Latest Column

“His dilemma isn’t as stark as has been posed in recent press accounts, with screamers on the right demanding slavish devotion to the military’s wish list and screamers on the left demanding a withdrawal. ”
.
There are two obvious fallacies in this argument, ad hominem, and the fallacy of the middle ground or the fallacy of the golden mean. The latter is the stock in trade of so-called “centrists” like Klein. The basic format is the following:
.
Position A and B are two extreme positions.
.
C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
.
Therefore C is the correct position.
.
Position A and B are usually accompanied by a slur (the ad hominem component.) In this case A and B are both “screamers.”

Repeating this formula, over and over, still doesn’t move C into the domain of reason.

“They don’t like the Taliban very much, but the Taliban at least provide a system of justice, plus some goods and services, and they’ll go with that.”

This seems fairly simply Joe. “Provide a system of justice, plus goods and services”. I think between all the news hype of Healthcare and Kennedy’s passing, the Wars on Terror and our military’s struggle there, have taken a huge backseat. I know the successful part of the Iraq mission was to win over the hearts and minds of the people. I think I have read that we are also attempting this in Afghanistan as well.

Do you believe that this is being done in Afghanistan at this time?

In your opinion, will this work in Afghanistan like it did in Iraq?

…screamers on the left demanding a withdrawal.

Who is ‘screaming’ on the left? If they are there, they’re not very loud, Joe.

it’s legitimate to ask whether pouring our resources into Afghan nation-building is the best way to confront al-Qaeda.

Yes.

Unless the new Karzai government quickly changes course, the only reasonable answer is no.

Correct.

The question then becomes, What’s Plan B? And is anyone working on that?

Well, Joe…you’ve done a good job in stating that this middle course we’ve been pursuing in Afghanistan is failing/likely to fail; superimposing Western social organization over a thousand years’ worth of tribalism just ain’t cutting it, no matter how creative you are and how much you empty out of the Treasury to do so.

You’re basically left with two options.

1) Shoot the moon and establish a huge military presence lasting for decades…establish and keep order as brutally as necessary until your social organization becomes the norm. Of course, there’s no guarantee of success; Afghanistan has a history of chewing up occupiers, and the US’s recent adventure in Iraq shows that nation-building in even a relatively modernized society isn’t guaranteed…And we haven’t even talked about where all the money for this effort comes from.

2) Withdraw, choosing a policy of containment and a focus on intelligence gathering activities. Support the ‘fledgling’ Afghan army, of whom you say is one of the bright spots in this whole mess. Continue working with other countries’ efforts to counter terrorism. Still gonna cost, but nowhere near what a full-blow occupation would.

Note: I’m not screaming.

Grape–Read more closely. The sentence about screamers is actually an analysis of recent press accounts that I find faulty. If you read on, you’ll see that I say that most Democrats supported the war and will probably continue to support the President.

It’s no secret that I sometimes find fault with extremists on the left (though not nearly as often as I fault extremists on the right)–and also that consensus, especially when it comes to attempting social activist legislation like health care, is the only way to make progress. As I’ve grown older, I’ve watched time after time as extremists have oversimplified complicated arguments prevented real progress. Ted Kennedy learned the hard way: he died regretting that he had blocked Richard Nixon’s employer-mandated universal health care plan (he had held out for the 1973 equivalent of a public option).

It’s sort of hilarious that some commenters accuse me of making moral equivalency arguments when I’ve called the Republicans a party of nihilists and George W. Bush one of the worst Presidents in American history (in my print column, in both cases). I try to take each issue as it comes, report it out–that’s important: my views are almost always based on direct experience in the field and conversations with the advocates on all sides–and then take a position. If you don’t like the position I take, please dispute it on the merits. As in the past, I’ll respond to serious arguments when I can. I will not respond to rants.

So what should Obama do about Afghanistan? His dilemma isn’t as stark as has been posed in recent press accounts, with screamers on the right demanding slavish devotion to the military’s wish list and screamers on the left demanding a withdrawal.
.
And: The sentence about screamers is actually an analysis of recent press accounts that I find faulty. If you read on, you’ll see that I say that most Democrats supported the war and will probably continue to support the President.
.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be implying that most people on the left are not “screamers” because they support the war in Afghanistan and the President. Which suggests that those on the left who don’t support the war and the President on this issue are screamers.
.
Isn’t that the kind of unproductive demonization of political opponents that reasonable centrists are supposed to reject?

lol – still not screaming…
.
Read more closely. The sentence about screamers is actually an analysis of recent press accounts that I find faulty.
.
Oh, I understood that…No doubt that screamers exist; it’s just that I haven’t run into much in the way of news accounts of the situation in Afghanistan where someone is calling for withdrawal…I was looking for a link or two, that’s all, not questioning your lefty credentials.
.
Having said that, reading your reporting and opinion is why I visit Swampland…Gladly, we’ve come a long way since the earlier days.

with screamers on the right demanding slavish devotion to the military’s wish list and screamers on the left demanding a withdrawal.
.
Actually I think Joe keeps a jar of phrases like this on his desk ready to pull out at a moments notice whenever he has a need to portray himself as part of the ‘sensible’ middle.
.
If Holder’s investigation gets much further, it won’t surprise me to see Joe speculating on the “sadistic bast@rds with power drills on both the left AND the right”

What the “centrists” can’t seem to accept is the fact that proclaiming themselves members of the center is not a license to defy the rules of logic and sound reasoning, try as they might to do so.

“I try to take each issue as it comes, report it out–that’s important: my views are almost always based on direct experience in the field and conversations with the advocates on all sides–and then take a position.”
.
Wouldn’t an empiricist look at the last 2,000 years of history in Afghanistan and conclude there is no interest in having a constitutional democracy in that country. I’m assuming that is the current objective for the mission, but God only knows what it is, and when it might be over. If so, then someone who wants to cut the losses and get out of there could just as easily be labeled reasonable, rather than a screaming extremist.

Some people don’t object to executing innocent people. Others want to throw open our jails and let all the criminals go.
.
Obviously the reasonable course is to only execute everybody who’s currently in jail.

Mr. Klein – re:Obama’s Next Afghan Move.
I am pleased to read your column. I think you have most everything right, particularly the need to operate at the village and tribal level. Acceptance of a strong central government will take three generations to accomplish if we are lucky. Our insistence on transplanting our political values onto the Afghan cultural soil will not happen without us staying there for 50 years or more. What we call corruption, in Afghanistan is called business. It isn’t wrong. It’s business. As you know, nearly 80% of the money we send to Afghanistan goes to pay ourselves and our allies. Of the remaining 20%, at least 1/2 gets pilfered off into various forms of bribes, gratuities, and “business expenses”. Only a very small amount is ever seen by the villagers who are being bombed. That must be changed. Our money cannot buy their allegiance and our military power cannot subdue the entire culture. It isn’t just Taliban. We seem to want to put all our political and military problems in that one basket held by the Taliban, but they are only the most visible of the problems. What we call Taliban is sometimes just “business men” (we often call them warlords) looking out after their own tribal business interests. The poppy trade is similar. People have to make a living and in Afghanistan, power and mercy speak most loudly at the local level. What have you done for me lately and who is your relative? Two very important questions in the villages. Thank you.