Why Isn't Leaving Afghanistan a Serious Option?
President Obama told Congressional leaders that he does not plan to substantially reduce forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to "just hunting terrorists there," but he hinted that he remains undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general, Stanley A. McChrystal.
The president is currently considering McChrystal's request for as many as 40,000 more troops. This debate occurs after a majority of Americans have already stated that the war is not worth fighting, and that it is not worth the cost. These facts don't seem to register with Obama. In fact, the New York Times reports that the president is getting pretty peeved at this "get out" nonsense:
Meeting with leaders from both parties at the White House, Mr. Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to "dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan," as White House officials later described his remarks.
Mm'k. Why isn't this about leaving Afghanistan? According to an August Washington Post-ABC News poll, 51 percent of adults now say the war is not worth fighting. Less than half, 47 percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those strongly opposed (41 percent) outweigh strong proponents (31 percent).
A serious, logical belief that the United States should leave Afghanistan is not a "straw man argument." A straw man argument is all about misrepresenting an opponent's position, but the "leaving Afghanistan" opinion isn't about manipulating the pro-Afghanistan war argument, which is that the surge theoretically -- one day -- will "work" (whatever that means.)
The "leaving Afghanistan" opinion is based on the opinion that the United States has no right to nation build in autonomous countries, and is making life hell for Afghans. "Leaving Afghanistan" is based on the reality that democracy cannot be exported to other countries. Democracy is a grassroots, populist movement that grows organically from indigenous peoples, and cannot be cultivated in some Pentagon backroom. "Leaving Afghanistan" is about fixing home before criticizing the neighbors. America could use war budgets for good, decent things like improving schools, creating jobs, providing health care, fixing infrastructure, and reversing the damage inflicted on our environment.
"Quagmire" is now too sterile of a term to slap across the flaming remains of Afghanistan. The United States has made it painfully clear that its idea of "nation building" is to obliterate a country's infrastructure and then prop up an embarrassingly corrupt leader. No wonder only 40% of Afghans think their country is heading in the right direction. Afghans hate the Taliban, but they're not too fond of the United States, either. According to the BBC, only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now. Gee, all those hours of blackouts, gallons of tainted water, and a stolen election can't even buy America a "thank you?" Ungrateful ingrates.
It appears as though Obama thinks the consensus opinion of the American people is merely a straw man argument. It has no value. The American people can kick and fuss all they want about wanting government run health care, and the end of the Afghanistan war, but their leader isn't interested in hearing from them. The backbone of the democratic process -- one person, one vote -- is cute, but not necessary. Getting out of Afghanistan is an almost adorable proposal -- an unserious hissy fit -- something that would get one laughed out of the War Room.
It's weird because I recall back in September 2008 when then-Senator Obama spoke to a very appreciative audience in New Philadelphia, Ohio. "If we don't take our government back, then none of these changes are going to happen," he said, "I need your help doing it." I guess he should have said, "I need your help doing it...unless you disagree with me. In which case, shut up."
The Times reports that the "tone was civil and restrained" at Obama's meeting with Congressional leaders. That's a shame. It would be a great time for one of our elected leaders to stand up and actually speak for the American people. Shouting would not be inappropriate, passionate dissent, invaluable. The only unacceptable approach to Afghanistan is to ignore the will of the American people, who are paying for the war, and the will of the Afghans, who are dying because of the whims of a tiny tribe of D.C. chicken hawks.
Meanwhile, there are a plethora of domestic issues (health care and the failed state of California, to name only two) that need our politicians' time and attention. Now would be an awesome time to end this stupid, destructive, wasteful, pointless war. But I guess that's another straw man argument.
Crossposted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.
Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny
Anand Gopal: Who Are the Taliban?
If there is an exact location marking the West's failures in Afghanistan, it is the modest police checkpoint that sits on the main highway 20 minutes south of Kabul. Here, the American-backed government of Afghanistan no longer exists.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Those who advocate war as the solution to terrorism fail to understand the nature of terrorism.
America is spending hundreds of billions of dollars. The folks on the other side are spending millions; there is a thousand to one disparity. Are we a thousand times wealthier than they? Can we afford to bleed money at this rate?
Consider an IED. I'll wait, you can google up some articles on IEDs. It's a simple, inexpensive device which can destroy a $25 million tank and the men inside.
In the long run, America loses this war regardless of how much is spent. In the process, the American government bankrupts itself. We may think the destruction is happening "over there", but the financial destruction is playing out here. What happened last year is just a foretaste of the looming disaster. The commitment to the ever-expanding military machine is a very large part of the problem.
