plain wrong. Your head is leaking waste.
Iraq was (and is) an industrialized country. It had a nuclear industry advanced enough for Israel to bomb it themselves. Read about it and other intrigue here.
You (all) might be horribly ignorant of manufacturing processes. Every refinery, plastics and fertilizer plant in the USA makes compounds some nut can use to kill you. Notice I haven't even mentioned insecticides? Whoop, there, I did. Hmm. Do you think Iraq has no such plants? Then, you're not thinking.
Two kind of liars talk about WMD in Iraq. One claims that Iraq is a peaceful desert with oases here and there populated by plain folk who have nothing to do but farm dates, and these people are menaced by a terrible tyrant, responsible for all the world's ills. The other is that Iraq is a peaceful desert with oases here and there and a terrible American wants to kill the people who live there and take all the oil under their feet. That's why gas is so cheap now. What?
And it remains that if a secular government succeeds in hauling Iraq out of a theocratic swamp, the efficacy of Islam will be greatly discredited.
You are looking at a sideshow, you're fascinated by it, and you can't remember even recent history.
What's Tiger's bimbo's name?
Radwaste at December 5, 2009 12:14 PM
We shouldnt have done shit in Iraq, we should have dropped bombs in Afganistan and nothing else.
The reason Iran is a threat is due to 50 yrs of western governemts putting the business intrests of their campaign contributers before everything else.
I remember whe Iraq originally invaded Kuwait, I kept thinking to myself "Where'd the kuwaities get all of those american flags to wave to the news cameras before we even landed troops in their country?"
I remeber how the regan administration sold arms illegally to both sides of the Iraq - Iran war and how traitor to this counrty who should have been shot is considered a hero and got a fucking news show on the Fox network and MSNBC.
I got news for you, you dont matter, your opinions dont matter, your lives dont matter except in relation to how you contribute to the power of those in charge.
Obama doesnt give a fuck about you, your job, our lifves, or our troops any more than Bush did, or Clinton, or Bush sr, or Regan or Carter.
If the people in charge really gave a fuck about the little people we would have kids graduating with 4th grade reading comprehention, the inability to balance their check books and the useless ability of copying their calculaters graph of quadratic equastions onto paper.
You wouldnt have 15 yr olds branded sex offenders for life for sleeping with 17yr old girls.
You wouldnt have a billion dollar war on drugs that kill fewer people each year then mud filtered fungal urine(alchohol)
There have only been two wars in american history that were justified, WW2 and the civil war. And if you think the revolutionary war was justified then why havent you picked up a gun and attacked our current government.
You are sheep, you are tools, you are herd animals to be used for the advancement of your betters. The only problem is your 'betters' have become a buch of braying stupid jackasses that probably deserve to die in the most painful way imaginable. And they have failed to learn the lessons of history.
What do you suppose washington and the state capitols will look like once american reach the point the french did in the 1780s?
lujlp at December 5, 2009 12:56 PM
I'm absolutely lujlp on this, "We shouldnt have done shit in Iraq, we should have dropped bombs in Afganistan and nothing else."
Re. Radwaste:
I know manufacturing. Worked with all kinds of nasty chemicals and solvents and the like. Done things where I needed a respirator, head-to-toe protection, etc. This is irrelevant. Iraq's capabilities before the invasion aren't interesting when you consider that they were fully militarily contained and had a hate-hate relationship with the Jihadis.
And it remains that if a secular government succeeds in hauling Iraq out of a theocratic swamp, the efficacy of Islam will be greatly discredited.
Iraq, of course, was a secular dictatorship. So they were halfway there. We're helping them become more theocratic, though, and better friends with Iran.
People who think there was ever any hope of a secular democracy in Iraq might as well believe in unicorns.
Whatever at December 5, 2009 2:00 PM
"...they were fully militarily contained..."
Put down the crack pipe. You're babbling. They invaded Kuwait, actually had a nuke program - as I showed everyone - and actually gassed Kurds.
Remember?
Obviously not.
