Rebalancing Act

The disadvantage to this method is that it doesn’t yield quick decisions, a potential problem in times of crisis
.
This doesn’t follow at all. Just because somone considers decisions carefully and thoroughly when he can doesn’t mean that in a time of crisis he’ll be slow. It means at a time of crisis, he’ll be well informed.
.

Better a measured response in a crisis than the wrong quick decision.

Obama has shown on many occasions in the past that he does not rush to react to events, but neither does he dither, and when he does react, his decisions are first-rate.

Joe Klein:
.
What Dirks said.
.
This is not to say that Obama shouldn’t send more troops to Afghanistan. He probably should.
.
You still haven’t answered answered a basic question that remains unanswered for millions and millions of Americans –the people from whom the political press corps is so obviously disconnected.
.
The question is:
.
“Why does it help the United States for us to indefinitely occupy Afghanistan? Is it worth the cost, especially during a period of obvious financial instability for the nation?”

PS: Anyone who hasn’t seen this riveting Bill Moyers interview with Simon Johnson should check this out right away http://pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html.

The folks over on Johnson’s blog baselinescenario.com (which Krugman calls a can’t miss) are getting good and riled.

Obama only has so much time before the Left gets angry and the GOP slam him for taking too long…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

@stuartzechman: The circumstances leading to 9/11 are pretty much exactly the same today: Taliban advancing through Afghanistan and the mountains of Pakistan, taking control by force of resisting areas and creating a safe state for violent extremism.

The threat of violent religious extremism is very real–see New York, London, Madrid, Delhi, Mumbai–and it will continue. It must be kept on its heels and on the defensive in its core. It may not be possible to root it out–but if it can be kept in mountain caves it can be held down and held at bay.

And as a Canadian, can I mention that we have had troops in Afghanistan continually since this war started? We kept faith with America and took the tough assignments even when your own government lost its attention span and took half your army off to a different country pretty much for no reason. And we have continued to lose many more troops there (per capita) than the US. After all the blood we shed there for you–for your war, not ours–we will not get over you guys giving up and walking away from this. Sell a goddamn plane if you need the money for another 10,000 troops. Or better yet, cut the shocking and unbelievable waste in your own military industrial complex and put some boots on the ground.

It may not be worth it, readinwritin. History is replete with superior powers eventually letting go of that prickly nation.
.
Police action against Al-Queda and other approaches are much better, anyway.
.
The days of “Cowboy Foreign Policy” are over!

Joe, don’t look at Iraq as a model.
.
The geopolitics are different…

It must be kept on its heels and on the defensive in its core.
.
Thanks so much for your response in lieu of Joe Klein, readinwritin.
.
It seems that the point of your response can be summed up in the quoted sentence above, which itself can be rephrased:
.
“We fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.”
.
Noone disputes that the threat from radical religious terrorist organizations is real. I’m not representing an anti-war position. I’m not reflexively anti-military or anti-military action. What in dispute is whether or not the continued occupation of a historically ungovernable country is actually necessary or even productive in meeting that threat.
.
If Canadians are prepared to assume any cost to keep religious extremists “held down” in Afghani caves, in the mere hopes that this will somehow affect the prospects of further terror catastrophes, then I have to assume that a better case that the one you just put forward has been made to them.
.
I’m very, very sorry for the loss of life and health of the brave Canadian troops who have served their country in Afghanistan. Their grievous loss will not hold us hostage to a policy of more loss, and more expenditure, and more wasted effort and focus.
.
Maybe a case can be made. Maybe the cost can be shown to be worth the benefit. Maybe I will be the first person to vociferously defend the Obama Administration’s escalation policy in Afghanistan, once such a policy is enacted and once I am given a good reason why the benefit is worth the cost.
.
Unfortunately your two rationales (“Fight them there so that we don’t fight them here”, and “Don’t dishonor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice by calling continued occupation a mistake”) have been almost completely discredited, and are not persuasive to me in the least.
.
Thank you so much for your engagement; I understand completely why this sort of line of questioning would bring out tough emotions. As an American to a Canadian, I’d like to say that there is a great deal that we, your southern neighbors in New York, admire about your beautiful country and its practical people, and I thank you sincerely for your sacrifices, contributions and partnership in our countries’ endeavors (whether ultimately continued or not).

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWVlZDFkN2RmOGE1YWMzMmY5YjBiZThkYTIxN2Q5ZDU=

From everything I’ve read/heard, it’s important to distinguish between the hard-core Taliban extremists and those who lean Taliban because the Karzai government is so corrupt.
.
So the pertinent question is whether we can exert meaningful pressure on the Karzai government to reform. As in Iraq, military force may be a necessary but not sufficient component.
.
But I’m in the middle of reading “Legacy of Ashes,” the history of the CIA, and moral of that book is that United States foreign policy is run by deranged murdering idiots. (Hint: And they aren’t in the State Department.) If I were Karzai, I would trust the word of an opium warlord before I would trust anything that I heard from a U.S. diplomat or politician.

Joe Klein:
.
Thanks for responding to commentary.

“The “solution” to Afghanistan, if there is one, will lie on both sides of the border–yet another, English-drawn blood-geyser–but those who think we can abandon the situation and leave Al Qaeda and its allies to fester–especially given the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan–are courting a major disaster. To those commenters who disagree, I would ask: What’s your solution to this problem?”
.
Joe-Is it possible for you to ask for a solution to a problem without presenting a false choice? You know, teeing it like those who might disagree with you only want to leave Al Qaeda to fester and get us all killed.
.
I say this because I remember another war where the choice was get rid of a dictator or be responsbile for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Unfortunately your two rationales have been almost completely discredited, and are not persuasive to me in the least.
.
It is a bit of a balancing act. How to prevent those who are already our enemy from growing and/or mounting an effective attack while not acting in a sufficiently reprehensible matter that we create additional enemies in the process.
.
The question then boils down to “how do we become seen as a force for good within the Arab world?” Joe Klein predicts dire results if we ignore the situation, but it’s going to take a lot more than throwing additional boots at the problem to address the underlying issues that allow extremism to flourish.

I agree that we can’t just up and leave from Afghanistan but we for damn sure need a new strategy with new tactics. Quite honestly I like President Obama am not against all wars, just stupid ones that don’t accomplish anything. Now I don’t know that simply putting more boots on the ground is going to be that fruitful because those boots still have to end up in mountainous terrain that is very hard to manage. But there are ways to get in there and get er done. Although I strongly disagree that the motivation should be to finish it because we started it. If there was a way we could walk away and ensure that they wouldn’t export terror to us I would be 100% behind it. But the terrorists that have hit our country many times have spent time in training camps in that country so something has to be done. Of course many times offering people a different option for their lives mitigates the need for more troops. But how to get them away from the poppy trade and how to get them to actually see that a better life could be on the horizon if they coopersate is going to take a lot of thoughtful contemplation on how to get that done as well as some troops to strike those who really don’t want to ever have peace. It is what it is.