( Creating faith-based money to pump up housing, banking, and stock bubbles is also a major contributor )
Great Britain ended the 19th century as a world superpower with the largest navy in the world. By the end of WW II, the British Empire was shattered; the next few decades were merely development of a process already well on its way.
The former USSR was a world superpower. They bled themselves dry in Afghanistan and collapsed.
The United States, in its effort to police the entire world, is experiencing a major financial hemorrhage.
Max Cleland was on "Hardball" last night. Chris Matthews asked him how the war in Afghanistan to Vietnam. He basically said there they were fighting an insurgent force that was seeking refuge in a different country, fighting in a country where the people hated them in a war with no end in sight. He said, "It IS Vietnam!" From a vet like Cleland that should have a lot of weight.
Cleland went on to say that our efforts in Afghanistan should be centered on crushing Al Qaida, rather than engaging the Taliban. He said it's Al Qaida that presents the strategic threat to the U.S., not the Taliban. Cleland also pointed out that Al Qaida are primarily based in Pakistan, and that they should be engaged there.
It makes no sense for us to stay in Afghanistan for the government's stated reasons. Nor does it make any sense to prop up the Karzai government. One suspects that the real reason is to protect those pipelines.
Leaving isn't an option because the oil & natural gas pipeline from the CAspian Sea to Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to PAkistan is not complete. That's why the generals want more troups.
Yes, back in November of 2008 I thought it was precisely about leaving Afghanistan, which is why I voted the way I did.
Kucinich
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/09/21-16
"If the Obama administration is determined to ‘win the war' in Afghanistan, then we should be prepared for another Vietnam. An unending military commitment is unacceptable to the American people and it should be unacceptable to Congress. If the Obama administration refuses to bring this war to an end, then Congress should use the power of the purse, granted by the Constitution, to end the war and bring our troops home. Many objective analyses indicate that the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. If the Obama administration can't do it, then Congress must," said Kucinich.
While it is true, to paraphrase Vice President Biden, that no foreign policy can be long sustained - no matter how justified or warranted it may be - without the informed consent of the American people, the key word is "informed" ... a quality totally lacking in this decidedly non-serious blog.
It takes no courage on Obama's part to stay and escalate this war. He is sending someone elses kid off to die not his own. It takes a ton of courage to tell the military infrastructure and the companies who profit off of war that we are leaving. Obama does not have this kind of courage or integrity. He wld rather make a mistake and escalate this war than face the criticism of the right for pulling out of there. His escalation of this war and yes I predict he will be forced to start one with Iran will be regarded in history as major foreign policy blunders.
He said he is not going to reduce the mission to chasing terrorist around the country but isnt that the reason we were told we had to go to Afghanistan in the first place? This slip by Obama is one of the few honest things he has said bcz he just let us know this isnt about terrorism. This is about oil and building and protecting a 1000 mile pipeline.
You may have a point, BUT ... we don't need no freakin' oil! NONE! ZIP! NADA! Going to EVs and PHEVs ASAP will TOATALLY eliminate our need for foreign OIL.
It's not about what you need, it about what multinational oil corporations (think they) need.
"It appears as though Obama thinks the consensus opinion of the American people is merely a straw man argument. It has no value."
He amply demonstrated that with his early presidential mockery of the large percentage of Americans who think that marijuana should be legalized for a multitude of reasons not least of which that legalization would cease funding to violent gangs and cartels.
"...this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan."
The president used the wrong term. The above is the fallacy of false choice, not a straw man argument.
The cost of continuing this war, both in fiancial terms and human terms, is indefensible. No one has defined the "win." here. What is it? If we can't define what it is how can we possibly construct a strategy to achieve it and, how will we know we have attained it? Oil was the reason for the Iraq debacle as we all know. Bush and Cheney even told us the oil there would help finance our invasion. Afghanistan has no oil, but harbors Al Qaeda and Taliban which we are allegedly trying to root out. 40,000 more troops isn't nearly enough to capture all the caves of supposed terrorists. Geographically the country is impossible to capture and control which Ghenghis Khan, the Brits and the Russians figured out after wasting enormous amounts of money and people. The real bad boys are in Pakistan anyway, if we are to believe the media reports ( and whether or not we can is a matter for a different conversation). So, if the reason we are there is to root out terrorists, why are Americans the primary force there? Where are all the Brits, French, Canadians, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Indian etc etc troops who should fear the growth of these terrorists as much as we do. Why is the US always the Lone Ranger? Maybe they all learned the lessons of history which we, in our arrogance (or is it ignorance) refuse to do.
