The Morning Plum
* David Brooks, the White House’s favorite columnist, gets a nuanced readout from the inside of the administration’s thinking on Afghanistan. Also: Fascinating infighting.
* Hillary Clinton, previewing Obama’s Afghanistan speech, articulates the view of his national security team’s hawkish wing, says stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakisan is “directly connected to our own national security, to regional security, and to global security.”
* Robert Gibbs elaborates, says Obama will emphasize urgency of transfering the job to our Afghan “partner” in hopes of solving the “world’s” problem.
* Fun fact of the day: After the escalation, more than half of the 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will have been sent by Obama.
* Also in the above link: Obama is expected to lay out “what amounts to an exit strategy” and to “specify benchmarks” for Afghan military and political progress. Unlikely, however, that this will constitute a withdrawal timetable.
* Dems skeptical: Carl Levin says Obama has to “connect the dots” in tonight’s speech.
* And John Murtha says he has yet to hear a definition of “achievable victory.”
* On to health care: Sam Stein has a useful rundown on the state of play in the Senate.
* Good read: F.D.R. would have known how to make the case for the public option.
* Now that the CBO has found that the reform bill doesn’t substantially hike premiums for those with employer-sponsored insurance, what will centrist Dem Senators say?
* Evan Bayh, for one, says he’s reassured, which could give the proposal momentum in the Senate debate.
* And here’s today’s installment in the Michele Bachmann chronicles: “Just over a year ago, 100 percent of the private economy was private.”
What else is happening?
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
David Brooks wrote…
“President Obama faces such a devilishly complex set of constraints that the policy he announces will be partially unsatisfying to every American and to every member of his administration.”
This articulates Obama’s dilemma clearly and concisely. I’m certainly among those who will be disappointed. There is no winning in Afghanistan. We are guilty of incredible hubris if we think we are really going to influence things there in a major way.
Worse still is what the hawkish part of the administration, represented by Hillary Clinton believes…she said…
“As long as Afghanistan and Pakistan struggle to control their borders and extend their sovereignty to all their territory, the door is open to bad actors, and the result can be an environment in which terrorist groups thrive,”
This view to me is absurd! Capt Hoh’s letter pointed out correctly that there are already dozens of spots with “environments where terrorist groups thrive”. Does Hillary believe we should invade and occupy all these countries?
Again good police work is responsible for foiling every terrorist attempt we have stopped. The Marines have stopped none. This is no slam on the Marines…I respect them completely. It is a knock on leaders who try to stop criminal conspiracies with military force and unaffordable nation building which will bankrupt us!!!
Given the goal of the terrorists…which was not to take over our country but to have us destroy it ourselves from within…they are WINNING!!! Dick Cheney’s paranoia is exactly what they hoped to achieve. The ruination of our economy is exactly what they hoped to achieve! We can’t even afford health care for our citizens but it’s OK to try to build a nation from a feudal, tribal, medieval society? That’s exactly what Petraeus/McChrystal are advocating with their COIN strategies.
I’ll note that google produced no hits for “Michell Bachmann’s privates”. Previously, anyway.
@Bernie…I was unaware that you were interested in Michelle Bachmann’s privates.
From Sam Stein’s piece…
“But for some progressive, the history of leadership caving to the demands of those who hold out the longest — along with the White House’s desire to simply get some bill passed — loom large over the debate’s remaining weeks.”
Tomasky, in a piece I linked about a week ago, made the argument that the “not very progressive at all” Dems are a predictable and necessary consequence of Rahm’s move to get as many Dems seated as possible by courting candidates who could actually win in certain right-leaning districts.
From a broader or longer perspective, one might understand this strategy as an acknowledgement of the difficulties in turning around a whole set of institutions which have been, for a good long while, “wired for Republicans” as Josh put it.
The basic assumption is false: that we can ensure our homeland security by fighting unconventional wars abroad on borrowed money. Do we go to Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, too? The generals and their Cheneyite enablers command the national debate.The military-industrial complex is doing well. And China sits back and watches us grind ourselves into the ground.
@rukidding – I try to attend to as much as I can of that broad and colorful pageant moving past my eyeballs.
“* And John Murtha says he has yet to hear a definition of “achievable victory.””
Murtha? You need to be very very quiet and unobtrusive at the moment – you’re in trouble.
“Do we go to Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, too? ”
No but if Bush-Cheney had started a war in one or more of those places, Obama would have to deal with it.
Actually Obama will only have sent 55,000 troops. He sent 21,000 in the Spring and will be sending 34,000 now. That equals 55,000.
The 100,000 number is the total troops in Afghanistan NOT what Obama has sent.
Thank you Sherrie.
Obviously Obama has a huge task in front of him with tonight’s speech, and I have to agree with rukidding and Brooks about how little any decision made would have pleased everyone. Even if there were a timetable for withdrawal, it would not be fast enough to satisfy many of those calling for immediate removal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. It was never going to happen anyways, so the problem is how do we deal with the situation going forward. I’ll reserve my judgment til tonight/tomorrow, but it is obvious that the MSM has already determined that Obama spent too long on this decision and will likely not give him credit for taking the time he needed to fully assess the options in front of him.