Life sure is good if you are a republican. See we commenters, progressives and liburals alike get asked tough questions about stuff, like Joe just did. However, this kind of stuff never makes a critical post on Swampland. Because the GOP is so serious:
.
GOP lawmakers tout projects in the stimulus bill they opposed:
WASHINGTON — Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.
.
“I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future,” the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.
.
Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.
.
Republicans echoed their party line over and over during the debate: “This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority’s favorite government programs,” as Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., put it.
.
But Mica wasn’t alone in touting what he saw as the bill’s virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.
.
Young boasted that he “won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”
.
One provision would have made it harder for minority businesses to win contracts, and Young explained that he “worked with members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill.”
.
Yet later in the day Young — who recently told McClatchy that he would’ve included earmarks, or local projects, in the bill if it had been permitted — issued another statement blasting the overall measure.
.
“This bill was not a stimulus bill. It was a vehicle for pet projects, and that’s wrong,” he protested.
.
Cue the crickets.
.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/62181.html

I’m happy that we don’t have a commander-in-chief that is willing to invade other countries for no reason at all. Any decision that the President makes needs to be throughly thought out and then executed, not executed and then try to come up with reasons. There are so many issues that need to be addressed in order to make America’s economy better and our nation’s security. The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some great facts about poverty & the economy and poverty & national security. Just because we invade a country does not mean that we will be safe. If there is one thing we should have learned since 9/11, it is that even if we capture one there is another willing to take his place. I think we should focus more on helping less developed countries fight global poverty than invading countries. If we invade Afghanistan are we really going to feel safer? Poverty creates conditions of instability, which is unfortunately regions where terrorists have found safe havens. It is easy for those countries to allow them there if they are building new schools and improving conditions for that country. America needs to help the less developed countries in order to make our nation safer without spending $540 billion on the defense budget. Help the 800 million people that go to sleep hungry every night, 300 million of which are children. The annual shortfall of eliminating global hunger was $30 billion. I think that is where the differences made in the world will be seen.

…those who think we can abandon the situation and leave Al Qaeda and its allies to fester–especially given the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan–are courting a major disaster. To those commenters who disagree, I would ask: What’s your solution to this problem?
.
Joe Klein:
.
With all due respect, in no way do I mean to be insulting when I suggest that you sound just like George W. Bush speaking about Iraq.
.
These are not rationales, these are political arguments, seemingly designed to keep discussion of the rationales for occupation off of the table.
.
When I say “make the case”, I really mean make a real, honest-to-god case. When I say give us a cost vs benefit, I really mean tell us the real costs, and then explain the benefits in order of likelihood.
.
When you say we can’t “leave Al Qaeda and its allies to fester“, I wonder if there’s anywhere on earth we won’t occupy simply to prevent radical organizations from “festering”. Is there any expenditure too great, is there any cost too high, is there any crisis here at home too important for us to take a chance on radical Islamists “festering” somewhere on this planet?
.
When you mention “the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan” –well, I’m a reasonably educated, reasonably informed American, but I’ll bet my fellow citizens share my confusion over (beyond geographic proximity) what that has to do with continuing our occupation at all. Has there been some kind of case made to the American people that we need to be bogged down like the Russians in Afghanistan so that we can “be on hand” if the situation becomes worse in Pakistan? Is that really what this is about?
.
You’re not being clear, Joe Klein. Perhaps this is by design, perhaps it’s because you’re so fully disconnected from what a great many people in this country think that you assume premises that don’t exist. Whatever the case, it’s time for that opacity to end.
.
Beyond the mere mention of “Al Qaeda” and “nuclear” and “fragile Pakistan” in a single sentence, and beyond the understandable, even righteous anger of some our allies, what is the real case for the occupation? What are the real costs, and what are the real benefits in order of likelihood, Joe Klein?
.
Treat us like adults, give us the information we need to make good decisions, and present a case that Afghanistan is worth the cost –especially in light of current dire economic circumstances at home for so many folks– and we’ll be properly patient and supportive.
.
Give us political statements, and we’ll treat you like the American people have treated Bush and Cheney for the past four years when they simply repeatedly told the country “We fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here“. Scare tactics are not credible arguments any more, Joe Klein, the economy notwithstanding.
.
Can’t you explain why it’s worth it to be over there without using the rhetoric of Project for a New American Century, Joe Klein?

Agreed. The United States military is desperately yearning for the guidance and unparalleled military leadership and expertise of the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer and his chief military strategist, one Field Marshall Joe Klein, who will dutifully school the United States military on the virtues of surrender, racial tribalism, feminism, earth worship, the evils of American sovereignty, the beauty of submitting to the authority of foreign countries, ….

…those who think we can abandon the situation and leave Al Qaeda and its allies to fester–especially given the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan–are courting a major disaster. To those commenters who disagree, I would ask: What’s your solution to this problem?”
.
Leave Al Qaeda to “fester”? A truly ugly straw man, Mr. Klein.
.
Anyway, here’s your answer:
.
1. Buy the opium crop.
.
2. An Afghan Marshall Plan using NATO, transitioning to NGOs as troops are withdrawn.
.
3. Limited and highly targeted attacks on high-value targets, moving more and more to Afghan and Pakistani troops, with NATO air support.
.
4. Reform or shut down the Pakistani Madrassas.

but those who think we can abandon the situation and leave Al Qaeda and its allies to fester–especially given the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan–are courting a major disaster. To those commenters who disagree, I would ask: What’s your solution to this problem?
.
It’s is by no means clear that military occupation is not worsening the “festering.” If anybody was actually serious about these problems, they’d start by legalizing heroin in the US, and getting poppy production out of the black market. And they would start reducing American nuclear warhead inventories, as a starting point for talks with the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians and the Pakistanis.
.
Putting “Taliban” and nuclear weapons in the same paragraph is perilously close to the mushroom cloud nonsense that put the US into Iraq.

First, how the flying f*ck does one “draw” a geyser? This is simply the most cack-handed excuse for writing that even Swampland has produced – and that includes the idiocies of Scherer. Second, the UK left India and Pakistan 60 years ago. If those states have failed to mature, as they have, you can hardly blame the UK for it. It might have helped if the US hadn’t spent much of those 60 years propping up one failed dictator after another – but why should you spoil the usual dishonest rhetoric you persist in indulging? Next you’ll tell us that the UK is responsible for the right-wing Hindu lunatics like Shiv Sena or the BJP. And while you’re on the topic, let’s remember that it was the US that propped up Musharraf, that began a ludicrous War on Terror, and that, since we might as well deal with the realities here, has done more to screw up the Middle East than any other single power. And who has promoted this disaster, blunder by blunder – people like Klein, the Hoekstra-whore, who take dictation from Republican paymasters while pretending to be liberal.

I beg to differ with readinwritin’s assertion (“After all the blood we shed there for you–for your war, not ours–we will not get over you guys giving up and walking away from this.”).
.
The war was supposedly a coalition of world interests and especially NATO. Although 9/11 precipitated it, it was in the interests of all civilized people to do something about the situation in Afghanistan, which had been allowed to fester since the Soviet withdrawal 20 years ago. My Canadian friend, this was not solely what you call “your war”. If there were no interest to Canada to participate, then you have fools for leaders for following our fool president in the mismanaged endeavor. France and Germany sure didn’t do that. And there were fool leaders throughout the world for allowing the Bush administration to do what they did in Iraq. The most common sense approach would have been to threaten abandonment of Afghanistan if America was going to be occupied elsewhere for no good reason, as you rightly put the diversion to Iraq.
.

But at no time did America “walk away” from Afghanistan. I don’t know about your “per capita” cost figures, but America has borne the overwhelming burden of the maniacal idiocy of Bush. Your claim is nonsense.
.
One last note, the imperative in Afghanistan is meeting the needs of the people. All the talk and effort on military tactics doesn’t necessarily do that, and as we’ve seen, in many cases defeats that end.
.

