[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Oct 19 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

I challenge any one to explain the U.S. strategy for winning in Afghanistan.  And I would like to know if you believe it is imperative to fight a war in continuum for the next 50 years rather than handing the battle over to politics and policing, as the Rand Corporation suggested as the better course of action.  And finally, do you believe the Military-Industrial-Complex would support war for a profit/power motive rather than necessity?

I challenge any one to explain the U.S. strategy for winning in Afghanistan.

Obama will have to explain it -- no one else has yet.

And I would like to know if you believe it is imperative to fight a war in continuum for the next 50 years rather than handing the battle over to politics and policing, as the Rand Corporation suggested as the better course of action.

No.

And finally, do you believe the Military-Industrial-Complex would support war for a profit/power motive rather than necessity?

Of course. General Eisenhower saw that coming and he was right.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to explain your strategy for winning a war where your enemy can see it. Perhaps that's why no one has done so.

[kenberg]

I cannot explain the US trategy but then I very much doubt that me father could have explained US strategy during the Second World War. At any rate, neither Eisenhower nor MacArthur ever called him for advice. Like father, like son.


I try to decide in whom I should put my trust. I will listen to Mr. Obama as he explains what apparently will be a sharp change in direction. He doesn't have to give satisfactory answers to all of my questions, but right now I am extremely skeptical of his ability to lead the nation. Here are some started questions:

During the campaign, Obamawas very critical of Bush for having pulled troops from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. I felt that however misguided the Bush action was, that was history and pulling them now from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan may be making the same mistake in reverse. Does he now think in the same way?

During the campaign, Obama was not at all supportive, at least not until late, of the surge. The policy announced last March seemed, among other things, like a surge. Even like a surge on steroids. Does he now think that his decision last March was as stupid as he felt Bush's was?

In March, Obama made a show of having consulted with our allies and then he announced a policy that had their support. If we now unilaterally announce our renunciation of that policy, what sort of reception does he imagine he will get the next time he consults with our allies to plan a common military action? Leadrers of other nations do not like to be left to explain what the hell just happened.

And of course most important: Did he come to realize the error of his ways by reading Winston's posts on the forum?


There are many things that I do not understand but I have learned to trust my instincts when they warn me that I am being conned. I am getting jittery about Obama.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Oct 20 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

I'm not sure it's a good idea to explain your strategy for winning a war where your enemy can see it. Perhaps that's why no one has done so.

It's a good idea to have a clear, easily stated objective. In WWII, it was achieving the unconditional surrender of the fascist powers.

Contrary to your statement, it's often good to have a well-understood strategy, particularly when you need to maintain public support for achieving the objective. Voters can then see that the strategy has at least a reasonable chance of achieving the stated objective, if that is truly the case.

General McChrystal has been very open about his changes in strategy, and the Taliban surely knows about it. And that doesn't matter.

Until we know the objective, though, we won't be able to determine his chances for success. I hope that the objective will be clear soon. If it is too grandiose (imposing a western-style democracy on Afghanistan, for example), no strategy will succeed and public support will evaporate.

If you meant to say tactics, not strategy, you were correct.

[phil_20686]

I think that part of the apprehension that europeans feel about afgahistan, is about our history. How can i put this delicately - in the conversations i have had with some american firends, i felt that they didnt really understand what it meant to be a truly divided nation. Despite your civil war america has never really suffered from tribal hatreds the way that europe has, and there doesnt seem to be any focus on european history in your schooling.

Lets put this in persepective, the usa is about 250 years old, give or take, and parart from the civil war you have mostly got along. If you look at, for example, british history, you find that scotland and england were at war pretty much continously for over 600 years. Its easier for us to imagine then a state where there are tribes that feel great loyalty to each other, and non at all to their supposed country. And this is the situation in afganistan. Its not just that they hate foreigners, they hate and fear each other. Every ethnic group lives in permenant fear that some other ethnic group will acheive dominance and use it to exact some kind of prejudice or revenge against some other. This is why building a democracy in afganistan is an almost impossible task, voting will be divided along ethnic lines, and if there is a clear majority it will use it to impose itself on the smaller groups. This is indeed similar to the conflich in northern ireland, there the Pretestant unionists feared what it would mean to be part of an independendednt country dominated by catholics, and chose to seceded from teh irish republic. The nationalists objected to britian carving up the boundaries of its country to cater to a minority view. Further, the boundaries would never really reflect the distribution of ethnic groups and there where now two states with minorities who feared for their future. The result was 30 years of viloence.