As with the war, on health care there has been little tolerance for nuanced and intricate explanations of the what the WH is pursuing. The current culture in the media and Washington is indeed “geared” for the GOP, who harumph at every move by the Dems and are willing to say anything on camera to support their opposition (and never have to espouse anything other than talking points when representing their own positions). It enables a party in opposition to have all of the limelight, and the media is set on giving no assist for better governance because it is caught up in horse races and selling political gossip.
With the game rigged by Bush’s failed presidency and 25 years of the “center-right nation” meme it is no wonder Obama’s approval and movement of legislative priorities has been knocked about so much. Thus endeth my rant of the hour.
Remember when George Bush Sr left office? Remember the mess in Somalia that he left for Clinton?
As far as FDR and making a case for the PO, let me just remind everyone that Congress just handed FDR every single thing he asked for – no arguments at all.
Truthfully Tena I do not remember the mess left in Somalia…I do remember the Blackhawk down incident…but I also do not remember Clinton sending in 35,000 troops. In fact I believe Clinton…like Reagan in Lebanon…removed troops and deescalated the military activity.
Of course now we have Somali pirates and a totally dysfunctional country…but other than policing the waterways a little better and feeling sorry for the poor citizens of Somalia…who cares…I certainly don’t wish to insert 100,000 troops and spend billions trying to build Somalia..or Yemen..into a 21st century nation.
First I want health care for OUR citizens.
Second I want JOBS for OUR citizens.
Third I want better education for OUR citizens
My list could go on and on and on before I ever get to building a nation out of a medieval third world country.
The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis from Saudi Arabia many of whom trained in Germany and some trained right here in America.
“Crazy” doesn’t have borders.
Nonetheless, I’ve been uneasy about Afghanistan for one looming reason: Nuclear armed Pakistan.
The two have a historical relationship that makes addressing one impossible without addressing the other.
Well,it was a mess because Clinton had to deal immediately with the downed helicopter and the mess that Bush left.
He didn’t send troops, you’re right. But Somalia hadn’t been the site of a group that had come into the country and destroyed two buildings, two planes and 2000 people.
@Tena…actually it wasn’t Somalia….at least according to my fraying memory..I open to correction…but I believe Osama Bin Laden got his real start in Yemen. He didn’t move to Afghanistan until the Taliban made him a better offer.
So when you say “But Somalia hadn’t been the site of a group that had come into the country and destroyed two buildings, two planes and 2000 people.”
Yemen was…and so should we attack them. The plotting that took place for 9/11 was done all around the world…and of course most of it took place right here in the good ole USA..with additional plotting in Germany.
Afghanistan was NOT responsible for 9/11. Criminals hiding there gave the order…their henchmen around the world executed it…thanks to an American Leadership that ignored warnings from the FBI.
There is such a thing as prioritizing…spending 10 years and trillions of dollars (Petraues/McChrystal’s COIN strategy) does not make us significantly safer…a cost benefit analysis would be prudent at this time.
The news coming out of CBO is excellent news. That along with the message coming from the health economist in MIT should be the final nail in the coffin as long as the Dems can come out strong and trumpet the news.
Plus, another big thing that came out was CBO in regards to the Stimulus.
“The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.”
If this is true then next years GDP should be pretty spectacular and hopefully we’ll see a V shaped recovery in regards to jobs. I sure hope it starts to strongly take affect by the summer time.
“@Tena…actually it wasn’t Somalia….at least according to my fraying memory..I open to correction…but I believe Osama Bin Laden got his real start in Yemen. He didn’t move to Afghanistan until the Taliban made him a better offer”
Dude – read the comment. I never said anything even related to what you’re saying.
I said that when George Herbert Walker Bush left office he left a quasi-war he’d just started in Somalia for Clinton to deal with.
Republican Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin Laden allowed bin Laden to set up his al Qaeda “base” camp in a nuclear armed (WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction) country.
After which Republican Bush lied US into the Iraq War to chase phantom WMD while completely ignoring Afghanistan extremists metastasizing into an actual nuclear armed (WMD) Muslim dictatorship.
In that context I can see a very compelling reason to expend more resources to Afghanistan.
But because of the diplomatic sensitivity of Pakistanis, I will be very surprised if Obama explicitly says: ‘Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are why we are fighting extremists on and within Pakistan’s borders.’
I forgot to mention CBO estimates only 1/4 of the stimulus was spent already.
Someone had commented that we never went into Somalia or some other places that harbor terrorists.
In fact, Bush Sr. did send the military into Somalia. And he left it for Clinton, who did not send troops. ANd I said well, Somalia is not where Al Qaeda planned 9-11. Afghanistan is.
Tena…my remark was directed towards 9/11 being the justification for an 8 year war in Afghanistan and a continuing escalation.
“But Somalia hadn’t been the site of a group that had come into the country and destroyed two buildings, two planes and 2000 people.”
The point we are debating is that belief of Hillary Clinton..that we can’t leave Afghanistan because of the “environment that would encourage bad actors”
There are bad actors around the world and certainly Somalia and Yemen are just a couple of examples.
