Obama Fights the Logic of Escalation in Afghanistan
I think there’s a good case to be made for something resembling the Obama administration’s approach to Afghanistan. The problem, however, is that it might not work. And I worry that if we run into problems, the administration will find itself caught up in the logic of escalation, which holds that if the initial effort to pour more resources in failed, then we need to pour even more resources in. I think that’s wrong. I think it’s smart to make an effort to put the kind of resources into Afghanistan that we should have sent in years ago. But if 12-18 months from now it’s not working, we need to scale back our goals not further escalate. That’s why I was glad to see Obama talking about benchmarks on Friday, and very glad to read this from Amanda Terkel:
Today in an interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, Obama underscored this point. He pointed out that the reason he has increased troops in Afghanistan is because levels there are “greatly underresourced.” However, he is not going to “simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation.”
Watch the clip:
He says specifically that “just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.” I think that’s exactly right. There’s reason to believe that this will work, but if it doesn’t work we don’t want to keep trying the same thing. This is very heartening stuff. I still wonder if this kind of clear thinking will hold up once we’re deeper into the situation, but for now the thinking is clear and that’s important.
10 Responses to “Obama Fights the Logic of Escalation in Afghanistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 30th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Good point, but it may be harder to sell “defeat” (as characterized by the GOP) now than in 12-18 months. On the other hand, I tend the think the electorate’s appetite for occupation is likely to remain low for the next few years.
OT: Today George Will calls for activist judges to nullify the sovereign will of the American people. Viva la robe!
March 30th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Troop level math:
Roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq for roughly 70,000 square miles.
Roughly 70,000 troops in Afghanistan for roughly 250,000 square miles.
And this is very generous math. Iraq is basically ribbons of civilization along the rivers and a vast uninhabited wasteland. Afghanistan is much more evenly (and thus sparsely) populated, making it much more difficult to patrol.
Yglesias: we call you the YZA. One love.
The Enlightened Despot
March 30th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I agree: clear thinking is the key. I hope Obama has ‘The Best and the Brightest’ on his reading lsit. Comming from someone that thinks clearer than most this is. heartening.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:00 am
You just know the silk screens for the ‘Cut and Run Democrats’ bumper stickers are still in someone’s garage…
March 30th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Good point, but it may be harder to sell “defeat” (as characterized by the GOP) now than in 12-18 months.
Because everything around the planet revolves on how the GOP characterizes it.
The doves kept pointing out how Afghanistan was a graveyard for past empires, the British, the Soviets. Well it hasn’t proven to be a graveyard for NATO yet. So they were wrong.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Especially now. No way President Barack Obama can will a message war vs. Eric Cantor.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Doh! By “harder” in comment 1, I meant “easier.” Started writing that it would be “harder” later on, switched up the structure of the sentence and like an idiot left that word in there. Sorry for totally mucking up the point. The point is that early on in his administration Obama has somewhat more freedom to re-assess and change the policy before it becomes “his” policy. But, as I said, I don’t see there being a lot of public pressure to maintain the occupation in 12-18 months if things aren’t going well. It’s the pressure from Serious People that Obama will have to deal with.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Matt babbles: “And I worry that if we run into problems, the administration will find itself caught up in the logic of escalation, which holds that if the initial effort to pour more resources in failed, then we need to pour even more resources in. I think that’s wrong.”
WTF?
HOW is Obama’s “new strategy” any different from pure escalation? The US poured in resources for seven years (too slowly if you buy that it would have made that much difference, but still…), and now Obama is pouring in more resources WHEN THE WAR IS ALREADY LOST!
Matt or anyone else here can not come up with one single reason for thinking that the war is not already lost.
The news from Afghanistan is universally bad. The Taliban are planning their spring offensive as we speak. They basically control an estimated two thirds of the country, if not overtly. The various groups have joined together to confront the so-called “Obama surge”. A half hour’s ride out of Kabul and you’re in Taliban country, which means as long as you aren’t being escorted by US troops, your ass is under the control of the Taliban. If they want you dead, you’re dead.
The basic math has not changed. To defeat an insurgency the size of the Taliban would require a minimum of 400,000 troops – basically one platoon for every village in the country.
It’s ludicrous to think Obama can pull this out at this late date.
Matt keeps rolling over and putting his paws in the air every time Obama makes some vague general statement about “what we’re doing might not work” as if this means he KNOWS what he’s doing. If he KNEW what he was doing, he wouldn’t be escalating at ALL.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
The topic is quite hot in the net right now. What do you pay the most attention to while choosing what to write ?
April 15th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is a lot more than I expected for when I stumpled upon a link on Delicious telling that the info here is awesome. Thanks.