Realistically, if you want to build a successful democratic state in afganistan, you are talking about 3 generations at the very least. Enough time to establish a sense of shared history that will replace tribal hostility, enough time to educate people about their past, and about each other, and for old er generations set in their ways to die off and be replaced. The problem in afganistan runs far deeper than in Ireland, as Afgansitan as a modern state has no roots to draw on. Further most of its elite moved abroad under the taliban, leaving it with a severe shortage of educated teachers doctors and the like to help with modernisation. The USA faces particular problems in the region because it funded guerilla war against the soviet union, but did little to help rebuild the country after the Soviets withdrew. No-one appreciaties being used as pawns, and i imagine it is a real mistake to imagine that all the violence against the USA troops is religiously motivated, or because they liked the taliban so much. Much of it is simply because they don't trust the west, and why should they.

We destroyed afganistan by using it as a pawn in the cold war. Britian caused a huge amont of suffering in the region when it created pakistan (pakistan - india is another largely tribal conflict, the BE bused all of one ethnic group into pakistan when they left the country basically. Booting millions of peoples out of their homes in each direction didnt endear them to anybody.). Lets not forget the establishment of Israel, although that was far enough away that probably doesnt matter that much to afgahans except as a sign that the west cannot be trusted.

My only real point here is that we expected nation building in afganistan to take 50-100 years. Its not like rebuilding europe after the second world war, which was mostly a case of give us some money and we will get on with it, and was done in twenty or so years. It could realistically take two ceturies to make afganistan a truuly stable place, judging by the roman emires efforts it typically took countries bettwen 50-100 years to settle and feel happy as a part of the roman empire. I think it will take at least that long in afganistan.

However, i feel that america should commit. In fact so should europe. The only way to build a reputation as a benevolant force and reliable mediator is to be there putting in the effort for a long time. If you leave now you will be seen to be breakign promises. To ahve destroyed afganistan for a second time, and america will never have credibility in the region. If you stay then in twenty years as educational and living standards rise america will be seen as someone who came to help people. A country that can be trusted to do the right thing. A friend of the region in general. Only then will you be able tomediate effectively, and achieve a genuine peace and prosperity in that region.

[kenberg]

Phil's description of Afghanistan fits my image, but I have no idea of the reality.

The existence of "Reading Lolita in Tehran" does not particularly surprise me. An Iranian woman holding meetings in her home with other women, studying western literature. "Reading Lolita in Kabul"? Can it be imagined? Tehran is not Paris or London, but I believe western values have strong support there. I don't have the same expectation in Afghanistan. My ignorance perhaps, but not entirely my ignorance I think.

i see both Iraq and Iran as being far more hospitable to an effort to "bring them into the west". If this is so, the question has to be asked: What was Obama thinking? If he was thinking of a fifty year time frame I must have missed that part of his speech.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Oct 20 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

Phil's description of Afghanistan fits my image, but I have no idea of the reality.

The existence of "Reading Lolita in Tehran" does not particularly surprise me. An Iranian woman holding meetings in her home with other women, studying western literature. "Reading Lolita in Kabul"? Can it be imagined? Tehran is not Paris or London, but I believe western values have strong support there. I don't have the same expectation in Afghanistan. My ignorance perhaps, but not entirely my ignorance I think.

i see both Iraq and Iran as being far more hospitable to an effort to "bring them into the west". If this is so, the question has to be asked: What was Obama thinking? If he was thinking of a fifty year time frame I must have missed that part of his speech.

The NYT had a piece yesterday titled Remembering Afghanistan's Golden Age.

Apparantly, Afghanistan was once referred to as “the Paris of Central Asia”

Not sure whether this is a compliment to Afghanistan or whether the Uzbek's have a bum rap...

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Oct 20 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

The NYT had a piece yesterday titled Remembering Afghanistan's Golden Age.

Thanks for the tip; I had missed this one: Remembering Afghanistan’s Golden Age

Quote

But as President Obama debates whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, and whether, more pointedly, he might be sending them down a black hole of civic hopelessness, American and Afghan scholars and diplomats say it is worth recalling four decades in the country’s recent history, from the 1930s to the 1970s, when there was a semblance of a national government and Kabul was known as “the Paris of Central Asia.”

