Can we have an honest Afghanistan debate? Please?
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
My God. Until last night, I wasn’t aware of how many military experts there are in this country! After Obama’s West Point speech, it’s as if everyone has an opinion on the precise troop levels required for success in Afghanistan. “He should have inserted 40,000 troops, not 30! Only then could we win!” Or: “We’d be fine with far fewer troops; the prez is a putz.”
Of course, many people now making such proclamations have little actual expertise about these subjects. Instead, they’re responding to the constraints of our war debate, which has become overtaken by the technocratic experts, who choose to believe that everything can be reduced to a number: troop levels, benchmarks, etc. These are important things, surely. Yet such expertise can only tell us so much in a debate about a subject as complicated and consequential as Afghanistan. What we need is a robust, honest debate about long-term American strategy, grounded in values–a debate in which troop levels and military theory can play a role, but not dominate, or get even close.
A debate on troop levels is a debate in which everyone is feigning expertise instead of debating first principles. Opponents and supporters of the war are claiming that their desired goals can be accomplished only if a precise number of troops can be added or subtracted. But as we saw in the debate over the surge in Iraq, predictions about the consequences of troop levels are extraordinarily hard to do right. So enough about troop levels. Unless you’re in the military, once were, or study the thing for a living, why don’t you argue what you want to argue?
In other words: opposition to the Afghanistan war needs to be rooted in more than quantitative quibbling. Likewise, you can’t support the president, as many on the right are rushing to do this morning, just because he has added more troops. Because adding and subtracting troops is only part of what’s at stake. The big picture, as it were, is what you want America’s role in the world to be. Without a candid assessment of your own aspirations for the country, then your opinions about the war will be, at best, convoluted.
The point is, if you believe America would be well-suited by remaining in Afghanistan indefinitely, there’s no need to rely on the crutch of troop levels (or, as John McCain ghoulishly did this morning, on the prospect of Karzai’s assassination). Have the courage of your convictions, or at least of Max Boot, and declare yourself ready and willing for American Empire. Similarly, if you think our troops should pull out as soon as possible, you’ve got acknowledge that, yes, the Taliban might fill the power vaccuum, and yes, Al Qaeda might seriously regroup. To have principles means to accept the consequences of those principles.
For his part, Barack Obama does seem willing to do that. If the picture hasn’t brightened considerably by 2011, his reelection prospects are toast. He must know that. Yet even his speech seemed lacking in principle and conviction. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to follow him.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Mr. Porter,
You asked “Can we have an honest Afghanistan debate? Please?”. The answer is not “no” but rather “HELL NO!”. It would be politically impossible to announce that 30,000 troops are being sent face death and danger so that the US & allied armed forces can withdraw during a brief period of calm and not off of the top of US Embassy. Mr. Obama could no more say that than Mr. Bush could when announced exactly the same plan to get US troops out of Iraq.
After great Deliberation and Agony, Pres. Obama did not just call for the Escalation of the “struggle” but married it with a specified end date of this Struggle through military might.
I saw in Pres. Obama a heart that bleeds for this decision for anyone whose heart center is open and active feels the pain of this task, yet, speaking with a Heavy Heart, I also heard in that speech the unspoken wish or Intent that he was going to also bring Bin Laden to justice ( the great Prize and Symbol)! I also heard the great Urgency he feels to bind up all loose nuclear threats and to prevent them from getting into those hands within Afghanistan and Pakistan which might annihilate the world as we know it. He has not made this this “call to arms” for Oil or for profit based upon a lie but a heartfelt desire to keep safe the people in the world, in the binding up of these nuclear threats to the world by this faction which he knows is still out there plotting to do harm! That in this way we are Standing up for Peace and that somehow we must go into Hell for a Heavenly cause.
I heard him also say to the Military Industrial Complex Machine that there will be an end date, and that it will not be open-ended, but that the battle for peace might call for other strategic ways to get to this goal — that giving the benefit of the doubt to his generals — he will try their way (since they are so much more knowledgeable about military than him).