“Paul Dirks Says:
The disadvantage to this method is that it doesn’t yield quick decisions, a potential problem in times of crisis.
-This doesn’t follow at all. Just because somone considers decisions carefully and thoroughly when he can doesn’t mean that in a time of crisis he’ll be slow. It means at a time of crisis, he’ll be well informed.”
.
that’s a silly argument. As far as i know, joe klein was referring to the methodical process, not the person making the decisions. It yields results many times over. but when you have an emergency to which you have to respond within hours or even minutes, you don’t have time to engage in an expansive process which would have been rightful in ordinary times. Say, you just received intelligence that a stockpile of ancient nuclear warheads have just disappeared in eastern europe. you have reason to believe that it’s headed to the very fluid middle east within the next 2 days. you gotta first define your goals. i assume obama’s would be not to let it be propagated in the middle east because of all the implications(he’s said numerous times that the pre-eminent threat to the world is nuclear proliferation, hence his admiration for dick lugar). so the question becomes what do you do?
.
the point being that obama needs to be careful not to lose his instincts while shifting his intellect in overdrive. it’s not a criticism. so calm down.

junisredivivus, while I agree with the general thesis you presnt, especially that in regard to the garbage Klein writes, I take exception to your selective history. I assume you are British, correct me if I am wrong. In any event, I suggest you study up on the UK and French colonial histories, and the damage wrought on the world at Versailles in the name of colonialism. I present no defense of the stupidity of American foreign policy during the cold war era and after, but you should also recognize the contributions of your own country. We won’t even discuss the sycophant Blair.

you don’t have time to engage in an expansive process which would have been rightful in ordinary times…
.
Which is precisely why having already done your homework would matter under such circumstances. Why is that so difficult to understand?

the hapless and corrupt President Karzai
.
From dictionary.com:
hapless: adjective. Deserving or inciting pity. Without hap or luck; luckless; unfortunate; unlucky; unhappy;
.
So I would agree that Karzai is corrupt, but it seems like he’s got plenty of haps when it comes to running shadow goverments to govern the production of opium.

paul, it’s not that difficult to understand. If the process is conducted in an intellectually honest fashion by all the people involved in informing him, then he’s gonna as ready as he’s ever gonna get. The fact is though, no matter how smart you are, you can’t anticipate all the things that could go wrong in any given day. it’s not your every day checkers. it’s more like three-dimensional chess. he loses nothing by having an acute instinct while sharpening his intellect.
.
Another point i want to make is i suspect Pres. Obama has determined a long time ago that if his administration fails, it’s not gonna be because he was incompetent. hence the technocratic attitude he has when he has to get down to business. (biden episode didn’t say anything about their personal relationship, but plenty about their professional attitude.) The point is that he has great instincts that he shouldn’t let get rusty while overwhelmed by his more methodical attitude. now why is that so difficult to understand. it’s not too subtle a point.

http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/02/16/general-petraeus-iran-helping-taliban-insurgents-in-afghanistan/

Cliff, serious subject, but I loved your comment.

I think its time to form a new a coalition in that region. One that includes not england, france and Cannada. but the countries who are going to be most affected by a strong and spreading taliban. these countries would inclide, iran, india, pakistan, and even extending over to china, and russia. yes we are working some of these countries already but to a limited extent. they are just doing what we are telling them to do. all these countries have enough reasons for threats to their own security from a taliban government next door. these countries would also be more familiar with the people, the area, the climate, and geography which would make them more efficent in the fight. the U.S, Canaada and EU should provide support by giving intelligence, equipment and financing the operations. not only would you be able to reduced the current coalition troops deaths and prescense but also mend ties between countries like indian and pakistan, india and china and the biggest of all iran and the u.s. we all know that iran and u.s share a common interest in removing the taliban so why not use this as a way to reslove multiple issues. just a though, i’m sure its alot easier said then done.

From the Bloomberg link located in the Red State link:
.
Petraeus gave no details of the Iranian assistance, which he described as taking place at “a small level.”
.
“It’s not in their interests to see the Taliban, a Sunni ultra-conservative, extremist element, return to take control of Afghanistan,” he told the conference on the U.S. role in the Islamic World.
.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aru5H2YB1Tv8&refer=india
.
At this point, I would like to see a lot more evidence from Petraeus before I buy this about the Iranian assistance, especially considering the conflicting statement he made later on in the article.
.
And let’s say that somehow this does mean we should fight Iran. What military will we fight them with? How would we pay for it? Do you really want to see the sorts of casualties Iran could wreak against us?

lupercal5, I am an Obama supporter, but not quite as blindly as you seem to be. His concessions to conservative causes recently have caused me pause, not least of all the position on prosecuting illegal acts by the Bush administration.
.
syedh, I am with you. But that view of inclusion of some of the so called evil empires or axis in the world is to speak of heresy in traditional foreign policy terms as espouced by Klein. The most likely participant is China which is engaging around the world in a civilized manner and no doubt laughing at the US behind the scenes.

Correction…unlikely participant…China.

ivb – thanks! It just irks me to see an influential writer like Klein using words like that.

I didn’t link the RedState article to suggest anything–just to show there are issues in Afghanistan. No one ever said things were easy.

At 2:33 pm Shephardwong suggested four steps to solve the problem in Afghanistan:

1. Buy the opium crop.
2. An Afghan Marshall Plan using NATO, transitioning to NGOs as troops are withdrawn.
3. Limited and highly targeted attacks on high-value targets, moving more and more to Afghan and Pakistani troops, with NATO air support.
4. Reform or shut down the Pakistani Madrassas.

Items 1-3 I agree with wholeheartedly! They’re mine also. (And I assume the smart people in Washington have been thinking aout them for awhile.)

Yeah, on number 1 you get into metaphysical arguments about rewarding and incentivizing the opium farmers to grow opium, so I’d modify it to “Paying subsidies to farmers as long as they don’t grow opium.

And yeah, with the corruption there, how do we assure the farmers get the money?

But on the whole, numbers 1-3 define the direction needed. Maybe with THIS president we can depart from the perfect, ideologically pure, but undoable and transition to the practical.

But number 4 starts getting into Pakistan’s nearly failed condition, and we may have to do much more for that country than even for Afghanistan: Expensive, fraught with political and military risk, and maybe verging on the impossible. I think, though, that’s where the real test will be for our foreign/anti-terrorism policies.

waltculver, “smart people in Washington”? I need a moment to think. As for Pakistan, one insurmountable problem at a time, please.

spob – so you just so happened to link to a piece that associates Iran and the Taliban? Seems odd.
.
On the other hand, the piece about the crazy-pants Muslim reporter beheading his wife was interesting.

Just happened to–it was of interest, and obviously got someone’s attention.

Petraeus’ views should get some credibility. He, after all, was right in Iraq and executed the surge very well.

“lupercal5, I am an Obama supporter, but not quite as blindly as you seem to be. His concessions to conservative causes recently have caused me pause, not least of all the position on prosecuting illegal acts by the Bush administration.”
.
formerlyjames, it’s not blindness. I’m just that pragmatic, and not so much of a liberal. More of the rational progressive type. I’m very sympathetic to pelosi, but i don’t trust her anymore than i trust republicans. And the reason is because no ideology is an adequate enough to confront all the problems that we face,and in her position, currently, she’s carrying the ideoligical banner of our party.
.
Here’s what i’d love to see from an Obama admin: comprehensive healthcare reform, Alternative energy overhaul, budget restructuring(yes), Center-left economy with middle class tax cuts, strategic approach (a blueprint) to confront all these 21st century foreign policy challenges (since the cold war ended, we’ve kinda been in the dark about how to approach the world, and we’re not gonna get someone as smart as obama anytime soon).
.
Obviously, you can’t always get what you want. No president in the history of mankind, not ever, has been able to get 100% of their strategic and tactical goals (stealing steele). So, im not sure who’s being blind here. I’d rather he makes tactical concessions in order to achieve his strategic goals rather than the other way around. think a little.

i suppose my main argument is that it depends on where your priorities lie. If your first and foremost priority is indicting the bush admin, by all means. have it your way. that is, if you think the trade-off between that and health care reform, alternative energy and a whole host of other issues is worth it.
.
now, just because obama doesn’t prosecute his admin doesn’t mean repubs are gonna support him any more than if he had. but a congressional review committee can be founded, investigate, and look for discrepancies that need to be rectified in order to get back to honoring the constitution and our rights. having a witch hunt that doesn’t promise that karl rove and dick cheney will be indicted or even accused is not worth the cost of losing the whole agenda when the american public becomes extremely divided and the blue dogs start voting with republican for fear of losing their seats (remember they’re mostly in conservative areas).
.
i say investigate and repair our institutions. you achieve the same goals but with enough capital to move on with your agenda. that’s why i voted against hillary anyhow. to do away with the retributions and recriminations.