And, by the way - Saddam's government was a long ways toward being secular. Women were enrolled in universities, had driver's licenses and so forth.
George Bush isn't in office and can't get back in office. It's long past time you put down the "hate Bush" blinders and actually started reading about Iraqi history.
Note to all: the President must report to Congress under the War Powers Act. I know how much some people want to talk about a President, but there are others who have Constitutional duties you are allowing to shirk.
Radwaste at December 5, 2009 6:22 PM
They invaded Kuwait, actually had a nuke program - as I showed everyone - and actually gassed Kurds.
Remember?
Obviously not.
I remember. I don't care.
Saddam had no meaningful nuclear capabilities and which of his citizens he gassed should have created no tactical or strategic imperatives for us.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 8:23 AM
Other thing - Saddam had also shown no interest in jihadist terrorism. He was only a threat within his region, and not much of a threat there.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 9:33 AM
Wow! There's that "meaningful" again. It's just shorthand for "Meh - that doesn't fit what I've made up my mind about already." You've done this before.
Idiot. Their lack of nuclear capability was because the Israelis sabotaged and bombed them. From your point of view as you describe things, this was just an exercise on their part. There was nothing for them to worry about - because you say so!
"I remember. I don't care."
Obviously. Now - if only that would result in less noise...
Radwaste at December 6, 2009 9:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/05/obama_talks_lim.html#comment-1680888">comment from WhateverRight, Whatever. Precisely why I was against the Iraq war. By the way, I'm no dove. I realize that war is sometimes necessary to preserve peace.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2009 9:45 AM
"Iran is the real, verified threat that we thought Iraq was. What are we doing about it?"
I recommend sending in this guy. He's experienced in the region, too, always a big plus:
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/handshake.jpg
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 6, 2009 10:05 AM
Their lack of nuclear capability was because the Israelis sabotaged and bombed them.
And they, or we, could have done so again. As necessary. Iraq was not a threat, and for cheap. To me that's a successful risk mitigation policy.
But to conquer them and think we could make them a democratic model for the Middle East... unicorns.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 10:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/05/obama_talks_lim.html#comment-1680901">comment from WhateverRight, Whatever. These are warring, tribal people. Saddam kept them in check. Install Democracy? The idea of it vis a vis who we were trying to install it for is ludicrous. People need to be informed about religion and culture before they make policy.
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2009 10:37 AM
Amy, I have to disagree with you on that realpolitik approach. That's the same justification people used for allowing the Soviet Union to gobble up Eastern Europe. I remember a number of U.S. and European leftists saying that very thing when the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring in Czechoslovokia.
This thread has lost sight over what the over-arching strategic goals were with Iraq. WMD's, okay; Iraq's capabilities turn out to have been exaggerated. But don't forget, all of the Western world's intel agencies, including those of Germany and France, thought the same thing that the CIA did. And there's still the question of exactly what was in all of that stuff that Iraq evacuated to Syria at the start of the war.
Nonetheless, I'll gladly concede the point that Iraq had no significant WMDs. Because it isn't really part of the reasoning; it was just a convenient excuse, if you will. Look: W's long-term strategic goal with the Iraq War was to try to start a democracy revolution in the Middle East. Let us not forget that this is only remaining region of the world where monarchy is still considered an acceptable form of government. So if you're going to try to do a thing like that, what are the prerequisites? Well, for one thing, you need a fairly well educated population. For another, you need an industrial base. For a third, you need cities with reliable transportation and at least some aspects of modernity.
The Afghanistan invasion was necessary to shut down al-Q's money and materiel pipeline through that area. Unfortunately, as a democracy-seed host, Afghanistan didn't meet any of the criteria on the checklist. Iraq did. Much has been made of the different ethnic groups in Iraq, and the claim is made that such makes it impossible for them to form a nation. Bush's team wanted to fly in the face of that, and present a more optimistic version of the Middle East to itself and the rest of the world, by showing that disparate ethinc groups can form a nation -- just as they do in the U.S. itself.