New Reference makes a great point as well that the conspirators who attacked us on 9/11 were actually guys from a country we consider as friendly…Saudi Arabia…in other words Saudi Arabia is a nation that
to again quote Hillary….has or at least had…
” an environment in which terrorist groups thrive”
rukidding – gotcha.
I agree with News Ref. But I have said since 9-11 that this isn’t a military problem with a miltitary solution.
I merely remarked that Clinton had no compelling reason to do anything but get the hell out of Somalia. Obama has 9-11 to contend with and people’s continuing concern.
Whether you agree with the troop increase or not, it doesn’t change the fact that like it or not, Aghanistan was the site where Osama bin laden had his HQ.
So there is causus belli, whether you agree with it or not.
There was none in Somalia – just a frakked up Bush mess.
@rukidding: “This view to me is absurd! Capt Hoh’s letter pointed out correctly that there are already dozens of spots with ‘environments where terrorist groups thrive’. Does Hillary believe we should invade and occupy all these countries?”
I completely understand the sentiment behind your statement. I just wonder if this move to secure Afghanistan is largely predicated on an effort prevent destabilization of the region, so that the government of a nation (i.e., Pakistan) that has nuclear weapons is not toppled.
I’m not sure the same potential for regional destabilization or acquisition of weaponized nuclear material (i.e., non-”dirty bombs”) exists for other “safe havens.”
Actually let me clear this up completely.
What I’m saying here is this: this is not Obama’s war. This is George Bush and Dick Cheney’s war. Just like Somalia wasn’t Clinton’s problem but he inherited it anyway.
@News Reference…”But because of the diplomatic sensitivity of Pakistanis, I will be very surprised if Obama explicitly says: ‘Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are why we are fighting extremists on and within Pakistan’s borders.’
This is the ONLY rational explanation for the escalation I’ve heard. I agree Pakistan is the real issue and more importantly their nukes.
Fareed Zakaria had a guest on one week who claimed the U.S. already has a secret agreement with the Pakistanis about their nuclear arsenal and what will happen if the extremists get out of hand.
I agree that Pakistan’s nukes are worrisome…but so are North Koreas…in fact they are in desperate economic straits which makes me wonder how much a nuke would go for on the open market.
There is plenty to worry about by my simple postion is that pissing away trillions more on the McChrystal nation building COIN strategy in Afghanistan is simply not worth it upon a careful cost benefit analysis.
We have one President at a time.
Afghanistan is a hell hole now, and President Obama has decided to expand our military presence in that hell hole. He made that decision, so he owns the results of his decision.
His own VP, and his own Ambassador in Afghanistan, urged him not to walk into that trap. He has decided to do so. George W. Bush did not make him go for a military escalation, so we need to stop using that lame excuse, unless people also want to blame Lyndon Johnson for making Richard Nixon do what he did in Vietnam.
It is now President Obama’s War.
He could have chosen to leave a smaller force, say around twenty thousand troops there, to launch strikes against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Leadership on an ongoing basis.
Since Robert Gibbs is declaring that we are not going to engage in nation building in Afghanistan, then why the hell do we need more than twenty thousand troops, tops, in the damn place.
I predict that two years from now, President Obama will be asking himself: why the hell did I not follow the advise of my VP and my Ambassador?
A smaller footprint is what was called for, but President Obama took plenty of time to evaluate the situation, and he has decided to Bigfoot it in Afghanistan. It will end very badly.
I think from the start we should have done anything but bomb Afghanistan. It is used to being bombed back to the stone age. IT’s been bombed back to the stone age forever.
It was a stupid move, but on the other hand we actually did pin bin Laden down in Afghanistan and Bush let him go – so there must have been some good reason to be there since we actually could have caught him there – almost did.
“Bigfoot it in Afghanistan”
I think the idea that this ia bigfooting is wrong.
Obama campaigned on going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He campaigned for 2 years on this – because for 7 years I had heard liberals complain that we abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq.
ANd Obama fit right in with the arguments the left made for 7 years.
He said it over and over and over and every time he did, the left cheered.
O yes we did.
Now we’re complaining. I don’t like war either. But this is not anything we shouldnt’ have known was coming. He didn’t hide his intentions.
Ever.
One thing that totally pleases me is the debate going on here among progressives about Afghanistan. I remember the pejorative term created by the right back in the 60’s…”knee jerk liberal”. The fact that we are having this discussion assures me that we are no longer “knee jerk”.
In fact that label has now been co-opted by the tea baggers and the Republicans with their conservative “purity” test.
I do have faith in Obama’s judgment and I am willing to listen to what he offers tonight.
I simply hope he is not besmirching what might be a terrific record otherwise…I still have the visions of LBJ who I believe has never really gotten credit for all the good he did for this country because of Vietnam. Perhaps I’m just getting paranoid in my old age.:-)
“But because of the diplomatic sensitivity of Pakistanis, I will be very surprised if Obama explicitly says: ‘Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are why we are fighting extremists on and within Pakistan’s borders.”
Obama probably won’t use those words. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama addresses the nuclear weapons issue. The administration (and other international powers) have made it abundantly clear that Pakistan needed to step up it’s game on the security front.