“When you mention ‘the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan’ –well, I’m a reasonably educated, reasonably informed American, but I’ll bet my fellow citizens share my confusion over (beyond geographic proximity) what that has to do with continuing our occupation at all. Has there been some kind of case made to the American people that we need to be bogged down like the Russians in Afghanistan so that we can ‘be on hand’ if the situation becomes worse in Pakistan? Is that really what this is about?”
.
Well, while not claiming to be a mind reader, I suppose the reason Joe conflates the two situations is because the Taliban received its initial blessing and funding from Pakistan’s intelligence services and from all accounts its leadership operates out of the northern Pakistani city of Quetta. The openness of the boarder between Afghanistan and Pakistan allows for Taliban fighters in the south of the country to move between operations in Afghanistan and bases in the tribal regions with impunity. This puts allied forces in a situation similar to what American forces in Vietnam faced — the enemy is being resupplied through a third, neutral country that the allies cannot operate in.
.
Like Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam conflict, the ultimate result of allied activities within Pakistan could be destablization of the nation. The thinking here, though, is that the backward insurgents that would take the reigns in Pakistan would now be nuclear armed, posing a greater international threat than the backward insurgents that took control of Kampuchea.
.
Klein’s continued formulation is that in order to defeat the Taliban, we have to continue the operations on the other side of the boarder that could have a destablizing effect on Pakistan. And, there is some merit in that position — the Taliban won’t stop trying to retake Afghanistan, and the last time they ruled the country, Al Qaeda used it as a base to train terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the Bali attacks and the Madrid attacks. But where I think his point often falls down is that the original sin of US policy in the region (post-Soviet invasion) was taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan to go to Iraq, leaving the country in the hands of a cleptocracy and defended by NATO partners not interested in fighting.
.
I think Klein would have more credibility here if he’d make it clear that he’s not suggesting US troops should sit in Afghanistan to keep Pakistan from going to the extremists, but to give Afghans real breathing room to establish government control beyond Kabul. That means more humanitarian work coupled with military action to protect the projects and to ensure the Taliban doesn’t terrorize the population that benefits from these projects. Easier said than done, I know. But it would actually give our mission in Afghanistan more purpose than just firing hellfire missles at “Al Qaeda leaders” in Pakistan.

koabd:
.
I really appreciate the explanation as to the possibility of what Joe might be thinking, but unfortunately your commentary leaves out any mention of the the costs.
.
Of course, leaving out any mention of costs seems also to be what Joe might be thinking, so that might speak to the accuracy of your conjecture…

Why am I unable to post links?

http://www.alternet.org/audits/121618/the_imperialist_propaganda_of_hitchens_and_friends/

Since it won’t allow me to post this link:
~
Afghanistan, Another Untold Story
by Michael Parenti
~
Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghani history and the role played by the United States.
~
Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet “invasion” of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as “a good thing.” The actual story is not such a good thing.
~
Some Real History
Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.
~
The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. “It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it,” writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.
~
The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.
~
The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes.
~
A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs–in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women.”
~
The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world’s heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a “genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope.”
~
But serious opposition arose from several quarters. The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government’s dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.
~
Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.
~
A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.
~
It should be noted that all this happened before the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted–months before Soviet troops entered the country–that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.
~
In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.
~
Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style
The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.
~
After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.
~
Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves. They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as “a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.’”
~
Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy. The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA’s arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.
~
Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah’s name against the purveyors of secular “corruption.”
~
In Afghanistan itself, by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban—heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan—fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.
~
The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off. The Taliban condemned forms of “immorality” that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.
~
The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed “immoral” were stoned to death or buried alive.
~
None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official. Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban’s oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.
~
If anything positive can be said about the Taliban, it is that they did put a stop to much of the looting, raping, and random killings that the mujahideen had practiced on a regular basis. In 2000 Taliban authorities also eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control, an effort judged by the United Nations International Drug Control Program to have been nearly totally successful. With the Taliban overthrown and a Western-selected mujahideen government reinstalled in Kabul by December 2001, opium poppy production in Afghanistan increased dramatically.
~
The years of war that have followed have taken tens of thousands of Afghani lives. Along with those killed by Cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, Tomahawks, daisy cutters, and land mines are those who continue to die of hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and lack of water.
~
The Holy Crusade for Oil and Gas
While claiming to be fighting terrorism, US leaders have found other compelling but less advertised reasons for plunging deeper into Afghanistan. The Central Asian region is rich in oil and gas reserves. A decade before 9/11, Time magazine (18 March 1991) reported that US policy elites were contemplating a military presence in Central Asia. The discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided the lure, while the dissolution of the USSR removed the one major barrier against pursuing an aggressive interventionist policy in that part of the world.
~
US oil companies acquired the rights to some 75 percent of these new reserves. A major problem was how to transport the oil and gas from the landlocked region. US officials opposed using the Russian pipeline or the most direct route across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they and the corporate oil contractors explored a number of alternative pipeline routes, across Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean or across China to the Pacific.
~
The route favored by Unocal, a US based oil company, crossed Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The intensive negotiations that Unocal entered into with the Taliban regime remained unresolved by 1998, as an Argentine company placed a competing bid for the pipeline. Bush’s war against the Taliban rekindled UNOCAL’s hopes for getting a major piece of the action.
~
Interestingly enough, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban government. Such a “rogue state” designation would have made it impossible for a US oil or construction company to enter an agreement with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
~
In sum, well in advance of the 9/11 attacks the US government had made preparations to move against the Taliban and create a compliant regime in Kabul and a direct US military presence in Central Asia. The 9/11 attacks provided the perfect impetus, stampeding US public opinion and reluctant allies into supporting military intervention.
~
One might agree with John Ryan who argued that if Washington had left the Marxist Taraki government alone back in 1979, “there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy.” But it would be asking too much for Washington to leave unmolested a progressive leftist government that was organizing the social capital around collective public needs rather than private accumulation.
~
US intervention in Afghanistan has proven not much different from US intervention in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and elsewhere. It had the same intent of preventing egalitarian social change, and the same effect of overthrowing an economically reformist government. In all these instances, the intervention brought retrograde elements into ascendance, left the economy in ruins, and pitilessly laid waste to many innocent lives.
~
The war against Afghanistan, a battered impoverished country, continues to be portrayed in US official circles as a gallant crusade against terrorism. If it ever was that, it also has been a means to other things: destroying a leftist revolutionary social order, gaining profitable control of one of the last vast untapped reserves of the earth’s dwindling fossil fuel supply, and planting US bases and US military power into still another region of the world.
~
In the face of all this Obama’s call for “change” rings hollow.

The “solution” to Afghanistan, if there is one, will lie on both sides of the border–yet another, English-drawn blood-geyser–but those who think we can abandon the situation and leave Al Qaeda and its allies to fester–especially given the fragility of nuclear-armed Pakistan–are courting a major disaster. To those commenters who disagree, I would ask: What’s your solution to this problem?
.
If Pakistan is the real priority, it would make more sense to simply station troops in an Afghan base, so they could quickly respond to any issues in Pakistan. Klein and others have not shown how stabilizing Afghanistan is the key to stabilizing Pakistan. Maintaining a troop presence in Afghanistan, OTOH, has a certain logic to it. Even if I disagree with that logic.
.
I feel like there is a missing ingredient here, something Klein is basing his thinking on but won’t admit. Maybe it’s just as simple as readinwritin’s reluctance to abandon the conviction that all the money and lives lost in Afghanistan will eventually be worth it in the end. Perhaps the undeniable nature of the Iraq defeat paradoxically makes acknowledging the slightly more subtle failures in Afghanistan too emotionally difficult. Iraq is easier to process if you see it as an aberration, rather than part of a systemic failure in foreign policy.

