A Progressive Case for the Supplemental

In Congress and across the country, progressives are nervous about the increased troop commitments in Afghanistan. They see a degenerating, no-win situation. Some of them wish we could just get out now, and cut our losses, both in blood and money, perhaps politically as well.

But we can't abandon Afghanistan for moral reasons. The Taliban are thugs. We can't let them regain control for our own self-interest and for the sake of the people in the region. And the military is what we have right now. This is the dilemma. What the military actually does, on the ground and in the air -- now that we've realigned the policy and changed the leadership -- is the wait and see question.

Today, the House of Representatives will vote on the war supplemental -- some 96 billion dollars. This is an excruciating vote for many on the Left -- who want to support their new president, but decry the fact that less than 10% of the funds will go to non-military items. What to do? If I were a Member of Congress, I would vote for this supplemental but also insist on Rep McGovern's (MA) amendment to require an exit strategy. I would then direct my angst about the lack of humanitarian and governance dollars toward the larger debate about national security priorities when the defense authorization bill comes up next month.

The larger framework: President Obama--and Secretary Gates have not only talked about the need for a strategic shift away from reliance on military solutions for national security -- they have begun to take genuine steps to make it happen. The defense budget, for example, cut Cold War weapons spending. This cut was 17 years overdue, but it remains an important signal of intent. The Obama administration deserves some time. And after the supplemental passes, what progressives should do is increase efforts to redefine security through a much broader lens -- one that considers our social, political and cultural policies to be as important as military strength. The simple message is this: Today, our national security depends on skillful, smart people who are in the right place at the right time. Some will be in uniform, ideally most will not. Yet despite our own military advising dramatic change, our spending priorities are still looking backward for inspiration -- seeking a combat fix when that era is long gone.

The exit strategy. This is a completely reasonable requirement from Congress. What is an exit strategy? It's a process. In this case, it should be creating the conditions on the ground that marginalize the Taliban and take away its popular draw. In fact, since counter-insurgency should be 20% military and 80% political and economic -- it would be hugely helpful if the State Department generated this exit strategy. Progressives should well ask, what is the 80%? What's the plan? If the main criteria for exit is turning the momentum decisively against the Taliban -- we have to give Afghans a reason to want to do it. We can't do it ourselves.

The best counterinsurgency strategy is a government that works. Are we going to renovate Afghanistan's universities, its airports and other transport hubs, and the highways? Are we going to increase vocational training? Are we going to give preference to Afghan contractors, so they can be first in the line, rather than third or fourth after foreigners of every stripe? What is the plan for agriculture? Are we going to build refrigeration and drying facilities, so Afghans don't have to grow their food in one season, ship it to Pakistan with attendant corrupt customs charges on both sides of the border, and re-import it in another season? Are we going to set up demand chains? Are we going to make sure that we do price supports (the walnut trees cut down by the Russians take 12 years from planting to grow a usable crop), to sustain switchovers? And what about women? Are we going to do what it takes to spread literacy, commercial training, a degree of economic and social independence in a traditional society? What is the plan for water? Afghanistan has some of the most abundant water resources in the world, 90% of which flow out of the country unused. Are we going to rebuild a water and irrigation system? What about the elections? Will they be fair? Will we help prevent cheating, and also to help vet the desperately corrupt police? What about power? Afghanistan could get a lot of green, renewable energy. In many places it has the ideal topography and climate for it. How will that be harnessed? All of this must fit together in a coherent vision of programs that interrelate. It is up to the State Department and our development agency (USAID). And its not just writing a check. It has to be inclusive. Increasing Afghan capacity, consulting the Afghan people and bringing them into the process, especially those at the bottom.

It will turn out in the end, that some of the most radical ideas happen to be the most effective and cheap. And will be able to get us out of there on a finite timeline. We don't have to build a perfect state; we only have to get Afghanistan working well enough so the momentum is decisively against the Taliban, and be able to assure ourselves it will remain so when we leave. So the question is, what is State's plan to get Afghanistan to the tipping point in an upward direction? The faster State comes up with a compelling vision, and implementation plan that makes sense, and that actually empowers Afghans, the better. After all, local people know what material will stand up to winter, who around them sells bad stuff for high prices, and who is honest, where to find the best laborers, etc. We don't use any of this knowledge. It is our arrogance that is quite literally killing us, when the Afghans really want us to succeed and want to succeed themselves. Military presence in Afghanistan is costing billions a month. $10 billion a year on actually trying make the place livable would be cheap, and might well provide our way out. Afghans are practical. They are proud. Most of them have no real interest in jihad against the US, or in being ruled by the Taliban. A bottom up strategy -- one that includes civil society and hands decision making over to the locals -- is the best counterinsurgency plan.