Well, needless to say, this is still a radical idea in the Mideast. So the jury is still out on Iraq and on the larger experiment, and may be for some time. But note what happened in Iran last spring; there were quite a few there who see what is happening in Iraq and want the same thing for their country. (Unfortunately, another U.S. President failed to support them, and they were crushed, which is a bad sign for the future.)
So don't lose sight of the larger goal. Arguing about WMDs is beside the point. Was this strategy a good idea? Maybe, maybe not, but what were the alternatives? The only other one, really, is to nuke the region. We can't just ignore them and pretend that they won't attack us. They've already done it; a head-in-the-sand approach would be tantamount to arguing that 9/11 was a figment of our imaginations. Buying them off won't work; multiple Administrations of both parties have tried that. Maybe Iraq wasn't the best place to start. I could see how that argument could be made. What would have been a better starting point? Iran? Maybe. Saudi Arabia? No.
Seriously, if you were Bush, what would you do different? "Ignore them" is not an answer; that's what Obama's trying to do, and we all see how well that's working out. As you're thinking of all this, don't overlook the fact that one of American's staunchest allies is in that region and is in serious peril from what's going on there.
Cousin Dave at December 7, 2009 7:40 AM
But don't forget, all of the Western world's intel agencies, including those of Germany and France, thought the same thing that the CIA did
Sorry Dave but thats a lie
lujlp at December 7, 2009 8:15 AM
Luj, I didn't say it wasn't. In fact, I tried to point out exactly what you said. I'm just saying that, in the larger context, whether or not there were WMDs is irrelevant. So I concede the point, just to get it out of the way.
Cousin Dave at December 7, 2009 9:09 AM
You know what my biggest complaint about the Iraq was is?
Quite frankly I dont really care that it was illegal, unneccaesary, or motivated by greed.
My problem with the Iraq war was the US government taking combat SUPPORT personel, and putting them in combat roles they were unprepaired and improperly trained for. It put their lives in danger and put the properly trained soilders in danger.
And for what? So we could pay Hailburtion 10 times as much money to do a job we already paid millions to train soilders to do?
Thats what my second biggest complaint was, the first was hampinging men trained to kill to fight their training at every goddamn encounter.
lujlp at December 7, 2009 9:36 AM
Dave I think we may have crosed wires.
I wasnt saying the WMD claims were a lie (they were)
I was saying that Europes assesment of Iraq weapons capabilites mathched those of the CIA was a lie.
lujlp at December 7, 2009 9:39 AM
Luj, you got a link on that WMD thing? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it contradicts most of what I've read.
I get your point on the combat support personnel thing. In their defense, when you're facing an enemy that has no qualms about attacking non-combatants, it's kind of difficult. But you're right, there were too many instances of contractors and support personnel being put in positions that were over their heads. And I'm totally with you on the ROE thing; if we're going to send guys out and tell them to fight, we need to let them fight.
Cousin Dave at December 7, 2009 12:27 PM
Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
lujlp at December 7, 2009 1:27 PM
W's long-term strategic goal with the Iraq War was to try to start a democracy revolution in the Middle East.
Unicorns.
Whatever at December 7, 2009 2:34 PM
Whatever, I think you're letting your personal feelings towards W color your opinion.
Luj, I'll read up on that some more. I distrust anything on Wikipedia regarding political topics, but the article contains some links that look useful.
Cousin Dave at December 8, 2009 7:17 AM
So do I, but I dont have a paid membership to the newspaper who ran the article to look at their archives
lujlp at December 8, 2009 8:06 AM
Whatever, I think you're letting your personal feelings towards W color your opinion.
It's much more about my incredibly deep skepticism about breeding democracy in countries with no tradition for that that were basically built to keep sectarian tensions alive. The borders of Iraq are much the same as they were when England created it so as to keep the various tribal and religious factions perpetually in conflict. To think we're likely to create a democracy there by invading and killing lots of their people strikes me as a pipe dream.
Whatever at December 9, 2009 1:47 AM
Leave a comment