Even More Troops to Afghanistan?
Let me join Kevin Drum in expressing concern about reports that the military officials in charge of the war in Afghanistan are getting ready to ask for more troops. I don’t think anyone should find such a request surprising. I bet if you asked Faiz whether or not his team’s budget should be increased so that he can hire more ThinkProgress bloggers he’d conclude that, in fact, it should. What’s needed is a broader strategic judgment.
When I look at the situation, I see a United States of America that’s economically battered and continues to badly lack credibility in the Muslim world. This makes me want a strategy aimed at figuring out what there is we can accomplish in Afghanistan on a reasonably short time frame before heading out. Instead, the wheels of national security policy seem to be spinning in the direction of escalating goals leading to escalating demands for resources, all in a manner that seems oddly detached from concrete considerations about costs and benefits.
I’ve been a bit distracted by the fights in congress over domestic policy, but Spencer Ackerman never takes his eye off the ball and says “it seems fair to say that the balance of evidence favors an interpretation that Afghanistan strategy is coming unmoored from the actual objectives of the war, and the actual interests at stake, and the White House is being either deluded or outright dishonest about what’s happening.” That’s a harsh judgment, but the sense of drift I get is very real. Inability to achieve relatively concrete low-level goals (”kill Osama”) seems to be leading us to escalate our objectives in an unhelpful way. Note that Hamburg, Germany was and is a lot better-governed than Afghanistan will ever be and that didn’t stop al-Qaeda from using it as a “safe haven” from which to plot attacks.
28 Responses to “Even More Troops to Afghanistan?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 31st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Note that Hamburg, Germany was and is a lot better-governed than Afghanistan will ever be . . .
Kind of an overly broad statement and borderline offensive at that. Even if you give them 500 or a thousand years, the Afgans will still be more poorly governed than the Germans are now?
July 31st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“..spinning in the direction of escalating goals leading to escalating demands for resources, all in a manner that seems oddly detached from concrete considerations about costs and benefits.”
The same argument applies to health care propsals
July 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
First a quick msg to Rob – yes. Yes, they will.
Matt, kudos and let me remark that Kevin didn’t demonstrate his unease enough. Gen. McChrystal seems to be making operational estimates based on the rosy goal of developing Afghanistan into a fully functioning democracy with full control over its territories. That never was the goal, even under Bush, let alone determining the strategy of what we are doing in that country under Obama’s administration.
Someone needs to remind the White House of the Clausewitz dictums about politicians setting war strategy and generals executing operations that address strategic ends. This concept that generals should figure out what they think they want to do, and then tell the White House that this is the plan and oh by the way, it’s going to take an unending flood of people and money has got to stop.
If the Karzai government doesn’t want to reform the country – and it certainly doesn’t appear to want to do so, based on past performance – then it’s time to stop being the Afghan security force and let them plunge back into lawlessness. I think McChrystal forgets that we weren’t there to end the Taliban’s existence as much as to stop al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a safe haven. And now that al Qaeda is in Pakistan, we need to leave Afghanistan and invade Pakistan.
Kidding. Sort of.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Instead, the wheels of national security policy seem to be spinning in the direction of escalating goals leading to escalating demands for resources, all in a manner that seems oddly detached from concrete considerations about costs and benefits.
That doesn’t seem like an accurate characterization of why McChrystal is reportedly thinking about asking for more troops. At least as the article describes it, the move is being driven by a desire to change the way the troops are operating:
Again, to the extent you need more troops to carry out such a change in operations, that doesn’t seem to fit Matt’s description. But maybe what Matt had in mind was this part:
So yeah, I guess that means less raids, but I am not sure I really see that as an “escalation of goals” as opposed to a change in strategy, and I could certainly see how this move would be consistent with cost-benefit analysis.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The same argument applies to health care propsals
No it doesn’t. Say what you want about the process that’s producing the health care reform bill, but cost and benefits have been the focus of nearly the entire discussion, at least on the Dem side. Most Dems would love to have a single payer system, which all evidence indicates would provide the greatest benefits at the lowest cost. This is opposed by conservatives for philosophical reasons.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
And what happens if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan? Seriously, we’re hearing more and more liberals agitating on this subject with little to no thought about what comes next.
Mike
July 31st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
By the way, Matt wrote:
I actually think focusing strictly on counterterrorism–which Ackerman and Matt both seem to be suggesting–doesn’t really make sense in light of this standard. The counterterrorism mission isn’t one we are likely to somehow “accomplish” in a short time frame.
Our actual strategy more seems to be to try to weaken the position of the Taliban et al relative to the central government forces of Afghanistan and Pakistan as much as possible before we leave. That actually strikes me as something we could reasonably “accomplish” on a fairly short time frame (understanding again we are talking in relative terms).