As, he spoke about true security from a world without nuclear weapons (his real true goal), he also spoke about the need to unite with the world to accomplish this task because in truth, terror and nuclear weapons is a world problem! And finally, he called us to the time after 9/11, when we were all united but got deviated from the course, but to return to that Unity of purpose, one more time…. and that if he is lucky, he will bring home the Prize, Bin Ladin, break the back of this threat, and then for the weary and battle scarred-soldiers they can look onward and say, well done — yet, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home!
Let us trust ” that there is a goodness in all of life that cannot even be eliminated by thoughts that temporarily cause you to believe that negativity is the underlying reality of human life on earth… ” (1) Let us call on that goodness to illuminate our way forward towards that peace and goodwill and seal the door where evil dwells.
1. Ron Scolastico. Doorway to the Soul
Ethan,
I appreciate your exasperation. But I think many who are disillusioned by the president’s action, my last post, aren’t arguing troop levels at all. We — I — think we need to get out of Afghanistan as fast as it can be reasonably done, perhaps leaving behind a small anti-terror force. Will the Taliban regroup? They already are regrouped, en masse, in Pakistan. Will al-Qaeda return? Many intelligent analysts have argue that al-Qaeda has morphed into a new model with multiple bases around the world. It no longer needs Afghanistan in the same way. Are we likely to antagonize more people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pushing them toward the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by bombing the bejesus out of them and killing their families? I think so. Can we win in Afghanistan? I’ll answer with a question. When in history has anyone succeeded in conquering this fierce, determined, tribal place? Did “they” start the war? Yes, eight year ago. If we wanted to fight a war we should have fought it then. We’ve lost sight of purpose, its goal or its desired outcome. Do we have an extra $100 billion a year to spend risking the lives of American soldiers in this godforsaken corner of the world? Well, let’s see, unemployment and underemployment together are approaching 20 percent. Does that leave us flush as a nation? I don’t think so. In other words, there’s not much more of a conversation to be had. This president, elected in large part because of his anti-war positions, has latched his wagon to the military commanders, who, by the way, disagree with his own ambassador to the country. Do the commanders know what they are doing? Call me a child of Vietnam, but I seriously doubt it. Pride cometh before the fall. Afghanistan does not have a real government. It has a corrupt leader who sneers at us as we prop him up. So it becomes very hard to stomach another round of flag waving. We’re not fighting for democracy. We’re not fighting to crush “terrorism” — it isn’t a place and it doesn’t have an army.
That all makes sense to me. What I really don’t understand though is the sense of “betrayal” that some are feeling this morning–Obama was quite clear during the campaign that he was against the Iraq War but in favor of increasing engagement with Afghanistan. In other words, he’s living up to his campaign promises. Now, I’m not happy about this–I don’t think it will work–but I am mystified that so many others are disappointed.
In response to another comment. See in context »Exactly. Agree with his decision or not, but he is living up to his promise regarding Afghanistan. No one can say he’s going back on his word.
http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Porter,
You are quite correct that Mr. Obama was very clear during the campaign that he wanted to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. In July 2008 on “Face the Nation” Mr. Obama said “There is starting to be a growing consensus that it’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan…”
Having said that the people who voted for Mr. Obama wanted change, including change in what has become almost a permanent state of war. Everyone can see that this “surge” is just a face saving maneuver that will accomplish nothing other than securing “Peace with Honor”. Nobody voted for that.
In response to another comment. See in context »“This president, elected in large part because of his anti-war positions”
This is factually incorrect. Or, if it’s correct, he was elected on his “perceived” anti-war positions, which don’t actually have any basis in reality. Anyone who has been surprised by this needs to question how closely they were actually paying attention during the campaign.