Afghans and Americans alike describe the country in those days as a poor nation, but one that built national roads, stood up an army and defended its borders. As a monarchy and then a constitutional monarchy, there was relative stability and by the 1960s a brief era of modernity and democratic reform. Afghan women not only attended Kabul University, they did so in miniskirts. Visitors — tourists, hippies, Indians, Pakistanis, adventurers — were stunned by the beauty of the city’s gardens and the snow-capped mountains that surround the capital.

Things have gone downhill.

[kenberg]

It is great to have this correction to my uninformed view. A place that once, and not so long ago, had some sort of reasonable coherence is perhaps not beyond hope.

But good god, we have been there as a military force for eight years or so and much longer in other ways. I hope to hell that facts such as these are not news to the geniuses who are planning out what to do! That I was unaware of this is understandable (well, at any rate I don't mind displaying my ignorance). Those who wish to plot our course in the world need to be able to say of course we know that.

Miniskirts! I am stunned.

[Winstonm]

Escalation is the answer?

Quote

Glenn Greenwald:
"In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza).  Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade.  Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking:  'why do they hate us??'  And their friends and neighbors and leaders will assure them:  'they hate us for our freedoms.'"

[kenberg]

And people write things such as this [from Greenwald] and then they walk around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking: "Why does no one listen to us?".

Your first commentator, Andrew Bacevich, begins with the announcement that no serious person thinks that Afghanistan matters. Glenn Greenwald asserts that those who disagree with him also do all sorts of things that they may or may not do. My first reaction at comment such as Mr Greenwald's is that the author has my complete permission to go ***** himself. Let me try for a more reflective response.

Violence among individuals and among groups is a fact of life. I would hope that we always think twice and maybe three times before bombing anyone. There are many reasons, both as strategy and on moral grounds, for restraint. I think, however, that any suggestion that if we would just restrain our military then peace would break out in the middle east or anywhere else is a pipe dream. In the time leading up to the Second World War, the US had very much a hands off policy. France fell, England was fighting for survival, we did nothing. Ok, there was Lend-Lease but we did not send troops or bomb anyone. I am willing to consider, and in fact I believe it to be true, that we have now swung to far in the other direction. Not all problems can or should be solved by sending American troops. But the issues are certainly more subtle than the quote from Mr. Greenwald suggests.


I don't much care for the rhetorical approach of Bacevich and Greenwald. They begin by insulting people who disagree with them and then, perhaps, go on to present their case. This gets them an enthusiastic response from those who already agree with them but it is not the way to get a hearing from the rest of us.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Oct 21 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

Escalation is the answer? 

Quote

Glenn Greenwald:
"In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza).  Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade.  Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking:  'why do they hate us??'  And their friends and neighbors and leaders will assure them:  'they hate us for our freedoms.'"

Isn't Greenwald discussing Iran in this quote?

Getting back to Afghanistan, I think "escalation" is a misleading description of what McChrystal is asking for, even though he wants more soldiers. McChrystal has taken real steps toward reducing US violence against Afghan civilians. He has forbidden US soldiers to return fire when civilian lives would be put at risk. He wants to place the focus on protecting Afghans from Taliban violence, and needs more soldiers (maybe many more soldiers) to make that work.

To me, that certainly makes more sense than what the US has been doing, but I want to know what the objective is and whether that objective can be attained -- perhaps with a lot more help from Europe. It will create a much worse outcome for Afghan villagers if the US military more or less forces them to become collaborators now against the Taliban and then abandons them to their fates a couple of years from now.

I trust that is on Obama's mind during this evaluation period also.

[vuroth]

kenberg, on Oct 21 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

And people write things such as this [from Greenwald] and then they walk around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking: "Why does no one listen to us?".

**snip**

Eloquently put.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 21 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

I don't much care for the rhetorical approach of Bacevich and Greenwald.

I kind of like writers who push me out of my comfort zone, especially when I don't automatically agree with them. In this discussion, it interests me that a conservative catholic military man, Andrew Bacevich, and a gay constitutional lawyer and civil rights litigator, Glenn Greenwald, appear to see eye to eye on Afghanistan.