July 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
The strategy in Afghanistan is (1) to provide a venue for development of weapons, practice and perfection of tactics and real-world training for the military (2) support the MIC and (3) maintain a presence surrounding Iran.
Joe Biden declares himself to be a zionist and mischpuche. Rahm Emanuel is chief of staff. No one in DC dares challenge the MIC. A small number of deaths and billions of wasted dollars is of secondary concern.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“I don’t think anyone should find such a request surprising.”
No, especially as this was always part of the planning of the military, just as soon as they felt they could get out of Iraq. Problem is, it’s all a bit late. For 8 years we pursued an ADHD-infused foreign policy that could have been thrown together by a bored toddler: “Look, over there! A bad guy! Ooh, what’s that over there…oil? What happens if I pull the wings off these prisoners?” Now all of a sudden it’s all supposed to make sense?
We need to simply accept that our days of empire-building are over, and that other peoples’ well-being was NEVER part of the plan, and just get the fuck out. For over 50 years we haven’t lifted a finger, foreign policywise, that hasn’t exploded in our face like a bad cigar or ended up pushing the button on a culture-leveling bomb. Let’s do the whole world, and ourselves, the favor of keeping our clumsy hands to ourselves for a few generations.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
And by the way, why are all the hawks so worried about the fate of the Afghans and Iraqis after we leave? Much worse things have been happening in Burma, Sudan, and the Congo, but I haven’t heard much agitating from the Right for the safety of those folks.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
And as I posted over at Kevin’s site is that any failure by liberals to support Obama to win in Afganistan will destroy him.
Because it was Obama who said that Afganistan was where the REAL WAR ON TERRORISTS should be fought and that Bush’s war in Iraq was a mistake. If the commander on the ground says he needs more troops to win, the only response from Obama should be “Whatever you need!!” That’s the response Bush would have given.
If liberals force Obama to bail on Afganistan and it ends up in a worse state than Iraq, then it will confirm every GOP talking point that liberals don’t have the stomach to conduct foreign policy and you’ll never be entrusted with US national security again.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Afghanistan already IS in a worse state than Iraq, genius. And it always was, and it always will be.
After Vietnam this kind of “argument” should never again be greeted with anything but derision.
If you don’t need to be in a place to begin with then you certainly don’t need to double down and keep sending more troops there.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
So, what you’re saying is, your CONCERN over the possible harm that the management of a war might do to President Obama’s political standing leads you to conclude that he should be more like President Bush.
Is this because President Bush’s management of the Iraq War was so helpful to him politically?
I think the country would be just fine with a president who doesn’t reflexively crank up the explosions whenever a general wants more troops, but rather, thinks hard about strategic ends.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“…expressing concern about reports that the military officials in charge of the war in Afghanistan are getting ready to ask for more troops….”
Well WTF, the troops leaving Iraq have to go someplace, don’t they?
July 31st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
No matter what, Afghanistan is now a narco state. Heroin is the nation’s life blood. If we choose to ignore this fact, and go about our business and try to achieve some limited tangible goals, we might have a chance to declare victory at some point and get the hell out.
But, if we choose to fight a War on Drugs while we are fighting a War on Terror, we will fail. We can’t fight everybody. We can’t fight the farmer, the distributors, the tribal chiefs, police corruption, army corruption, powerful regional warlords, and pretty much every government official from top to bottom that relies on heroin money and backsheesh in order to live and function.
The only way we can win a War on Drugs in Afghanistan is to reinstall the Taliban. Ironic, isn’t it.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
By the way, why are all the hawks so worried about the fate of the Afghans and Iraqis after we leave? Much worse things have been happening in Burma, Sudan, and the Congo, but I haven’t heard much agitating from the Right for the safety of those folks.
I’m a liberal “hawk” and I believe stuff that happens to people in other countries will effect us here in the “homeland.” As 9/11 showed.
You can’t just pretend the outside world doesn’t exist.
In response to your question, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan so we should make sure they are in decent shape before we leave.
Regarding Burma and Sudan, I don’t know if sanctions are the answer anymore. There was news on both of these fronts regarding sanctions and I have actually changed my mind on sanctions. A top diplomat for Sudan said sanctions were hurting and Obama just signed some sanctions for Burma. (However it does seem the isolation of Iran has motivated some of its citizens).
Ten years of sanctions + Saddam DESTROYED Iraq. Clinton’s Sec. of State Albright was famously asked if it worth it for 500k of Iraqi children to die and she said yes.
I really don’t think the isolationist Left has any grounds to discuss Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma, Sudan, Congo, etc. etc. They just feel the money should be spent it at home to pay down the government debt. Period/end of discussion.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Even if you give them 500 or a thousand years, the Afghans will still be more poorly governed than the Germans are now?
Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that Afghanistan *was* better governed than Hamburg. Ever is a long time.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Obviously, only the people who got every single question wrong about Iraq should be able to discuss it.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
The Afghan government is not a monolith. There are Ministries which are corrupt and there are Ministries which are not. Karzai simultaneously appears to protect some drug lords and promotes competent, anti-corruption advocates to positions of real power. He is a walking contradiction – but the key point is that he is still walking and working toward a functioning state.
Afghanistan has a cadre of highly educated, pragmatic patriots who want to build the country. It also has a group of ruthless, murderous warlords. Broadly, those two groups are fighting for Afghanistan (though with countless factions within each). Obama has decided to shift our alliance from (some of) the latter to (some of) the former. Carrying out that strategy is what McChrystal is doing.
Spencer “I’m the journalist who understands COIN” Ackerman is wondering what McChrystal is doing? My respect for Ackerman just plummeted. You can find the draft Fourth Generation Warfare Manual on http://www.d-n-i.net. The explanation of the tactics and why of the strategy is there. One key takeaway from the Manual is that this type of operation means more dead Marines in the short-term, but a lot more security.
Also while you’re trying to figure out what is going on, read Ashraf Ghani’s new book, Fixing Failed States.
And stop paying attention to the English language press on Afghanistan. They not only don’t know what’s happening, they don’t even know how to see it.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
If liberals force Obama to bail on Afganistan and it ends up in a worse state than Iraq, then it will confirm every GOP talking point that liberals don’t have the stomach to conduct foreign policy and you’ll never be entrusted with US national security again.
9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, anthrax attacks… all that happened under Republicans.
The only kind of people who still believe all this non-sense about the GOP being great at that ‘national security’ thing are the remaining hardcore GOP voters. Democrats would have to start three catastrophic and useless wars before people change their minds.
But yeah, Obama is failing in Afghanistan, precisely because he listened to people like you and decided to sound hawkish (”I like wars too, just not Iraq!”) during the campaign. Let him fail in Afghanistan, and rather fast. End those stupid, useless wars.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Spencer “I’m the journalist who understands COIN” Ackerman is wondering what McChrystal is doing? My respect for Ackerman just plummeted. You can find the draft Fourth Generation Warfare Manual on http://www.d-n-i.net.
And where can I find the Torture Manual by McChrystal?
July 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Spencer “I’m the journalist who understands COIN” Ackerman is wondering what McChrystal is doing? My respect for Ackerman just plummeted. You can find the draft Fourth Generation Warfare Manual on http://www.d-n-i.net.
And where can I find the Torture Manual by McChrystal?
Do keep on that hobby horse, please. In a year or so, McC will have accomplished whatever he thinks he can do in Afghanistan, he’ll fly home, and if you’ve got enough evidence, we can put him on trial. It’ll take at least that long to get health care reform in place and for the Justice Department to get all of its top cop appointees past the senate. McC can list his supposed accomplishments during his sentencing hearing.
In the meantime, he’s appears to be the only general in the army who knows what he’s doing.
How’s that work for yah?
July 31st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Why don’t we just go home?
July 31st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Poptarts, the cheerful face of mass murder, still can’t get over the fact that the assault on the Iraqi people didn’t erase the disaster that was pre-assault American foreign policy towards Iraq.
Listen up fuckwit, the answer to America’s helping Saddam Hussein starve his own people was never to make Iraq worse for Iraqis.
Clinton’s foreign policy was a disaster. Bush’s was monstrous. Clinton’s helped Saddam Hussein starve his people. Bush’s actively murdered people and destroyed the infrastructure both physical and political that kept the Iraqis going. And Clinton did something Bush did not, he actively worked towards improving the lives of Iraq’s citizens – against the “better judgment” of the “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iraq” crowd.
Six years after a campaign of terrorizing the Iraqi people began, most of their infrastructure is still in tatters.
But dipshits like Poptarts can only look at the evidence showing what a disaster Bush was for the people of Iraq and conclude (moronically) that anyone who correctly finds against mass murder is, instead, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
That’s because Poptarts is an idiot.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
If we’re not going to leave any time soon, the least we can do is behave more like the better peace-keeping troops. Our allies are nearly as fed up with our remote massacres of wedding parties as the Afghanis are.
Couldn’t the world’s medical establishments buy up that opium crop? People with chronic pain, and people on painful deathbeds might be much better of if they could just smoke some opium.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
All great comments today. Even in a country as well managed as the U.S.A. and with some of the most draconian laws on the books for finding terrorists we still find ourselv es with enough home-grown jihadi’s to justify (at leasst to some minds) the continued spending of a trillion dollars per year on their prevention and apprehension. Amazing how much potency on unlocking massive amounts of taxpayer money the over-imagined threat of jihad has than the real risk of our pitiful healthcare system.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Here’s a gift from Poptarts to the Iraqi people:
Love Poptarts!
You know, I bet they aren’t even grateful to him.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Damn, Not as Stupid, I guess Don Rumsfeld was right: freedom is messy.