Who the f knows what to do in Afghanistan?

Obama clearly doesn’t know what to do with Durban II–

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODcyODBjZTFjYWNlNTA0OTk1OTM4ODQ2YTAzYWUyOTU=

OK, that was frustrating. Sorry for posting the long article but the Time overlords wouldn’t allow me to paste in a Common Dreams link–too Bolshevik for their taste, perhaps. That’s where the Parenti came from. The Alternet piece is perfect for Joe, another “liberal” apologist for American imperialism.

Petraeus’ views should get some credibility. He, after all, was right in Iraq and executed the surge very well.
.
Well, to me it feels like he’s starting the push for war with Iran again, and that makes me incredibly suspicious. Plus there’s the whole thing about him wanting to keep troops in Iraq past the date set by the SOFA.

Perhaps the undeniable nature of the Iraq defeat
.
Rose, I’m not so sure about the ‘undeniable’ part. Seems like there’s plenty of leeway to argue for a victory in Iraq.

OT:
An interesting interview with Alexandra Pelosi on her documentary on the McCain campaign:
http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/int/2009/02/16/alexandra_pelosi/index1.html
.
She brings some insights on the other side to the table, but I don’t agree with most of her conclusions.

on the other side to the table
.
I’m not sure why I wrote that. That’s pretty random. I meant the other side of the political spectrum.

If Pakistan is the real priority, it would make more sense to simply station troops in an Afghan base, so they could quickly respond to any issues in Pakistan. Klein and others have not shown how stabilizing Afghanistan is the key to stabilizing Pakistan. Maintaining a troop presence in Afghanistan, OTOH, has a certain logic to it. Even if I disagree with that logic.
.
Rose:
.
Me taking all of my available cash, and sinking that money into an interest-yielding bank certificate of deposit has a certain logic to it, except that the consequences would be that I would be unable to pay my mortgage, and that would radically alter my life and future.
.
What I object to isn’t a debate about what to do in Afghanistan, it’s a debate in which the entire Afghanistan project is somehow insulated from considerations of cost, especially at a time in which we have been starting to hear the rumblings of “fiscal responsibility” and “the deficit” and “entitlement reform” from the usual suspects for the past month.
.
How much will it cost is a question that isn’t even a part of the reporting. It’s as if the entire enterprise is somehow paid for already, and the only questions are tactical or diplomatic. Joe Klein somehow lives in a world in which questions of that sort –questions that people all around this country are asking right now (“how much will it cost?”, “can we really do this?”, “is it worth it?”, “should we be taking care of something else?”, etc.)– are not even considered worth asking. It’s a problem, not just because we may get a foreign policy that is relatively profligate given the “since the great depression” rhetoric characterizing discussions of our economic situation, but because that sort of insular debate is demonstrative of how wildly disconnected the political press corps is from the rest of America.
.
As I said before, I’d be happy to lend my support to the Afghanistan project if it could be shown to be just, effective and worth the cost, but I can’t even make that decision if Beltway press corps elites like Joe Klein won’t deign to include cost vs benefit scenarios in the discussion.
.
The riposte “what is your solution to the problem” is a somewhat condescending, somewhat picayune response to the question:
.
“What are the real costs, and what are the real benefits in order of likelihood?”
.
That’s my problem with Joe’s line on this, Rose. I just wish I could get a real answer.

Given that even you, Joe, are too young to have an adult memory of Vietnam, I’ll tell you that the solution in Afghanistan is the same that should have been the solution in Vietnam back in September 1964, when three other guys and myself got caught out on the main street of DaNang in the middle of a firefight between three factions of the alleged “Army” of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN) and the Viet Cong: get the hell out.

Alexander the Great could tell us the same thing every other would-be conqueror there (and we are would-be conquerors there) has learned: there’s nothing in Afghanistan worth fighting for. There’s a reason why it’s the world’s sphincter.

But all you “Best and the Brightest” types are busy getting ready to go fight “the right war.” I hope you’re willing to sign up this time, you goddamned draft dodger.

Cliff, well Joe is too reality-based to deny the Iraq defeat. But you’re right, others could disagree.
.
stuart, we seem to be criticizing Joe from different perspectives but arriving at the same central problem with his argument: a lack of honesty or, if that’s a touch too d–ning, a lack of openness. Maybe Joe thinks the costs don’t matter for some reason – maybe he’s thinking that if America and NATO withdraw from the region Chinese influence will expand, which will end up costing America more money. I honestly have no idea. But Joe is not advancing a coherent argument in favor of committing to sustained armed intervention in Afghanistan. Perhaps he has one, but if so he’s not sharing it.
.
As I said before, I’d be happy to lend my support to the Afghanistan project if it could be shown to be just, effective and worth the cost, but I can’t even make that decision if Beltway press corps elites like Joe Klein won’t deign to include cost vs benefit scenarios in the discussion.
.
“Deign” is exactly the right word. There’s something surreal about all these odes to pragmatism and bipartisanship being combined with this refusal to talk about money and opportunity costs. I suspect – and I’m going entirely on instinct here because that’s all I can do; I feel like I have to be a psychic to productively engage with Joe on Afghanistan and Pakistan – that he is thinking about the money but won’t talk about it for some reason. It’s like talking about Israel – everyone agrees to ignore Israel’s nuclear weapons, which lends the discussions a kind of Alice in Wonderland quality.
.
Unfortunately my psychic abilities only extend far enough to envision the possibility that Joe has reason to think that the benefits outweigh the costs. I fail to see any scenario in which Afghanistan is a smart expenditure of money and lives, considering that all this money and energy could be used elsewhere. I’d love to see Joe (or anyone) write a post in favor of the Afghanistan intervention in terms of opportunity costs. I’m honestly curious to see what that argument looks like.

@ waltculver: thanks, great minds and all. No doubt there’s at least one smart person in Washington (finally) and he’s way ahead of us on 1-3. Regarding #4, I decided to just skip past the easy way to stem the radicalization of the region – though serious (really serious) economic development aid from the west would be good start (along with strong visible support for real democratic reforms, rather than murderous thugs (from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea). Regardless, that radicalization of young minds in hundreds of Madrassas must end. I would think that moderate Muslims could be enlisted in the effort, if only to try to check the further corruption of Islam.

…lends the discussions a kind of Alice in Wonderland quality…
.
That’s it exactly, Rose.
.
There’s some kind of court-at-Versailles, “Serious Foreign Policy” protocol that Joe seems to be observing.
.
It used to be the case that Joe and his colleagues could hold their insiders’ knowledge of that protocol out as some sort of proof of their “Seriousness” –as an appeal to some sort of deserved credibility. After the whole Iraq thing it doesn’t work that way anymore, so Joe just ends up looking like an unthinking part of the Beltway echo chamber.
.
In some ways, it truly is a case of The Disconnect at its worst on display.

jcapan, thanks for those links. Loud and clear. It would seem that discussion of what to do in Afghanistan should begin with the sordid history of what has been done.