In fact, I would actually be surprised if Obama DOESN’T issue stern words for Pakistan about the nuclear issue. Pakistan’s efforts are crucial to this mission. If they aren’t willing to engage the Taliban and Al Qaeda [They were initially reluctant.] then this mission absolutely won’t work.
“In fact, I would actually be surprised if Obama DOESN’T issue stern words for Pakistan about the nuclear issue. Pakistan’s efforts are crucial to this mission. If they aren’t willing to engage the Taliban and Al Qaeda [They were initially reluctant.] then this mission absolutely won’t work.”
My thinking on this is that Pakistan has asked us to stick around because the military running Pakistan has its hands full to keep from the losing the country to radicals.
They are working with us – they have to. It’s in Pakistan’s best interest.
@Tena…I direct this at you because you are the Texan. Do you not find it annoying…or perhaps sad that the man who was responsible for Medicare and other “Great Society” programs has received such little recognition? I visit DC every year and my wife and I walk all over the place. We have visited the FDR monument which is actually like 3 monuments in one…we land at the Reagan Airport and see the Reagan building downtown…plenty of commemoration of JFK…but I can’t really say I recall where the LBJ monument is located.
I realize there are many who think JFK fostered the ideas that LBJ got converted into law. I also realize that personally LBJ was crude, vulgar, and heavy handed. But it does seem that Vietnam totally overshadowed what was otherwise a very remarkable Presidency.
“Now we’re complaining. I don’t like war either. But this is not anything we shouldnt’ have known was coming. He didn’t hide his intentions.”
I agree, Tena. After years of neglect and mismanagement, including significant under-resourcing (all due to the Iraq misadventure), Obama has always been quite clear about his desire to get Afghanistan “right.” This didn’t come out of left field.
“I do have faith in Obama’s judgment and I am willing to listen to what he offers tonight.
I simply hope he is not besmirching what might be a terrific record otherwise”
Darlin, this agnostic and dedicate secular humanist has a long conversation with the (maybe) historical Jesus about this every night – I want us to succeed. I want Obama to succeed. The last thing I want to see happen is this damn mess hung around HIS neck instead of where it belongs – Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice.
Tena’s right. I’m pretty sure I could bring up footage of the speech at the Democratic National Convention and the crowd cheered after this paragraph:
“For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.”
He’s been campaigning about ramping up the war in Afghanistan for a while now. Now that he’s made a decision on Afghanistan, those who voted him in are either;
A) Losing faith in his ability to make the right decision or
B) Never had any intention of backing him in an escalation of logistical, troop and civilian support in Afghanistan.
As far as I see it, we voted this guy in to change course and clean up the disasters left by the previous admin. Give him some frickin’ breathing room to do it.
And please – only about 6 of y’all have pressured me on LBJ and didn’t I think he was great but blew it.
Here’s what I think about that: this is not 1967. Obama is not LBJ. Afghanistan is not Vietnam = Iraq is, if you insist on comparisons.
” Give him some frickin’ breathing room to do it.”
I’m with you there Mike…however we may disagree on “how much” breathing room to allow. Personally I want us out by the end of his term so we can concentrate more effectively on the myriad domestic issues which also include a huge mess left by 8 years of disastrous republican rule.
“They are working with us – they have to. It’s in Pakistan’s best interest.”
Tena, you do realize that Pakistan’s ISS is funding the Taliban, right? Who’s giving funds to Pakistan? That’s us. So really by the transitive property we are funding our enemy- that’s how totally effed things are right now over there. Not a good sign.
@Tena…I was not bringing up LBJ to sway you or imply Vietnam=Afghanistan…although I concede that comparison has been made repeatedly and I understand your concluding that was my purpose.
I was actually asking more from a Michael Bechloss of historical perspective. Aside from Vietnam..forget about 1967 versus 2009…do you not believe LBJ had a remarkable legislative record. If nothing else how could he not get credit for Medicare? Is Medicare not a HUGE accomplishment. How could he not get credit for historic Civil Rights legislation? And he was a Southerner…is that not remarkable.
Why doesn’t LBJ get his props?
“So really by the transitive property we are funding our enemy- that’s how totally effed things are right now over there. Not a good sign.”
If you can show me where the people who are running Pakistan are funding Al Qaeda, ok. There are plenty of Saudis funding Al Qaeda. That doesn’t mean the House of Saud is.
Pakistan’s government does not want to lose the country to Al Qaeda.
Read some Fareed Zakariah on that.
I missed this earlier…historian Machael Kazin on Palin’s similarities to Joe McCarthy:
http://washingtonindependent.com/4733/the-great-populist-divide
I don’t care what he campaigned on with regard to Afghanistan. That place has deteriorated drastically from the picture we had of where things stood, in 2008.
McChrystal did a recent survey and reported back that things had gone to hell in a hand basket, and that the Taliban were now resurgent, and actually winning. Add to that the fact that we now know how corrupt the Karzai Cabal is. We did not hear about that in 2008, but we now know that his brother is the drug lord of Kandahar province, and yet Karzai is keeping him in his government. We know that Karzai rigged the election, with massive ballot stuffing(Over a million votes had to be thrown out, and I am sure they did not detect all of the fraudulent ones, and a lot of ballots for his opponents were also found dumped)
President Obama has all that information now, that he did not have when he was campaigning during the election cycle.