First, war was a stupid response to the events of 9/11 -- we should have viewed the actions of the terrorists as crimes, just as many other terrorists acts before and since. Second, if we do go to war, we should have a proper debate before an informed - not propagandized - Congress and the public. Third, we should pull out of the Middle East. Nation-building is not the proper use of the military.
Let's be honest - America spends 47% of the total world spending on the military. The next biggest spenders - Japan, China, Great Britain - spend about 4% each, one tenth what we do. Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran are way down on that list. What we really have is not a "Department of Defense" but a huge "Department of Corporate Welfare and World Meddling" which is annoying others, increasing the risk to America, and driving us into horrendous debt.
The moneys now taken and spent to support corporate welfare queens should instead be left in our hands and spent for or own purposes -- food, housing, clothing, education, whatever matters to us as individuals. Our defense budget should be comparable dollar-wise with that of China or Japan, not ten times bigger. Since we have better technology, we should demand better price performance, not lest. Better tech leads to cheaper and more powerful PCs; why not the same for our defense? We spend so much because corporate welfare queens dominate the equation.
I disagree. Yes, what happened on 9/11 was itself a horrendous crime - but it was more than that. Much more. It was only by strokes of luck that over 10,000 weren't killed. That wasn't propoganda. It was well-established fact.
I think you're confusing Afghanistan with the Middle East generally. I'll debate Iraq as a separate topic, not both together. For instance, Iraq had enough propoganda to fill ... well, use your own analogy.
If we really wanted to win this war in Afghanistan a la World War II style we would place few well positioned nuclear bombs inside Afghanistan and let her rip. Isn't that what the greatest generation did? huh?
The number of 9/11 victims is irrelevant, To be in Afghanistan using the shifting, ill-defined mission we have is a formula for failure. The peopleof Afghanistin are at the mercy of the Taliban. They are terrorists who want to target Afghanis primary, and us as occupiers second. We are there presumably (We don't need oil - only our oil barons who know no other way of making $$, do) as a base to target Al-Qaeda terrorists, who really don't need to fear us much because the Taliban is a thorn oin our side.
Our best strategy is "Fight a terrorist by being a terrorist".. Instead of platoons going out on search ad destroy missions, BACK OFF to a fortified enclave that is easily protected. Launch search and destroy drone and bot attacks against Al-Qaeda in the moutains. Allow the Tliban roaches to emerge an exert their theocratic force on their own countrymmen. Then, through clandestine intelligence, identify the bad guys and snuff them like roaches, and return undetected to your enclave. Let the come to you, then be as brutal as they are.
If we don't have the stomach for that, then GET OUT! Offer asylum to progressive citizens and people who wish a new life and leave.
"Let's be honest - America spends 47% of the total world spending on the military. The next biggest spenders - Japan, China, Great Britain - spend about 4% each, one tenth what we do. Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran are way down on that list."
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with what your bigger message is. I do however think you need to learn how to properly use the statistics cited. Those countries do NOT spend one tenth what we do on military expenditures. They spend 4% of their GDP (if you can be trusted). That does not mean that all countries in the world have the same GDP and that Japan, China, and UK spend 1/10 the amount we do on military spending.
Before any hasty reply, consider this: the outcome of proper reasoning is that the countries you bring up actually spend even less than you had given them credit for!
Sorry, but you misread what I wrote. America spends 47% of _total_world_spending_on_defense.
The other countries each spend about 4% of that same total.
Hence, America spends about 10 times what any other country spends on "defense."
Percentage of GDP is a meaningless concept used to make American spending seem relatively smaller than it really is.
Allison, the "straw man" argument the President refers to is the shaping this decision as a binary one - add forces or get out.
But that correction made, I disagree with you completely. We haven't captured the majority of the major leadership of either Al-Qaida or the Taliban. And they are enemies of this country and made war on us. The destruction of their movements is necessary for the safety and security of OUR country. Kill Bin Laden. Kill Al-Zawahiri. Kill Mullah Omar. Kill the major leadership, and I think the grunt-fighters will bend. And belittle Tommy Franks for having failed so badly strategically.