The supplemental on the House floor today still contains billions of dollars for hardware not requested by the Defense Department. The above list is the opportunity cost for these shenanigans (i.e. what we could be doing instead). Progressives have fought well for their priorities in this supplemental bill. They have met with the president, conducted an entire series of oversight discussions on Afghanistan/Pakistan, and asked tough questions throughout. So tomorrow, when this vote is done, regroup, reinvigorate and realize that even more important battles to truly shift our national security priorities still lie ahead. With the public not paying attention and the conservatives unrepentant (watch the Cheney family echo chamber cheerleading for torture), progressives must be centrally involved in today's the national security debate. Indeed, the torture debate has parallel themes, are we a nation of laws? Or of violent and ineffective expedience? We are at a crossroads. So calling all progressives: We still need you all in this fight.

Comments

[aweissnet]

And now we can see they are really all the same when you get right down to it. The republicans and democrats fighting in Washington. The registered loyal republican people think the republicans represent their interests. The registered loyal democratic people think the Dems represent their interests. Then they can blame each other when something goes wrong. They loyal followers agree.

I hope we can now see they are ALL THE SAME. It really doesn't matter whether they wear a D or R. They are the same. It is us against them. We have no say in anything, and we're watching them destroy this country, one after the other. The facade is over, Dems. You are showing your colors.

Doubt they'll get my vote again. I really hope the internet can propel an independent candidate's success. God knows, the media will never promote them.

Yeah, and I'm dreaming. The 2 party system is in place for a reason. And we the people believed it served a good purpose? No, its purpose was to fool us into thinking we had choice, and we do not.

[JXJASON]

My Congressman, Paul Kanjorski, regrets that he voted for the Iraq war. Two years ago he wrote me a letter and said " the Iraq war will go down in history as a big mistake. The people over there have been fighting one another for thousands of years."

There are 60 members of the House who had the wisdom and common sense to vote against this 97 Billion dollar bill. I hope Paul Kanjorski was one of them.

I was 20 years old, in the US Navy, and waiting for orders that would either send me to Vietnam, somewhere else in the world or home. I was lucky. I was discharged from active duty and sent home. Friends of mine died. I have been antiwar ever since.

Lorelei, your photo appears to be of a young lady, perhaps between 25 and 30 years old. This means you did not experience what happened during the Vietnam war. I did. It was horrible.

Iraq and Afghanistan are just as bad.

[Truthahn]

Hilarious how Candidate Obama was livid about Bush using off-budget supplementals to fund the wars, now President Obama is asking for a $96 billion war supplemental of his own. Add that to renditions, state secrets doctrine to quash habeas corpus, Bagram AFB as the new Gitmo, wiretapping, airstrikes in Pakistan, military tribunals, and permanent 50,000-troop occupation of Iraq.

In terms of his handling of the wars, Obama is looking more like Dubya every day.

[Lorelei Kelly - Huffpost Blogger]

don't be so cynical actually this is the last supplemental. Obama will now put war funding into the regular budget submission. This is important for many reasons, mostly so that the money dedicated to the wars is looked at comprehensively and must also (hopefully) be subjected to the kind of scrutiny and tradeoffs that regular budgets endure. Now, the fact that regular defense budgets don't get much scrutiny is a problem...­but unless the american public stands up and gets involved in the defense tradeoff arguments, the national security tradeoff arguments (i.e. we would rather have saved New Orleans than paid for the star wars boondoggle) it won't make much difference. up to you.

[JXJASON]

Dear Ms. Kelly,

I do not want to try to fix the problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Sudan or any other place in the world.

We have enough problems HERE.

Barack Obama IS looking like Bush...And I resent it because I voted for Obama thinking that he would listen AND BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

You have no common sense thinking that we can build Afghanistan into a democracy. This supplemental appropriations bill should have been defeated. A better bill would have provided funds to bring our troops home.

We cannot police the world. And we DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO REBUILD IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

What you and others like Congressman Obey will learn is that the people in the US will have to reduce their standard of living. Bush and his administration and now Obama and his administration are making our country weaker.

I cannot borrow and borrow and borrow my way to prosperity. Neither can you...and neither can the US government.

Our resources have been misspent, squandered,wasted. It saddens me that you are so foolish.