Why should he stick to what he campaigned on, after we have all learned that the Taliban are now winning, and that the Afghanistan government, is not really a government, but just a Mafia operation.
A Foolish Consistency, and you know the rest of it.
rukidding, same here. This escalation shouldn’t take more than a couple years. After that, if things are VASTLY improved it means either the Afghani’s really don’t care about governing without corruption or the people are so fanatically blinded by religion they want no part of a central govn’t and will fight central rule at all costs. Only a generational change can fix that and we don’t have a generation worth of cash to stay there and baby sit them.
Bernie – what a fascinating piece.
She really is both a bad joke and dangerous. Hard to be both at the same time, but she manages that.
Here’s what “emptywheel” thinks of the interview landed by Politico of Dick Cheney, another media pass.
“Don’t you think you’d ask him, explicitly, why he had defended the decision not to send US troops after Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora when it was clear that the decision had allowed bin Laden to escape? “Mr. Cheney,” you might ask, “it has been shown pretty irrefutably that you let OBL get away. Why’d you defend your decision allowing him to escape when you knew it had led to his escape? Why did you ignore Henry Crumpton’s warning–briefed to you and President Bush personally at the end of November 2001–that an escape route to Pakistan was wide open and Afghan troops wouldn’t prevent OBL form escaping through it?”
But this is as close as Jim “Pool Boy” VandeHei and Mike Allen got in an interview with Cheney:
But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.
Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.
I guess a follow-up question would have been too much to ask for from Pool Boy and his sidekick?”
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/01/politicos-vandehei-and-allen-join-the-judy-miller-club-for-cheney-stenographers/
@Bernie…enjoyed the link and I get the populist connection between Palin and McCarthy…but as the article pointed out…McCarthy had some genuine achievements…
“He then worked his way through an unprestigious law school, and enlisted in the Marines to fight for his country.”
Being Mayor of Wasilla and a half term Governor of Alaska hardly compares to McCarthy’s CV. I also believe McCarthy was not intellectually incurious or just plain dumb. One of the most frightening parts of the Palin phenomenon to me is that a large % of her supporters actually relate to her lack of intelligence. They think that being uneducated frees one from the liberal bias created by institutions of higher learning. This dumbing down of America by our pop culture and now our pop politicians does worry me and has serious implications for our future. It could be the reason the Asians eat our lunch.
“Tena, you do realize that Pakistan’s ISS is funding the Taliban, right? Who’s giving funds to Pakistan? That’s us. So really by the transitive property we are funding our enemy- that’s how totally effed things are right now over there. Not a good sign.”
Unfortunately, funding the Taliban is nothing new for America: We started in the 80’s when they were fighting the Soviets.
“With a dynamic labor movement behind them, liberals had been able to exploit antipathy against wealthy employers and the Republicans they bankrolled. But when conservatives began attacking liberals as an elite that was unpatriotic, condescending, ungodly and licentious, they had no rebuttal to offer.”
The only rebuttal we ever offered was to prove that they were right about us – we just got more condescending (Americans are stupid sheeple – liberal mantra.)
And the more we insist that we’re the only ones with the keys to the kingdom and the right answers about everything,the more voters we’re going to lose in the middle, just like the right has done.
For the past week or so, I have been labeling this escalation as “A Tragic Mistake”. In today’s NY Times, Bob Herbert puts the same label on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Excerpt:
““I hate war,” said Dwight Eisenhower, “as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
He also said, “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 not clothed.”
I suppose we’ll never learn. President Obama will go on TV Tuesday night to announce that he plans to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan to fight in a war that has lasted most of the decade and has long since failed.
After going through an extended period of highly ritualized consultations and deliberations, the president has arrived at a decision that never was much in doubt, and that will prove to be a tragic mistake. It was also, for the president, the easier option.
It would have been much more difficult for Mr. Obama to look this troubled nation in the eye and explain why it is in our best interest to begin winding down the permanent state of warfare left to us by the Bush and Cheney regime. It would have taken real courage for the commander in chief to stop feeding our young troops into the relentless meat grinder of Afghanistan, to face up to the terrible toll the war is taking — on the troops themselves and in very insidious ways on the nation as a whole.
More soldiers committed suicide this year than in any year for which we have complete records. But the military is now able to meet its recruitment goals because the young men and women who are signing up can’t find jobs in civilian life. The United States is broken — school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding — yet we’re nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.
I keep hearing that Americans are concerned about gargantuan budget deficits. Well, the idea that you can control mounting deficits while engaged in two wars that you refuse to raise taxes to pay for is a patent absurdity. Small children might believe something along those lines. Rational adults should not.”
“We started in the 80’s when they were fighting the Soviets.”
We put Saddam in charge of Iraq, too.
Same old same old.
If Obama is trying to break the pattern, I don’t care what he does to accomplish that. And I believe he is trying to change it.