“I really appreciate the explanation as to the possibility of what Joe might be thinking, but unfortunately your commentary leaves out any mention of the the costs.”
.
Well, I’d imagine that if my estimation of what Joe is thinking is correct, then the reason he doesn’t assign a dollar amount to this venture is he finds it to be priceless — you spend until the job is done. The fundamental belief here is that ungoverned countries create grave dangers for the entire world — especially when situated in areas of strategic interest or in volatile regions. A chaotic Somalia yielded pirates who threaten international shipping lanes and harbored terrorists responsible for the American Embassy bombings in East Africa; a misruled Afghanistan produced the training camps that gave us countless numbers of Islamic militants who have carried out costly attacks around the world; and a potentially unstable Pakistan could spark nuclear war with India or place the bomb in the hands of terrorists.
.
So, in Joe’s formulation, I’d imagine that you “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship” (to borrow from Kennedy) in order to keep these problems from flairing up and becoming a problem.

koabd, please go to page 1, 5:48 submitted by jcapan, an article written by somebody who knows of what he speaks, Michael Parenti. Your post and agreement with Klein reveals your mutual ignorance.

koabd:
.
I very much appreciate your conjecture with respect to Joe’s formulation.
.
If it actually is his formulation –that “he finds it to be priceless“– then that is very, very sad indeed, because there is nothing priceless about overseas military operations whatsoever. Even what some might argue is the truly vital task of potentially limiting the Somalian pirate yield indeed has a cost to go along with that inestimable benefit.
.
That would be an incredible perspective, if it were truly his. It would be a strange type of orthodoxy, indeed. If the last eight years have demonstrated anything, it has been the prudent limits of our optimism with respect to imposing regular order on the world for our proposed future benefit. Our resources have also quite clearly been shown to be finite (and getting more so).
.
How could anyone who prides themselves on a realist’s perspective simply decide that, for the purposes of discussion at least, the United States can be assumed to possess limitless capacity for conflict or conflict preparation overseas? No matter how important the proposed value of an endeavor, that sort of willful disregard seems odd, even deranged.
.
Thanks again for speculating on Joe Klein’s thoughts, koabd.

koabd – I get what you’re saying, but I think all s_z is asking for is some acknowledgement of the cost from Joe Klein, some comparison to the benefit we could expect.
.
Saying it’s worth any price doesn’t get us very far. It’s fine against an existential threat, but Afghanistan’s not an existential threat. It’s quicksand, and it could drown us if we keep thrashing around blindly.

Sorry, that should be “Somali pirate yields”.

“koabd, please go to page 1, 5:48 submitted by jcapan, an article written by somebody who knows of what he speaks, Michael Parenti. Your post and agreement with Klein reveals your mutual ignorance.”
.
formerlyjones — I’d suggest you go back and actually read what I wrote. I never offered any agreement with Klein. Stuart asked a question, I offered a potential answer. It’s amazing how people on these boards jump down someone’s throat without actually reading what they have to say. Sheesh.

koabd:
.
I’d like to make it really, really clear how much I’ve appreciated your effort to articulate the ideology that may underpin Joe Klein’s work.
.
Thank you.

That should read “formerlyjames”

Speaking of Alice, I’d have to say she doesn’t live here anymore. Helicopter rides in Afghan notw/standing, Joe can’t escape the village. He’s been breathing estab-bubble oxygen so long that he actually thinks he’s still writing for rubes in the heartland who can’t find Kandahar on a map. He must be nostalgic for the world that once was, when his serious brand of “journalism” went unquestioned.
~
If they say it’s not about resources, if they say it’s really about fighting terrorism, if they say it’s about establishing democracy, and if you believe any of it you’re a f’ing fool. This goes for Joe, and though it pains me, it goes for Obama too. That the best we can hope for from a dem president (Hillary was yet more hawkish) is that he’ll only end one of our two absurd wars.
~
Just read John Dower’s brilliant “Embracing Defeat,” about the travesty of “democracy” bldg. that took place here during the occupation and thereafter, how handpicked war criminals were eased back into power, how a real democratic movement was crushed due to leftist tendencies, how many J-warcrimes were whitewashed b/c so many of the victims were our new worst enemies, the communist Chinese. The CIA’s funding of the rightist LDP during the cold war is without question:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DA113DF93AA35753C1A962958260
~
And read Chalmers Johnson if you really want to light your hair on fire:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/john04_.html
~
If this is the reality in Japan, land of mythical American do-good, what do our other interventions amt. to? Indigenous, democratic movements–the map is littered with their corpses. No nation is more respons. for the absence of liberty in the world.
~
Joe saying it’s justified or necessary reminds me of the bloated Euro-pederasts in Thailand, saying they were there for the weather, the culture, the food.

@stuartzechman: When I expressed Canadian anger at the idea of US withdrawal, I was not arguing for the status quo, which obviously is failing. And for which Canadians are paying a heavier price than Americans.

A change in the strategy is clearly called for. Most Canadians do not support a continued mission in Afghanistan on the present terms.

But Canadians don’t want or need your admiration of our country–our universal health care, our strongest banking sector in the world, our celebration of diversity, our acceptance of gay marriage and all the rights that go with that, our budget surpluses for 12 years in a row (until your boy geniuses on Wall Street made a complete hash of the global economy too).

We want you to show up and show some respect for the people who have stood by you and supported you in good times and bad.

When Canada declined to join you in your adventure in Iraq, gently pointing out that perhaps the UN weapons inspectors should be permitted to finish their work, the scorn and ridicule that was heaped on us from across your country was beyond words. Your ambassador lectured us in our own capital in the most appalling language, and huge numbers of you boycotted ever visiting us or spending another dime on a Canadian product ever again. We searched our soul and wondered if we were wrong, but we couldn’t find the way to support you in that mission.

And in spite of your animosity and contempt (when you weren’t ignoring us completely), young Canadians continued to fight and die in your name in Afghanistan, where Osama Bin Laden still remains. We tried to clear regions of the Taliban and open schools and hospitals wherever we could. Thanklessly.

Yet when Barack Obama was elected, Thomas Friedman had the audacity to write this, in his November 9 column, entitled Show Me the Money:

“To all those Europeans, CANADIANS (my emphasis), Japanese, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Indians, Africans and Latin Americans who are e-mailing their American friends about their joy at having “America back,” now that Obama is in, I just have one thing to say: “Show me the money!”

Don’t just show me the love. Don’t just give me the smiles. Your love is fickle and, as I said, it will last about as long as the first Obama airstrike against an Al Qaeda position in Pakistan.”

“Fickle”? Canada?

So when you deign to respond to Canadians– whose grieving mothers will never forget their children’s sacrifice in your name for a single day, no matter if they live another 70 years or more–when you deign to say that you “thank us sincerely for our sacrifice” and ask us to please excuse you as you have become bored with this difficult Afghan project; I hope you will forgive us if we–your best friends in the entire world, and your largest trading partner–tell you to grow the f*#k up and understand that what you do in this world has consequences for the people around you.

I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you are the spoiled mean girl of the world, and everyone knows it but you.

Do better.

Get interested in the areas you are involved in and the people who live there. Learn about them–not just to win a clever battle of wits at a dinner party or in a bar somewhere–but so that your foreign policy can offer some tangible benefit to other nations and not just serve your own national and budgetary interests. The world is too small for a mindset like that now. You never know when you might need a friend.

If you don’t like this message, consider this: Canadians are America’s closest friends. If we feel this way about you (and trust me, we do), what does everyone else think?

And being Canadian, let me now tell you I’m sorry, just before I hit Submit Comment.

[...] the Stimulus – Bob Shrum, The WeekSymbolism Without Substance? – Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-GazetteA Rebalancing Act on Foreign Policy – Joe Klein, TimeThree Cheers for Partisanship! – Jay Cost, HorseRaceBlogWhy America Celebrates [...]

[...] Klein praises President Obama for his decision “to think carefully” before sending new troops to [...]