Although I certainly don't share Bacevich's religious views, I do consider him a to be good representative of mainstream conservative thought concerning foreign policy matters.

[y66]

I don't understand the strong reactions to the questions Bacevich is asking. I'm glad to see that Rahm Emanuel is also publicly questioning what we can accomplish there. I agree with the OP that this is a defining moment for Obama. What an incredibly difficult problem. If ever there was a time to go into the tank, this is it.

[Al_U_Card]

No time like the present to beat swords into plowshares.....Worthy of the Nobel prize AND the bible-thumpers will be in "rapture" literally as well as figuratively.

[kenberg]

y66, on Oct 21 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

I don't understand the strong reactions to the questions Bacevich is asking.  I'm glad to see that Rahm Emanuel is also publicly questioning what we can accomplish there. I agree with the OP that this is a defining moment for Obama. What an incredibly difficult problem. If ever there was a time to go into the tank, this is it.

I would say that a year ago was the time to do it. The concerns are:

First and foremost: Whether the right decision gets made. Better late tahn never certainly applies here, but it is late.


How our allies will take a presumably pretty much unilateral decision to change course after they have publicly backed the course announced last March. Additionally, whether our allies will then be willing to participate in future joint efforts under American leadership.


What those who wish the best for us, those who wish the worst for us, an we ourselves will make of a sharp change of direction a few months after a decision that was claimed at its announcement to be made after extensive review and extensive discussions with our friends. I think it is fair to say that on the question of whether Obama is a man of deep principles or a quick study of prevailing winds, the jury is still out.


I think I could supply more reason for concern, but the above is roughly it, at least from my viewpoint. Few things are more important than the decision to send in more or pull out our troops. We have to be convinced that the man in charge knows what he is doing and is making his decisions based on his best assessment of what is good for the country. I will listen, as I imagine most will, but I must say I would have found arguments that he might make to be far more palatable if he had made them during the campaign.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Oct 19 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

We are a superpower in the sense that we can nuke the bejesus out of whomever we might choose, but that's not really where the action is. [....] So we need to work with our friends, Europe of course, and Australia, South America, and Asia.

I think USA is a superpower. Your military can't control the whole World but they have been able to achieve some significant goals in Panama, Grenada, Kosova, even to some extent in a big country like Colombia. And there was this American captain that was freed from Somali pirates. I am not being sarcastic, I really think it requires powerful military and the political will to make us of it to achieve such aims, and although some other countries have occasionally done similar things (the Falkland war), I think it is largely an American thing.

As for Europe, don't count on it. OK some European countries are willing to send peace keeping forces once peace has been obtained. But since the disgusting non-involvement policy of Europe during the Bosnian war I have zero belief in Europe's will to take military action.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that US has been over-active in many cases. Sometimes it is easy to be wise in retrospect: I was in favor of involvement in Afghanistan for some time, and I am not sure what I would have thought about Vietnam if I had been older. But the latest Iraq never seemed to have any merits.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 21 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

I will listen, as I imagine most will, but I must say I would have found arguments that he might make to be far more palatable if he had made them during the campaign.

Yes. And, failing that, definitely before embarking upon and enlisting support for his original approach. A dramatic change now will hurt him, and by extension, US credibility both politically and diplomatically.

Obama now owns this war. I hope he is talking with sane people (including republicans like Colin Powell) about the most practical approach now. The credibility Obama has lost already will be nothing compared to what he will lose if he gets the US into another Vietnam.

The fact that he's taking the time needed to work out what to do will not matter much compared to the impact his actual decision will make. My guess is that Obama will identify some reasonable objective that does not leave the Europeans looking stupid, and deploy accordingly. We'll find out, I think, after the November runoff in Afghanistan.

[mike777]

I expect the election to matter little, after all with all the info on the ground can the last election be a surprise to the President? Do we not expect that whoever wins, there will be corruption, claims of an illegal government etc in Afghanistan?


Keep in mind the Taliban and its supporters claim they are the only legal government.


As I mentioned before I expect him to try the surge with 40-60 K more troops. If we dont see alot of improvement in a year, send them all home. If the Afghan army and people will not support the govt , I just wish the Prez would send the troops home now. Granted even this is an ugly option.

I frankly dont understand the media reported "Biden" option at all. BOMB who, when, on the basis of what inaccurate information?