But we have the reality of two nasty prolonged wars to try to untangle.
And how are we going to accommodate thousands of vets looking for jobs until the economy can start providing more jobs again?
An essential part of moderating Afghanistan is addressing Pakistan’s (mixed) support of extremists.
Historically, the biggest reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan was that American weapons were being smuggled into Afghanistan through Pakistan.
Pakistan and America largely built the Mujaheddin precursors to the Taliban extremists.
And while we belatedly addressed the mess we created to proxy-fight the Soviets after 9/11, many Pakistanis still see their support of Mujaheddin extremists as part of their arsenal.
(And yes, it’s important to note that there are a lot of thoughtful, moderate Pakistani citizens who largely outnumber the extremists. But there IS significant support by many Pakistanis of the extremists AND the Pakistani government HAS historically seen the extremists as weapons in their arsenal.)
Pakistani support for extremists is more than just a challenge in our conflict in Afghanistan, it’s also a challenge to nuclear armed India.
The two nuclear armed nations of Pakistan and India have had several wars and are still in conflict over the contested area of Kashmir.
When you consider the larger strategic consequences of the intermittent conflicts between the nuclear armed countries of India and Pakistan, there are militarily strategic reasons to have a presence in the region.
“When you consider the larger strategic consequences of the intermittent conflicts between the nuclear armed countries of India and Pakistan, there are militarily strategic reasons to have a presence in the region.”
Obviously you are better at understanding military strategy than I am.
I accept your comment at the correct situation. Fareed Zakariah has talked a lot about the military that runs Pakistan and the fact that it does not want to lose the country to extremists, though it is likely true that at the same time they use the exremists as leverage. It makes perfect sense that they would.
Seriously – if Obama just stopped both conflicts and brought everyone home – what the hell would we do with them right now?
We’d have a homeless army of vets on the streets.
*sigh*
And he really wanted to be president because he believes he can fix the country.
Jebus, you better get in there and take the wheel right now – this is your president, too.
Dick Cheney keeps up the assault on … Obama’s Bow:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/national-security/cheney-keeps-up-the-assault-on-obamas-bow/
In the western regions of Afghanistan, Iran is now also providing arms and IED expertise and equipment to the Taliban forces.
That also makes sense from Iran’s perspective. The more they can keep us bogged down in Afghanistan, the less we will be able to give them much trouble. Iran can also create more mischief for us in Iraq, when ever they wish too.
I am still against stupid wars. Afghanistan has become a stupid war. Sad to say, President Obama has decided to escale in that Stupid War.
“We’d have a homeless army of vets on the streets.”
Two words: conservation corps.
Let’s fix this damn country before the Republicans f**k it up permanently.
My comment about Af/Pak ISI, etc, got eaten, but it was essentially: Thanks a lot Poppy Bush for cutting and running after the Soviet Afghan War and resulting civil war. If we didn’t cut and run then we never would have had a Taliban or an AQ to deal with in the first place. These f***ing clowns screw up everything they touch and in the end just want more more more death destruction and greed. So sick of it.
OK, Now I have heard it all.
We need to keep our Troops lives at risk in two stupid wars, or else they might become homeless. Wow. Just Wow!
Thank you Ethan, for making it plain what Bush and Bush have done to us.
We’ve got clean-up going back to Reagan who started all this by putting Saddam in charge of Iraq and funding the extremists in Pakistan.
“We need to keep our Troops lives at risk in two stupid wars, or else they might become homeless. Wow. Just Wow!”
You’re just talking to me like a troll, LIam. Frak you. That’s not what I said – I asked a question about the situation.
Let me tell you something, mr. Wow just Wow sbj, if you’re going to be as dishonest with me as sbj is, you can keep your trolling to yourself.
@Liam…this from your Herbert link…
More soldiers committed suicide this year than in any year for which we have complete records. But the military is now able to meet its recruitment goals because the young men and women who are signing up can’t find jobs in civilian life. The United States is broken — school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding — yet we’re nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.
While there is at long last some movement to actually begin paying for these military adventures by raising taxes…NOBODY wants to really examine the true costs. Herbert has just touched on a few of them. Walk the streets of St. Petersburg Florida or any other large US city and you will see remnants of the Vietnam War still lingering in the form of substance abusing homeless Vietnam Vets. The costs of these wars will linger long after they’ve ended.
@Tena
“And how are we going to accommodate thousands of vets looking for jobs until the economy can start providing more jobs again?”
While I respect the fact you’ve considered that consequence it may not be that bad. First of all our Armed Forces are literally in shambles personnel wise. Men and women who have served multiple tours in war zones deserve a taste of the peace time Army. Secondly many of them could use the GI bill as I did after Vietnam to further their education.
Again 30,000 men X 1,000,000 dollars= 30,000,000,000 or 300,000 jobs that pay $100,000 per year. And that’s just the ADDITIONAL troops.
If you want to pretend, Liam, that we don’t have an economic situation that cannot absorb several hundred thousands new job seekers, that’s fine with me.
But there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging reality. At the same time I never said we should keep them fighting for that reason. I pointed out that we have a huge problem when we do bring them home.