And in the words of Sec. Powell to W - "If we break it, we "own" it and have to fix it." No, he didn't mean annexation; he meant that if you remove and/or forge a government in country, you (meaning us) are responsible for getting the country back on its feet. It's a relatively good argument, based on the error of WWI aftermath and the reasonably good outcome post-WWII. South Korea has similarly not done badly at all. It's not exactly a "right," under Powell's view; it's an obligation. And I think he is right.
Only Fascism can prevent terrorist from having any safe havens,
and we get fascism, well, then we have terrorism even worse.
So if you invade a country, you own it.
Welcome to the empire of plutocrats.
Um, restating it .. "No, he didn't mean annexation."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953 in his "chance of Peace" speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. AKA the Cross of Iron speech. How can this country be so damned broke that we cannot afford health care for our citizens and still be able to continue this senseless war?
But wait, there's more! Eisenhower set out 5 principles in this speech, would that we had followed them. Let's just look at the third and fourth of these. "Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable." and "Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible." Think of the misery and wealth we've wasted because we didn't follow those fine principles.
Even more. You can bet someone's going to get wealthier because of this war while the rest of us will suffer.
I wold suggest that your last point is the most salient.
Let's say we just leave....is it even morally right to just up and leave a country that we played a part in ultimately making worse because of our poor choices in war strategy? Does it make it okay to leave a mess that we created because it's safer for us to deal with the ambiguous meaning of what "peace" means? I'm not sure what are best plan in all of this should be but it never just seems right to walk away from the mess we made and created for the very people we claimed we tried to help.
Yes, the best thing a corrupt plutocracy can do for an occupied land, is leave.
I'm with you and I think a slow transition from armed forces action in AfPak to more presence on the part of USAID and the like would be appropriate. Ideally, we could eventually leave altogether with a stable Afghanistan in place that is no longer prone to Taliban vultures who prey on poverty and lack of education.
"51 percent of adults now say the war is not worth fighting."
That means little to me. America elected George W. Bush twice. People routinely tell pollsters that foreign aid is the biggest part of the federal budget (hint it's not). Direct democracy in CA ended gay marriage. Making decisions based on opinion polls is dangerous.
Sometimes in a Republic (not a direct democracy) our representatives have to make tough decisions because they have the information and time the public does not possess. They represent our best interests based on their judgment; not just to carry out the popular will of the week.
I ask the author if leaving Afganistan makes things better? No one decided to make Afghanistan a functional state after the Russians left the country and our leaving will allow the country to revert back to a medieval state with automatic rifles and RPG's.
Let's leave so girls are barred from school. Let them remove any form of Democracy. A group of angry zealots can again rule with an iron fist. Intervention has risks but a market based society with some form of Democracy and individual rights is preferable to the Taliban. The world should decide that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable.
Leaving civilians in worse shape and allowing the Taliban back into power should cause moral outrage among people who profess to care.
These same pacifists said we should leave Iraq during a civil war; good thing we didn't the people are much better off.
The USA is neither a democracy nor a republic, it is for sale to the highest bidder,
that makes the USA a Plutocracy.
Contributions are bribery.
everyone on the ballots has a right to equal prime time and a suitable travel budget.
Afghanistan is nowhere near as civilized a society as Iraq. The strategies that may have worked in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. To defeat a terrorist, you must BE a terrorist. That means you attack with stealth, leave as brutal a footprint as you can, and you leave with stealth. Unseen, unheard, BRUTAL MESSAGE, and gone.
The images I see of platoons patrolling on search and destroy missions, demonstrates to me that our generals and tacticians don't know what they are doing.
I couldn't agree more Re. the patrol missions.
I was thinking about this and wondering what in the world could possibly be the objective. Are the top brass just hoping against hope that one of these patrols will stumble upon the path leading to bin Laden? And, then what? It just seems like these guys are being put in a virtually indefensible position - and, in fact, sending out an open invitation for ambush - all for the sake of putting a feather in someone's cap.
Let's hope the new strategy, whatever it may be, puts a halt to this nonsense...and fast!
A - FREAKIN - MEN !!!
Exactly what I've been saying and feeling.
Don't abandon the women!!!
>A group of angry zealots can again rule with an iron fist.
What is your obsession with helping Afghanis? Why not spend $100bn per year teaching Mexicans to speak English? Or propping up Somalia? Or job training Russian girls so they don't have to work as strippers?
Please rank all world ills, in order of priority, and then get back to me. I don't believe that cave dwellers are number 1.
Great comment! I agree with you. There are more important things we can do with our manpower and our fortune.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