One striking example of O “viewing problems in context” was his response to Helen Thomas’ question (in Feb. 9 press conference), do you know any countries that in the middle east that have nuclear weapons? His response – the U.S. and Russia working together to reduce nuclear arsenals should ground our efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere.
http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-message-to-middle-east.html

Thanks for your commentary, readinwritin.
.
A change in the strategy is clearly called for.
.
Maybe so, but since I don’t know what the goals are, I couldn’t say.
.
The goals used to be “Bring Osama bin Laden to justice.” and “Destroy whatever terrorist infrastructure currently exists.” and “Effect catastrophic consequences on a regime that proudly hosted al Qaeda.“, or at least I’m pretty sure of that.
.
The fact is that I don’t understand why we’re continuing to occupy that country, and I believe a lot of Americans would be hard pressed to tell you anything other than “Get Osama bin Laden”.
.
This is bad. We’re not going to support a foreign policy objective that isn’t understandable (much less achievable).
.
If asking what the goals are is offensive to you, then that’s unfortunate.
.
Canadians don’t want or need your admiration of our country–our universal health care, our strongest banking sector in the world, our celebration of diversity, our acceptance of gay marriage and all the rights that go with that, our budget surpluses for 12 years in a row…
.
Fine, don’t take our sincere admiration, then (LOL). The thing is, though, that Americans don’t have these things, some of which take a massive marshaling of resources, i.e. universal health care, and we’d expect justifiably proud Canadians to understand that, if an examination of the costs reveals that we’d have to continue to do without guaranteed healthcare for our people in order to continue to attempt to provide it to Afghanis, we may have to evaluate the importance of the mission in light of that fact.
.
Again, if that sort of sober evaluation is offensive to you, then that’s unfortunate.
.
When Canada declined to join you in your adventure in Iraq…Your ambassador lectured us in our own capital in the most appalling language…your animosity and contempt…
.
You know, readinwritin, normally I don’t tolerate aggressive criticism of my country terribly well, but in this case…well, what can I say? You’re right. We’re sorry –very sorry. I can’t express to you how much so many Americans –especially where I live– are truly, sincerely sorry for the offenses caused and mistakes our government has made in our names, and for the horrors our state has inflicted on innocent people. We are beginning to collectively become aware of how badly we’ve f*cked up, and we will make things right –with ourselves first, and then perhaps with our relationships and positions across the globe.
.
The very first step in making ourselves accountable to ourselves, however, is actually demanding to know the facts that allow us to be responsible for our actions. When I ask Joe Klein “What are the real costs, and what are the real benefits in order of likelihood?“, it is not a flinging away of responsibility, it is an embrace of it. If these questions had been asked and answered honestly by those charged with the duties of asking and answering, Americans might not be in the position of having to f*cking apologize to you and the citizens of your country (and many others) now.
.
Again, if taking responsibility by demanding that clearly defined goals, honestly proposed costs and predicted outcomes enumerated in the order of probability be included in a discussion whose topic is titled “What is the best thing to do with respect to our occupation of Afghanistan?“, is offensive to you, then so f*cking be it. That’s unfortunate.
.
Thomas Friedman had the audacity to write this…
.
Thomas “Friedman Unit” Friedman is a discredited laughingstock, and the only reason he has a platform for his buffoonery is because of the disconnect between our courtier press corps and the engaged portion of our citizenry. Part of the reason why it’s so crucial to question the premises of this bubble-inhabiting clique, i.e. that, at least when it comes to foreign policy, the United States treasury is simply a spigot of money to be perpetually kept open, is to force the people of Friedman’s world to justify their opinions, and admit that these premises exist.
.
I really don’t like having to apologize for the crass ideologue Friedman’s offensive printed meanderings, given that many of us have spent so many hours for the past seven years highlighting the obvious reasons for his discredit, but…OK, I apologize as an American for that dangerously wrong fruitcake Thomas Friedman.
.
…ask us to please excuse you as you have become bored with this difficult Afghan project…
.
That’s pretty disingenuous of you, don’t you think, readinwritin?
.
Nobody’s “bored” by the project except the scandal-obsessed Washington political press corps. Demanding that the tough work of including cost vs benefit calculations in the press’ accounts of the project is the furthest thing from an expression of “boredom” of which I can think.
.
“Growing the f*ck up” is exactly what a sober assessment is about, readinwritin. If you don’t recognize growing the f*ck up when it’s staring you in the face and seriously asking “What will this cost? What will it accomplish? What do we need to sacrifice to meet these goals?“, then I suppose that’s also unfortunate.
.
Learn about them–not just to win a clever battle of wits at a dinner party or in a bar somewhere–but so that your foreign policy can offer some tangible benefit to other nations and not just serve your own national and budgetary interests.
.
You will forgive me if I put serving our own national and budgetary interests first in our calculations, albeit not at the expense of justice or morality. I don’t know if you truly understand just how screwed up our country is right now, readinwritin, but let me assure you that it is quite f*cked on many levels. Believe me when I tell you that this isn’t about winning “a clever battle of wits at a dinner party” in any way whatsoever.
.
I live here. This is my country. This is my home. I’m not part of some elite clique of conversation artists; I’d really prefer that I didn’t have to discuss the merits of the occupation of f*cking Afghanistan with you or Joe Klein or anybody. But since my country is in trouble right now, I’ve got to fulfill my duty as a citizen by asking questions like “What the hell are we still doing over there? How badly is this going to further damage our collapsing financial situation?” of our foreign policy elites.
.
If more ordinary people in the States had not simply taken our “Serious foreign policy” establishment’s pronouncements as gospel, we might be in fewer bad situations this moment. We assumed that, like us ordinary folks, people like Joe Klein had done all of the hard thinking and evaluating of the costs and likely outcomes before the discussion of occupation even began. When we begin to get the impression that they did not even consider these things because it’s some sort of rule of thumb not to mention them in privileged diplomatic and academic circles, then that’s a big credibility destroyer that no amount of righteous Canadian anger can put back together.
.
I’d propose that having that credibility restored in a merit-based way is simply more important than your feelings about America’s “tangible benefit to other nations“, readinwritin. If we can’t do for ourselves, how can we even think about doing what’s best for others? As far as needing friends goes, someday we as a nation will truly appreciate the folks who tried (and failed) to take the car keys away from us when we were drunk, but that piece of wisdom goes two ways: you don’t need stupid, paranoid, drunken profligates for friends either, and our citizens asking FoPo experts questions like
.
“What are the real costs, and what are the real benefits in order of likelihood?”
.
is actually the beginning of America being a good, sober, thoughtful friend to our brutally honest friends the Canadians, among others.
.
Thanks for reading this, readinwritin; I hope that your understanding of this position is enhanced.
.
…And being Canadian, let me now tell you I’m sorry…
.
Apology accepted; honesty appreciated.
…

“It would seem that discussion of what to do in Afghanistan should begin with the sordid history of what has been done.”
.
formerlyjames,
.
I agree. I’m sure history is just filled with examples where other foreign powers went into that part of the world and were so successful at straightening out what they perceived the problems (and solutions) to be. Especially with their own economies already in the tank.
.
Or not . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan
… … …

Another boffo week kicks off for Team Skippy:

+ PAKI NUKES UP FOR GRABS

+ DOW TANKING

+ CLIXONS YAPPING

+ BURRIS PERJURING

+ TEEHEE TRUTH SQUATTING

And you thought the Jiminy Crater years were cruel.
… … …

= 1979 ACCOMPLISHED =

Righteous Canadian Anger
… … …

Sorry, how many Canadian aircraft carriers can we count on?

Armored divisions?

Troop transports?

The USA has been protecting Canuckistan from the USSR far longer than even we can afford, eh?

Let them eat hockey pucks.