If you ever accuse me of wanting to keep a war going for any reason whatsoever, I’ll frakking kneecap you in front of God and everybody.
Tena, here’s some good background reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
(esp this part and below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Soviet_personnel_strengths_and_casualties)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1978-present)
It’s really pretty unbelievable, this whole Afghan thing that we are in today goes straight back to the ’70s.
And Liam – quit riding my a*s*s simply because I dared to criticize your almighty Irish wisdom about poetry.
That’s what started your campaign against me.
Tena,
You are just talking out of your Arse, and trying to spin this war escalation as being great because President Obama is so clever.
If John McCain had won, and was doing the very same thing, you would be lambasting him for expanding what Bush started.
You are just as absurd, with your Obama infatuation, as are those Teabaggers with their Palin infatuation.
If President Obama had decided to not send more Troops or to actually draw down the number, you would be all over this blog singing his praises for that decision.
You really are just a Stepford Obama supporter.
Liam points out the most compelling militarily strategic reason for NOT remaining in Afghanistan: “the Afghanistan government, is not really a government, but just a Mafia operation.”
Beyond Republican Bush’s failure after failure after failure in Afghanistan, one of the reasons that the Taliban started taking territory under Republican Bush’s leadership was his support for the corrupt Afghan government.
One thing about the Taliban: They kill the corrupt. It’s old fashioned ‘conservative’ justice. It’s also a way of terrorizing your opposition.
But when the “opposition” is often corrupt, killing those that are corrupt is also a perverse way of gaining the trust and admiration of those neighbors whom the “corrupt” were taking advantage of.
It’s how the Taliban rose in the aftermath of the Soviet conflict: They provided law and order with fanatic efficiency.
But Republican Bush’s malignant indifference to law and order blinded his ability to recognize that his support for the corrupt Afghan government exacerbated the Afghan conflict.
And while Republican Bush was occupied with his Iraq War Lie, the Taliban slowly gained a foothold throughout Southern Afghanistan AND metastasized into the nuclear armed dictatorship of Pakistan during Republican Bush’s Presidency.
Unfortunately, at this point the corruption of the Afghan government has solidified to the point where our continued support for the corrupt Afghan government arguably further exacerbates the conflict.
But it still leaves the problem of the nuclear armed neighbor of extremist infected Pakistan.
(italics corrected, sorry)
Liam points out the most compelling militarily strategic reason for NOT remaining in Afghanistan: “the Afghanistan government, is not really a government, but just a Mafia operation.”
Beyond Republican Bush’s failure after failure after failure in Afghanistan, one of the reasons that the Taliban started taking territory under Republican Bush’s leadership was his support for the corrupt Afghan government.
One thing about the Taliban: They kill the corrupt. It’s old fashioned ‘conservative’ justice. It’s also a way of terrorizing your opposition.
But when the “opposition” is often corrupt, killing those that are corrupt is also a perverse way of gaining the trust and admiration of those neighbors whom the “corrupt” were taking advantage of.
It’s how the Taliban rose in the aftermath of the Soviet conflict: They provided law and order with fanatic efficiency.
But Republican Bush’s malignant indifference to law and order blinded his ability to recognize that his support for the corrupt Afghan government exacerbated the Afghan conflict.
And while Republican Bush was occupied with his Iraq War Lie, the Taliban slowly gained a foothold throughout Southern Afghanistan AND metastasized into the nuclear armed dictatorship of Pakistan during Republican Bush’s Presidency.
Unfortunately, at this point the corruption of the Afghan government has solidified to the point where our continued support for the corrupt Afghan government arguably further exacerbates the conflict.
But it still leaves the problem of the nuclear armed neighbor of extremist infected Pakistan.
The problem in Pakistan will still exist, no matter what happens in Afghanistan. It is almost just as much of a Red Herring excuse, as the one that was used to go into Iraq, because we got attacked by Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
There is no solution in Afghanistan; for the Pakistan problem. The badlands of Pakistan contain more of the bad guys than Afghanistan does, and we can not send our military into Pakistan.
ru-
re; LBJ not getting his props.
This is something I’ve wondered about for a long time because I’ve studied him quite a bit. The only thing I can think is that the “liberal establishment” cannot forgive Vietnam. There is always the flip side to this when one looks at all the legislative and Civil Rights record, then you go,’ Oh yeah he did all that as well.” I think he’s kryptonite-you can’t touch him without opening up alot of voodoo. Someone much smarter than I said were it not for Vietnam, he’d be considered one of the great presidents.
“we can not send our military into Pakistan.”
Actually we do through robot killer drones.
Obama caught a lot of heat for supporting the projection of force through drones during the primaries. Or rather, he caught a lot of heat for being honest with the public about the use of the drones.
I’m hoping that Obama can be as candid about his reasoning in committing America to an escalation in the Afghan conflict that Republican Bush botched.
There are compelling reasons on both sides of the argument, I encourage you to keep making your case.
But while I agree there are a lot of compelling reasons to leave, I still see nuclear armed Pakistan as a compelling reason to stay, especially considering Pakistan’s continued exploitation of extremists as a weapon.
