Non-Turnarounds on Afghanistan
Starting in 2002-2003, many Americans were opposed to the war in Iraq. And over time, that group grew to include more people. Since opposition to the war was pretty broad-based, war opponents including people with a great diversity of views on foreign policy and national security questions, including some people on both the right and the left who are very strongly opposed to foreign military operations writ large. All of which is fine. What’s not fine, I think, is the way that a lot of my colleagues here at the Center for American Progress are now finding themselves accused of hypocrisy or some sort of opportunistic turnaround for not thinking the same things about Afghanistan as some of their fellow opponents of the war in Iraq. This item from Justin Raimondo at The American Conservative caught my attention in particular since it mentions me by name:
The Center for American Progress, a liberal-Left think tank that sheltered many foreign-policy analysts who opposed the Iraq War and was beginning to develop a comprehensive critique of global interventionism, has recently issued a report on Afghanistan that includes a number of short-term, medium-term, and long-term (ten-year) goals, including among the latter:
* Assist in creating an Afghan state that is able to defend itself internally and externally, and that can provide for the basic needs of its own people.
* Prepare for the full military withdrawal from Afghanistan alongside continued diplomatic and economic measures to promote the sustainable security of Afghanistan.
Simply substitute Iraq for Afghanistan, and what we get is the war policy of the Bush era. That the center is run by John Podesta, who served as Obama’s transition chief, is perhaps explanation enough for the complete turnaround. One wonders, however, if the center’s more anti-interventionist scholars, such as Matthew Yglesias, whose popular blog has attracted a substantial audience, will be forced to toe the new line—or be forced out.
As I’ve said before there’s no need to find an “explanation” for the “turnaround.” The authors of CAP’s recent report on Afghanistan have long held the view that we should send more troops to Afghanistan. This is what they wanted in 2005, it’s what they wanted in 2006, it’s what they wanted in 2007 (and again). This became Barack Obama’s position during the 2008 campaign, and became his policy as President in 2009, but this is a case of Obama coming around to something similar to the CAP view and not the reverse.
Will I be toeing the line? Well, I think Raimondo and I won’t be in complete agreement about this issue, just as we’ve never been in complete agreement about the engagement of American military force abroad. But people are invited to read my posts on Afghanistan and draw their own conclusions. I would say that I’m cautiously supportive of what the administration’s outlined but I’m worried about the logic of escalation and think it’s necessary to put some meaningful benchmarks in place lest we get stuck in a hopeless quagmire.
But on the general subject of “intervention” I think it’s helpful to draw distinctions. This week I wrote one column arguing against folks who want to invade Somalia and another about how the defense budget should be cut. I’ve inveighed many times against the advocates of preventive military strikes against North Korea and Iran. And in general, I’m dubious that the United States should be using force outside of the cases of self-defense, defense of an ally, or a mission authorized through the United Nations Security Council. That makes me a lot less of an interventionist than most of the powers that be in Washington, though still more of an interventionist than many other people. But it’s not a form of hypocrisy; it’s a different opinion. Both the legal status and the situation on the ground in Afghanistan are different from the situation in Iraq.
16 Responses to “Non-Turnarounds on Afghanistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I think that this post could have simply pointed out that Justin Raimondo is an intellectual midget and left it at that.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am
One wonders, however, if the center’s more anti-interventionist scholars, such as Matthew Yglesias, whose popular blog has attracted a substantial audience, will be forced to toe the new line—or be forced out.
anti-interventionist: maybe post Iraq clusterfuck
scholar: well read sure, anything more is debatable
substantial audience: relatively large yes, substantive occasionally
toe the new line: not new and nobody, not even Palmieri, puts Yglesias in the corner
forced out: Isn’t MY required by law to move to a new blog every 12-18 months?
April 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Oh boy. The “legal status” is different, because Obama’s war in Iraq is illegal?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am
SIMPLY SUBSTITUTE IRAQ FOR AFGHANISTAN?!? WFT?!?
That’s what got us into this mess, you idiot!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Thomas, moronic cheerleader for Bush’s unprovoked assault on the innocent people of Iraq and general fuckwit, now claims it is Obama’s war in Iraq? Wow, that’s some dumb shit coming from the nitwits of the right.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
So what is the qualification for becoming an ally. If one includes everyone else among their allies then your standard is meaningless. I don’t think you mean for it to be meaningless, but I think if you are going to support military interventions to protect our allies without UN security council permission then you better explain what qualifies someone as an ally. Personally I think the Kosovo intervention worked out pretty well and I don’t see your arbitrary limitations as having much to do with which interventions will turn out well.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Point taken — CAP was always in favor of intervening in Afghanistan (and, presumably, Pakistan, to some degree). However, it’s not at all clear how and why the situation in Afghanistan is fundamentally different than in Iraq: we are occupying the former as well as the latter, and the essential injustice of that is as readily apparent as the impractability of such a project. Sure, the specifics are different: they are, after all, different countries. But how are they different in principle?
