A progressive presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes for the Obama administration were squandered in Afghanistan?
Members of Congress who want the Obama administration to succeed won't do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military. If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be counterpressure.
Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined, AP reports. Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.
But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military escalation.
Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask your Representative to sign it - here.]
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports, no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay the same, rather than increased.
If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals. If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political pushback to military escalation.
Isn't the burden of proof on those who want to send more Americans in harm's way? Are you satisfied that the case has been made that sending more U.S. troops is in the interest of Afghans?
/quote
Well, now you're conflating courtroom and military concepts. Errors either way can be lethal; deploying fewer troops does not necessarily equate to less danger or fewer troops killed. Anybody can be deterred by a *sufficient* show of force, and my recollection is that from the first days of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan has been underwhelming. The general idea as I understand it is to deter terrorist and extremists who shelter them, and thus to embolden moderates.
quote:
I think maybe you're conflating Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan; that would be a great starting point.
/quote
You're right, I was thinking of the other war while writing about the Afghanistan war.
quote:
Regardless of what one thinks about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the Congressional letter does not address that. It addresses the announced increase, asking President Obama to reconsider it.
/quote
... without making a strong case, or any case at all, for a specific alternative course of action. They have thus dumped all the burden of leadership on the President and taken no responsibility themselves. If they have a better idea, let's see it in writing. Until then, I say they're just throwing red meat to their pacifist base.
quote:
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
/quote
Undoubtedly. But this post does not present facts that persuade me, either that "escalation" is the right word, or that Obama's strategy is the wrong one. Basically, we have one source, the Carnegie Endowment, and a very small number of Representatives so far. I know Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are firm non-interventionists and on committing our military to any new conflicts I'm sure I'd agree with them, absolutely. But in this case our military is already deployed and I wonder whether they're both trying a little too hard to bring the soldiers all home a little too fast. Or, maybe they're right, but I know I don't have enough information in this post and the linked petition page to dissuade me from my support for President Obama's Afghanistan strategy.
What is "the mission" in Afghanistan? Everyone wants to know.
Regardless of what one thinks about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the Congressional letter does not address that. It addresses the announced increase, asking President Obama to reconsider it.
Is escalation the right word? More troops will carry out more combat operations, more Americans will be killed, and more Afghans will be killed.
Obama announced a strategy review, but the announcement of more troops has preceded the completion of the strategy review. Isn't that backwards?
Isn't the burden of proof on those who want to send more Americans in harm's way? Are you satisfied that the case has been made that sending more U.S. troops is in the interest of Afghans?
If the intent is to leave behind a stable Afghanistan capable of governing itself, this military escalation *may* well be counterproductive.
/quote
... according to the analysis of one source, a big name (Carnegie, I mean) to be sure, but just as sure, not the only game in town. It all looks more political than substantive to me.