Were it not for his Vietnam folly, he would have run again, and won, which would have allowed him to finish his domestic agenda. That would have put him up among the ranks of the great. Sadly, President Obama has not learned from the Johnson experience, and is walking right into the very same trap.
@Chuck in Denton…Thanks for your observations. I confess to originally thinking about LBJ because of the obvious comparsion of Afghanistan to Vietnam. But the more I thought the more I wondered about LBJ himself.
As someone who served in the Army and went to Vietnam on Jan 1 1969 I can’t say I had fond memories of him. But the more I thought about him the more I realized how Vietnam had clouded my judgement. His legislative accomplishments exceed everyone but FDR’s. So where is the LBJ memorial in DC?
I’ve become fascinated enough to pick up a biography of LBJ. Any recommendations Chuck?
BTW..Denton has a special place in my heart. As a young single man I was stationed at Mineral Wells and we always believed North Texas State had the most beautiful coeds in the land.
I will reiterate what I said last night:
“As the USSR found out the hard way it is not possible to “win” in Afghanistan because of its tribally fractured culture and the corruption it breeds, lack of any valuable resource other than poppies, and for the military, the terribly inhospitable conditions presented by the terrain they must fight in. Rolling through a flat desert with totally superior troops and equipment and control of the air may have worked in Iraq, but success in Afghanistan requires ground troops fighting in conditions where superior technology will be less effective. This means more troops must be used and in the long term when they leave tribalism, corruption and poppy growing will still be going strong.
Now if Clinton had just taken out bin Ladin when he had the chance…”
We have the issue of keeping the nukes in Pakistan out of the hands of those who would use them on atheists and secular humanists (you & me, Tena). Yet there’s not much discussion here of what to do about Iran. It has been absolutely clear for some time that they will produce nuclear weapons. Pres. Obama has said Iran must respond or there will be consequences. Between the Imams and their wacked out president I don’t see any consequences that will sway them from their objectives. It looks as if we’re screw*d if we leave & we’re screw*d if we stay.
I’m a pragmatist, but how do you deal with people who will pretend to listen to reason while continuing to prepare for your destruction? As Teddy R said? “Talk softly, but carry a big stick”
But then, you must be willing to actually use the stick when necessary.
We do not need to fight an expanded war in Afghanistan just to be able to send in unmanned drones to Pakistan.
All we need us one enclave, like we had in Iraqi Kurdistan, to be able to strike at all the major camps.
An enclave in Northern Afghanistan, with no more than twenty thousand troops would allow us to do that.
We will have to go after Al-Qaeda types, in Pakistan for decades, so the Afghanistan surge will not change that reality, and we are not going to be able to keep a big army there for decades, so we might as well have pared down to a smaller footprint, for the long haul, now. This was the perfect opportunity to do that. President Obama could have pointed out that he did not have a real partner in the Afghanistan government, and his Ambassador told him just that. We missed a golden opportunity to scale back to what we will have to end up doing anyway. Now was the perfect time to do so. When we next come to that point, it will be because our surge or surges have not made any lasting improvement in the hell hole known as Afghanistan, and by then we may not be able to make the case for keeping even a small long term footprint there, to keep after the bad guys for the decades that it will take.
ru-
I would highly recommend Robert Caro’s trilogy if you want to read about his entire life up to 1960. “LBJ and the American Dream” by Kearns-Goodwin is another for the presidential years. You’ve perhaps already read Bechloss’ edits of the White House tapes which are fascinating.
You will probably not end up a “fan” of LBJ in the end because he was the ultimate operator but, if you were a liberal in the 1960’s and needed to get something done, he was your man. I think he was brillaint for his time but had deep insecurities.
In my previous post I said the “liberal establishment” was responsible for him not getting his due but, really, that’s an oversimplification. One cannot be responsible for a large chunk of the 50K killed in a war that we lost and expect that they will get a memorial.
“Now that the CBO has found that the reform bill doesn’t substantially hike premiums for those with employer-sponsored insurance, what will centrist Dem Senators say?”
Doesn’t substantially hike premiums? So you are admitting it does, and you still favor a health care bill the entire purpose of which was to contain costs? It has become obvious to anyone that this debate is no longer about passing a bill that does anything worthwhile. It is about passing a bill just so you can say you did, because you think there is some sort of political gain to be had. Thank God I will be filibustering this piece of garbage.
“‘In general’,” it said, ‘the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy, and decrease premiums for those who are older and relatively unhealthy’”
That quote is from the linked article. Wow, what a great bill. So this is essentially a wealth transfer scheme. That quote admits that premiums will rise. Why are you people in support of a bill that will actually see in an increase in the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans?
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments.
The Republican Record: The 2007 Republican Great Recession, record debt, and an evisceration of core Constitutional protections.
Not to mention the Republican Iraq War Lie, Republican war crimes, and right wing economic frauds that handed China our American manufacturing base along with millions of American jobs.
And lets not forget that the Republican-Corporatist-Theocratic Party’s policies also leave over 44,000 dead each year because they’ve chosen corporate-mammon worship over healing the least amongst US.