One also is stunned to see that the rationale for Obama’s war is the same as Bush’s war: the alleged danger to the US mainland posed by terrorists plotting in the mountains of Afghanistan and the wilds of Waziristan. Yet you have — rightly — pointed out, I believe, that this explanation makes little sense. So how do you justify the “Af-Pak” war?
What it comes down to is this: The only difference between Bush’s war and Obama’s war is a matter of which party is in power. It’s all about partisan politics, period. It’s as simple as that.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
It is wonderful to have a ‘legal’ and ‘justifiable’ war–vs the Bushies’ Operation Iraqi Liberation. But it is useless to feel good about a war that one is about to lose at great expense. Do not doubt that supplying American soldiers by trucks driven thru the Khyber Pass is a way to lose this war.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Great post and great response to the loathsome Raimondo who can’t get his facts straight!
I’m more pro-intervention than Matt although I think a war with Iran would be disastrous and think Vietnam was a criminal aggresion and shouldn’t have happened.
I just don’t agree with the doves who feel Saddam “wasn’t that bad.” He was stupid though. If he’d just let inspectors in and not bluffed that he had weapons, he’d still be in power, just as the Taliban should have handed over Osama and not said “no, he’s our guest” and they’d still be in power.
Raimondo is just anti-whatever the US does. You can predict it.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@7: Obama’s war, same as the old war.
Incredible, really, the stupidity of the argument. Maybe that’s its genius? I must be missing something. Is this Right wing think tank strategy going forward?
I need to ponder this.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Umm, Peter K., here on Earth I, Saddam did let the inspectors in. And then they didn’t find anything. And then the pro-war lobby said that’s because they were Euroweenies and invaded anyway. And then there weren’t any weapons.
These facts are well-known.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Umm, Peter K., here on Earth I, Saddam did let the inspectors in. And then they didn’t find anything. And then the pro-war lobby said that’s because they were Euroweenies and invaded anyway. And then there weren’t any weapons.
These facts are well-known.
What’s well-know is the pro-Saddam lobby’s tendency to twist everthing in his favor.
Saddam would let them in, dick them around and kick them out. He didn’t cooperate as any object person could tell you.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Yeah, the article “caught Matt’s attention” – because I sent him the fucking thing last night, explicitly quoting the part he quotes.
As for “toeing the line”, as I said in my email, Matt acts like he invented the line.
In general, beyond that, Justin is one hundred percent right. When the war was stupid BS from Bush, Matt was against it (after being for it, of course, because he knows nothing). Now we have the exact same sort of war with Obama for it, and now Matt is for it, despite all his patently ass-covering hedging about “concerns for escalation” (what the FUCK is Obama doing RIGHT NOW except ESCALATION, Matt?)
“Meaningful benchmarks?” Like the “benchmarks” the Bush administration had for Iraq – that were never met?
WHAT “meaningful benchmarks”? I haven’t read of any being established in the media. Have you? What are they? If you can’t point to them AND how they’re going to be realized other than just throw more money and people into the mix, it’s PR bullshit from Obama.
The same PR bullshit Obama has been spouting throughout his campaign and his first months in office. I pointed out repeatedly here throughout the campaign that there was no HOW there in any of his foreign policy goals.
Hey, I can say, “Yes, I’ll finish the war in Afghanistan and take the fight to Al Qaeda”. That’s easy to say. Now ask me HOW.
Nobody’s asking Obama HOW. Let alone Matt.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Peter K: You’re full of it. Saddam cooperated very well with the UN inspectors long before the 2003 invasion. That’s a matter of public record. Look it up.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Ummmmm…I don’t know, something about Iraq having absolutely nothing to do with an attack on our country that killed thousands of us, and Afghanistan being the headquarters and ally of the people who did?
April 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
So how do you justify the “Af-Pak” war?
Maybe Matt will respond to this, but what I remember is that he’d long believed that Afghanistan, because it was lodged next to Pakistan, which is unstable and possesses nuclear weapons, represents a significantly larger strategic problem than Iraq. This justified a larger long-term investment in stabilizing the nation. It’s not a complicated argument, and I know he was making it back in the 2005-6 period (though I can’t seem to navigate the Atlantic’s archives).
And re: Mr. Hack, it’s true there are few “How” answers regarding Afghanistan right now. But they’ve only been in office two months. I don’t expect a clearly articulated policy to be laid out before all the military and policy players have had time to mull it over, coordinate, and get on the same page.