[WarSkeptic]

This is a good opportunity to identify the fake progressives
Now that the democrats are in charge you are going to hear a lot of those anti-war voices quiet down. These people were never serious about being anti-war.
For many years there has been a buildup of people who were just being partisan and bashing Bush because its sort of in fashion. Take note

[Chip W]

Assess feasibility.

[bighat]

Afghanistan, the middle east, nothing will be changed. These people have declared war on one another for centuries. What has the U.S. and Russian done. Added more cash and weapons then they would have ever gotten elsewhere. Democracy (a republic) barely works here. (Can you imagine a foreigner reading any US newspape ror HuffPost and go away believing our system is better)

If our goal is a democracy (republic) in Afghanistan or Iraq)) then we would have to declare them U.S. terroritories and martial law. As of today, we have not even destroyed their poppy fields. So even trying to cut down on the heroin entering the U.S. is not even on the table. Makes one wonder why we are even there. What are the goals again?

Same for Somaliz, Sudan etc.

[Lorelei Kelly - Huffpost Blogger]

two recent reports I've read that have excellent recommendations are at Asia Society in NYC and United States Institute of Peace. if you just go to their websites, i think you'll find some very good recommendations

[wayoutleft]

the imperialist, capitalist american left couldn't vote against a war against canada. forget it. all they ever wanted was to run the imperialist project themselves instead of the republicans.

[Merlin7]

Good Lord, this sounds like a Bushie defending the debacle in Iraq circa 2006.
"Can't abandon (fill in the blank) now because it would be immoral . . ."
How many times have we heard that? And it's still crap. What's immoral is the towering arrogance that prompts Washington insiders to think they can "build nations" from the ground up. It's a recipe for disaster -- a disaster that's still unfolding in Iraq and will further unfold in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
America's smartest strategy would be simply this: GET OUT. Of the Middle East. Of Af-Pak and surrounding neighborhoods. No, the world wouldn't come to an end. Pakistan's nukes wouldn't fall to those nasty old Taliban. But a lot of innocent lives would be saved, and the huge egos in Washington could always find some other project to impress each other with.
I've heard all this before -- Vietnam in the '60s -- and it's really depressing that those in charge of our country never seem to learn a damned thing from history.

[TheHandyman]

But that can't possibly be because the Demowon'ts are the party of Peace and Change and Hope or is that they Hope there is Peace and Change. As a man who seems to know more about Pakistan than Clinton, Holbrooke or Obama said, "so, do you think 16,000 Taliban are going to march into Islamabad, a city of 1.2 million people who have no use for the Taliban and take over the country? I think not." These arguments about supporting the governments that we pick and supporting the people, who we then kill with our bombs, are the same kind of arguments that are used when they have WMDs or their Leader is a despot don't work and they are interchangable with either Party for there is damn little difference between the two when it comes to War.

[Lorelei Kelly - Huffpost Blogger]

in the 1990s, Afghan women were being shot in the back of the head in sports stadiums..­.do you want that to stop? Today, toddlers are being murdered in the Sudan. Do you want that to stop? I do. The fact that our policy is over militarized is partly because the anti-war movement is all about opposition and not about governing. if you would get involved substantively in the policy debate, you might have more of an effect. And are you kidding about the nuclear weapons?

[TruthmongerII]

"But we can't abandon Afghanistan for moral reasons. The Taliban are thugs."

Well yes, but replace "Taliban" with "the Bush Regime" and what is the difference? At least the Taliban stick to their homeland, and the rest of the world would be thrilled if only we would do the same. Americans are largely comfortable living with a rogue regime that used torture regularly in their wide-spread interrogations. How can you pretend that as such, you've a right to question another peoples' morality?

The United States of Hypocrisy.

[just saying]

Except Bush is no longer in power and the Taliban is.

[dan-o]

The Taliban are fighting but they are not in power.

[heatherbrie]

Thanks for the thoughtful approach!

[greenferret]

After the Democrats decided to appropriate the "progressive" label, it was only a matter of time before we started hearing the "progressive" apologies for militarism.

[FearlessFreep]

"But we can't abandon Afghanistan for moral reasons."

They have to destroy it in order to save it.

[DragonMama]

Much of that 6th paragraph would be really nice to see happen here in the United States.

[WorkingClass]

A lot of people like to pose as "progressives" while spinning justifications for being quislings. The United States should withdraw from the Afpac war and cut military spending in half. Voting with imperialist war mongers is a way forward for progressives? Lipstick on a pig.

[Hoosier84]

Good post - difficult issue!