“What are the real costs, and what are the real benefits in order of likelihood?”
.
This question applies equally well to any country involved in the NATO intervention in Afghanistan. It’s a perfectly reasonable question for Canadians or Britons to ask.

@stuartzechman:

Thanks for being a good sport about my rant–you got the full blast of about 8 years of bottled up resentment. It’s just the mood of the times, I guess. And I’d just been at a witty dinner party!
.

Here’s the thing–we are really on the same page–all the questions you ask are important ones that should have been answered long ago. Yet they are still out there. The Afghan mission has been ill-defined and ignored for years.
.

And yet, given the gigantic military budget that the US supports (a teensy fraction of which would get your universal health care, BTW), there are few objectives which should outrank controlling Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the mountains of Pakistan. If you won’t use your military budget to defeat (or at least render as ineffective as possible) the forces that infiltrated your nation and killed over 3,000 innocent civilians on your own soil, then what is your military for?
.

Military engagement has undergone a radical shift over the last decades, but this seems to be almost unnoticed. The American military is stunningly effective against armies–it can defeat any one of them in the world blindfolded with one hand tied behind its back. The problem is that America’s enemies don’t fight with armies anymore. Terrorism is shockingly easy, effective, and so modestly priced in today’s economic times. Once the traditional military theatre has been abandoned, America is almost defenseless. It cannot, for example, occupy and subdue a small, flat, sparsely populated country.
.

What underlies your good questions, stuartzechman, is the realization that this post-modern “war” is a different thing altogether. Throwing good money after bad is even worse today than it was 5 years ago. Whatever we have been doing IS NOT WORKING.
.

But…
.

A failed state that is a safe haven for ideological violent extremists presents a severe threat to international stability. With weapons of mass destruction becoming ever easier to acquire, leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al Qaeda is tempting fate to a breathtaking degree. This problem just has to be contended with, one way or another.
.

And when I said that American foreign policy needs to offer tangible benefits rather than just serving its own interests, this sets up a false divergence.
.
Because almost nothing could be more in America’s interests than to offer tangible benefits to places like Afghanistan–i.e., give them a personal stake in rejecting violent extremism. If we took the time and trouble to understand what really motivates most Afghanis and learn what their day to day concerns were, our cause would be immeasurably advanced. It costs almost nothing to do this, compared with, say, outfitting each soldier with the latest in protective gear. But it is incredibly time-consuming and takes commitment, patient relationship-building, respect, and attention to detail. Not what today’s military is trained to do.

When was the last time the US policy apparatus looked at ANYTHING in the middle east long-term, say with a generational perspective, rather than as a domestic (4 year) consideration?
.
We always seem to worried about winning the next presidential election. When we do think what passes for long-term, we always seem to put our faith in a particular leader, rather than a noble philosophy. Then, when he/she turns out to be a corrupt SOB, we’re caught with our foreigh policy down around our ankles . . . .

readinwritin:
.
Thanks for the cogent reply.
.
Having recently been to Europe, I’m accustomed to having to apologize to other nations’ citizens for the last eight years. What’s interesting to me is that, according to the educated and non-educated people one meets in central Europe, those folks believe that Obama’s continued occupation of Afghanistan is a continuation of the Bush policy of aggression, and they are uncomfortable with that interventionism, to say the least. Of course this is anecdotal and not scientific, but I believe that it is safe to say that world or even European consensus is not necessarily in favor of an escalation or even continuation of that conflict. I’m certainly not moving from my position that a clear articulation of just and moral US interests should be the dominant rationale for our foreign policy (above even the consensus opinions of our valued allies), however.
.
…given the gigantic military budget that the US supports (a teensy fraction of which would get your universal health care, BTW)…
.
Well, that’s it right there. At this point in the US debate, there is no consideration whatsoever for doing so. The idea of removing even “a teensy fraction” (whatever that might be) of our military budget in order to pay for guaranteed health care for our citizens isn’t even possible to be discussed in Joe Klein’s world. These two areas of state spending apparently must never be compared or contrasted in specific numerical terms, using specific budget items and enumerated timelines of specified strategic goals. I have no idea if this notion of yours is even within reason, largely because the cost of military endeavors is apparently a taboo subject.
.
Because almost nothing could be more in America’s interests than to offer tangible benefits to places like Afghanistan–i.e., give them a personal stake in rejecting violent extremism. If we took the time and trouble to understand what really motivates most Afghanis and learn what their day to day concerns were, our cause would be immeasurably advanced. It costs almost nothing to do this, compared with, say, outfitting each soldier with the latest in protective gear.
.
Fine, that sounds like a worthy goal, I’d just like to have a fact-based, dollar-specific, budget-over-time understanding of what “almost nothing” actually means, so that the public actually understands what they are being asked to sacrifice in the service of that goal (if anything).
.
Speaking in terms like “costs almost nothing compared to X” is unfortunately vague, and doesn’t allow the discussion to encompass what expenditures we American citizens must necessarily abandon in order to accomplish even necessary foreign policy objectives. The only time that cost must lose its consideration is in the event of an immediate, existential threat to ourselves or our allies (you). If every conceivable, even grave threat is to be treated as if it were immediate and existential, that seems to be a denial of reality. Only those primarily interested in political objectives would be in favor of that sort of unreality permeating the debate over what we should or shouldn’t be doing.
.
This tendency to try to accomplish political objectives by banning discussion of price in lives and treasure is also terribly condescending to the American people, in that the assumption is that we should be shielded from a real understanding of the sacrifices inherent in countering international security threats. I’m guessing that, to people like Joe Klein at least, a discussion of costs brings the notion of sacrifice uncomfortably clear to a public that isn’t trusted by elites to do so voluntarily even when it’s necessary for the welfare of our country.
.
Unfortunately, that sort of patronizing filter has been exploited by Joe Klein’s political enemies (the neo-conservative movement), such that the American people are somewhat inured to claims to the effect that every threat should be considered an existential threat, whose costs are completely outside of rational consideration. We’ve had too many years now of Threat Levels staying at “Orange”, so to speak.
.
You also have to understand, readinwritin, that even as we speak, that the Obama Administration is contemplating a “commission”, ostensibly in order to address the necessity of “entitlement reform”, i.e. the restructuring of our Social Security program to meet goals having to do with fiscal responsibility and the national debt. How can we possibly contemplate such “reforms” in good conscience without at least addressing the costs of our operations overseas?
.
As an ordinary citizen, I am sick and tired of having my security buttons pushed (as if I were a six-year-old) by those aspiring to prestigious positions in a foreign policy technocracy. I am also irritated and confused by the Emperor’s New Clothes-style treatment of the subject of costs when it comes to achieving foreign policy goals. Given the failures of the foreign policy establishment over the past eight years, I am dead set against any member of the privileged US political class (largely unaffected personally by their own recent, gross errors in judgment) deciding that our f*cking sacrifices aren’t worthy of inclusion in the discussion.
.
I will also not simply pretend that I didn’t have eyes and ears for the past six years when it seems that the original goals of the Afghanistan invasion have magically been transformed into other, new goals to which I and millions of Americans haven’t actually consented, no matter how “grave the threat” and no matter how great the merit of those ideas.
.
Democracy just isn’t supposed to work that way. How can we possibly install democratic values –that authority follows the informed consent of the citizenry– when we ourselves seem to be in the thrall of a virtual aristocracy more concerned with perpetuating their own positions than the welfare of their fellow citizens?
.
The nature, importance and price of the mission in Afghanistan must never be above intelligent question, readinwritin –even if questions imperil the mission politically– or we necessarily lose that which we are seeking to convince the Afghanis to adopt as their own.

English-drawn blood-geyser

As an ethnic Indian, let me compliment you on that turn of phrase. I’m sure a lot of Palestinians and Iraqis would like to join me on that.