That’s not to say that this decision shouldn’t be debated, or that the President shouldn’t change his mind, but to attribute “anti-war” positions where there were none sort of undermines your point.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dude, the debate’s over! We lost!
no way! this is one debate that promises to be unending…
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Porter,
Mr. Hastings is quite correct. The title of your blog is about an “honest debate”. That is finished, Mr. Obama will throw 30,000 more soldiers into harms way for not less than 18 months. Then, insurgents willing, all US troops will be pulled out. What is there to debate? Sure there will be plenty of talk and argument but “honest debate”, no way.
In response to another comment. See in context »Obama did the right thing here. He listened to the generals on the ground and gave them their troops. It was a good way to neutralize the right on this issue- the only thing they’re complaining about now is how long he took to make his decision and the details of his west point speech (never using the word “victory”). If the generals fudge it and things don’t work out in Afghanistan then we should see another backlash against the right, although I don’t underestimate the power of their propaganda machine to make it Obama’s fault. If all goes well everyone looks good- Obama can talk about unity and bipartisanship and all that. As far as America’s role in the world goes, we should be cleaning up places we already wrecked like Afghanistan, but we shouldn’t have open ended commitments and hundreds of permanent non-operational bases everywhere. Maybe some our listening and recon stations should stay operational, but overseas bases not directly involved in current conflicts need to be closed and the military budget cut in half.
Will Obama need to give back his Nobel Peace Prize now?
Exactly. The pro-war, pro-empire side has done a fantastic job conflating cause and effect: commit the troops before having a reasonable debate, then make the debate into a rhetorical one about supporting the troops. So then it becomes all about numbers. I don’t know what the solution is, but I certainly appreciate your sentiment, and hope more people come out vocally in favor of thinking about the big issue, for a change.
We are as wont to lose in Afganistan and Iraq as handily as we were defeated in Korea and Vietnam. We are a great nation, but guerrilla warfare that is fought at great distances from the homeland is an impossible task. While we need to consider the ramifications of leaving these wars behind us, we must consider the costs in money and lives when trying fruitlessly to sustain a losing effort in either of these troubled nations.
But politics will always prevail; Obama’s popularity is diminished lately, and he needed to appease both his own party and the hawkish republicans. He did thus by sending additional troops, but alerting his party that he will not tolerate anything less than a limited war.
OK, Ethan. Go to thedailyshow.com. Unlike too many journalists interviewing themselves, John Stewart has a pretty good interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. Friedman is no lefty. His take: AFghanistan doesn’t need trainers; it needs a government the people will fight for. And that’s not going to happen. I think Michael summed things up nicely. As for what Obama said campaigning. (1) his emphasis was on getting OUT of Iraq, which is happening very, very slowly (2) the situation on the ground in Afghanistan has changed radically in the last 18 months. I heard on NPR driving home today that another of our follies will be to triple the investment in nation building to $10 billion. Why is this a folly? Because most of this money disappears into the corrupt government. Some of it, NPR reported, ends up going to the Taliban. The situation would be comical if it weren’t so damned tragic.
Did you really like Friedman’s line there? For me, it was a reminder of what a short-sighted jerk he is. It was something along the lines of “Afghanis don’t need us to show them how to shoot guns – they love shooting!” He was clearly sitting on that clever rejoinder the entire interview, and proud of himself for getting it out. Way to belittle everyone in that country, while implying that we, an invading force that’s killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our middle east campaigns, are morally superior. Give me a break.
In response to another comment. See in context »I wouldn’t trust Thomas Friedman on military matters any farther than I could throw him.
In response to another comment. See in context »An honest debate with a dude who hides his birth certificate from the american people? Get real
President Obama’s speech has prompted me to assess the basis of my support for him and it comes down to this: trust in his values, trust in his intelligence and trust in the deliberative process. I believe that the world has shrunk into a neighborhood and that we can only estimate the true consequences of our actions. In dealing with this hyper-uncertainty, I respect an approach that involves listening, testing hypotheses to the extent possible and respecting the complexity of the situation. I do not believe there is an a priori “correct” answer that flows primarily from a world view.