Bob Herbert on Afghanistan: "War, What's It Good For?"
Bob Herbert, the great New York Times columnist, issues a warning today. He writes that if Obama ramps up the war in Afghanistan, his Presidency could end up like that of our last liberal President, Lyndon Johnson.
"Much of the country can work itself up to a high pitch of outrage because a banker or an automobile executive flies on a private jet. But we'll send young men and women by the thousands off to repeated excursions through the hell of combat -- three tours, four tours or more -- without raising so much as a peep of protest.
"Lyndon Johnson, despite a booming economy, lost his Great Society to the Vietnam War. He knew what he was risking. He would later tell Doris Kearns Goodwin, 'If I left the woman I really loved -- the Great Society -- in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs... All my dreams...'
"The United States is on its knees economically. As President Obama fights for his myriad domestic programs and his dream of an economic recovery, he might benefit from a look over his shoulder at the link between Vietnam and the still-smoldering ruins of Johnson's presidency."
I hope the President reads this column. Here's my yardstick on judging wars. Would I allow one of my sons to fight in it? My answer on Afghanistan is the same as my answer on Iraq. NO.
Americans should not be dying there. Period. That does not mean I favor total disengagement. There is this thing called diplomacy which, when coupled with aid (not in the form of personnel) to our allies could make a positive contribution in these situations.
But no American should be fighting and dying in either place.
In the early 70's, when I dodged Vietnam, I used to love the great Phil Ochs song, "I Aint A'Marching Anymore." True then. True now.
Unfortunately, Obama, as good as he's been on most issues, doesn't seem to get it - that there is no military solution to the Afghanistan situation.
March 3, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself a bit troubled by this as well. One of the great Prussian military strategists (Moltke, maybe?) once said, "A mistake made in the early stages of deployment can never be made good."
What may well have been possible in the immediate aftermath of the war in Afghanistan in 2002 seems to me to be no longer in the cards (if, in fact, it EVER was). It troubles me to think we might be ceding lives and any real chance at positive results to a will o' the wisp whose one moment is forever gone.
That said, we MUST deal with Pakistan. Al Quada is a threatening irritant where it is now, but an active nightmare anywhere near the Pakistani nuclear capability. Just as I would not try to disarm a bomb by shooting at it, I'm not at all sure I'd try to disarm the Pakistan/Afghanistan nexus by a similar method. We need a careful, methodical, disciplined, patient approach - for conceptual purposes, the precise opposite of what we've seen the last 8 years.
March 3, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phil Ochs' song, of course, rightly condemns all wars because of their utter and complete futility. They produce nothing of value, but they do produce a plethora of the worst ills for humanity including mass murder of soldiers and civilian (men, women and children alike), disease, widespread poverty, anarchy, social chaos, profound emotional traumas on an unmeasurable scale, etc...
The biggest problem for our President is that he believes in and continues to support the empire. After all, he is the new emperor is he not? He is under the same delusion as almost all the wags in Washington on both sides of the aisle which is that the empire can be preserved and maintained. I pray they realize sooner rather than later that the empire is finished. Any and all efforts to preserve and maintain the empire in any many resembling how we knew it are futile and far too expensive. There is no military solution to what is going on in either Iraq or Afghanistan/Pakistan. We cannot control events there through the military. Sadly, we have invested so much of our wealth and power in the military that we turn to it first to solve our problems. The best and most thoughtful military commanders find this strategy faulty indeed. Our political leaders should heed them.
There may be some utility in the application of military force under certain very specific circumstances, but regardless of what the wise heads of Washington say, our best strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the people in Afghanistan/Pakistan has, as a prerequisite, our complete withdrawal from their lands. When I listen to the experts in the media and in our think tanks discussing all this I am reminded that few of them opposed these foolish wars and so I do not trust them or look to them for guidance about how to get out swiftly and wisely. Every day we remain in those countries with our military we come closer to losing our objectives. We cannot hope to succeed while we remain occupiers. It's just that simple. War is not the answer to the problems we have tried to solve with it.
Declare victory. Withdraw all our troops from both wars. Shut down the empire and save the United States of America.
March 3, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant to write:
Any and all efforts to preserve and maintain the empire in any "manner" resembling how we knew it are futile and far too expensive.
March 3, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
Madeleine Albright said to Colin Powell; (paraphrase) What's the use of having this kind of military if we aren't going to use it. That's the kind if people we have running our country's foreign affairs.
She should be hung by her thumbs or made to grab a rifle and lead the first assault.
excellent post. Our target was Osama not the Taliban. Pull all our troops out of the area, but continue to hunt down Osama by Intelligence and special ops. And maybe on a regular basis drop leaflets all over the area offering millions in rewards and safe passage out of the country for his capture or death. There has to be one Judas among them.
Afghanistan can very well become Obama's Waterloo.
March 3, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
War solves problems. It keeps the nation distracted from its intractable problems like Social Security, health care, schools, etc, that will require real sacrifice. So the President will ramp up in Afghanistan to show he's "tough" and this albatross will dangling around his neck in 2012.
March 3, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I care about what happens to the President but I care less about what happens to him than what happens to the country. His job is to protect the country: not an empire. If he foolishly sticks with this idea of trying to "succeed" in Afghanistan he threatens the nation's future and that is unacceptable to me and hopefully to most people. But the politicians and generals are lying to themselves which means the public never gets told the truth which is: we can't win and we have to leave. The only course of action that produces a positive outcome in the long run is our immediate withdrawal.
All the malarky about what we "must" do or about how we can or should try to fashion this or that result is nothing but delusional fantasizing. We can't do it. Nobody can do it. It can't be done! We need to admit our foolish mistake and get out before more people lose their lives for nothing but the protection of a horrible decision made by a small-minded and foolish tyrant.
March 3, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm aware of Albright's statement. I think we agree that regarding Afghanistan it is a foolish statement. Yes, there are positive and beneficial uses for our military but the invasion and occupation of other countries is not one of them. Our leaders of both parties have repeatedly shown they are incapable fo making wise decisions about the application of military force in a wide variety of circumstances. What's most disturbing is that they don't learn. Instead of concluding that there are circumstances under which the use of traditional military might simply cannot work to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, they remain wedded to the nebulous and never fleshed out idea of "victory" or "success" as though it were 1950 and the US can depose or install governments at will that will be able to impose themselves on any given third world population. It is remakably stupid and irresponsible to keep such people in power but many of those who advocate continued military folly remain in power regardless of which party is in charge.
March 3, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afghanistan is where armies go to die. If Obama doesn't see this and act accordingly he will be a one term President, and that is how it should be.
March 3, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you're a Seinfeld fan, MJ.
March 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
HA!!!! That was so funny!!!!!
March 3, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the war is a joke for so many reasons.
But, I want to know why heroin production is at an all time high while we have such an intensified
presence in the area.
I can use Google earth to spot my car in front of my house.
Yet we are supposed to believe Hugh fields of poppies not only can't be found and destroyed but somehow make it out of the country and get distributed all over the world sight unseen.
Why are those drugs being protected and by who?
March 3, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our enemies, the Taliban, brought the heroin trade to a near complete standstill. Once we took over and destroyed the Taliban the trade re-emerged quickly and I have read more than once helps to continue financing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We can't stop pot production here in the states and that's a territory we have total control over. Our military doesn't have the ability to stop the heroin industry in Afghanistan. Never did. Never will. Heroin addiction here in the States and around the globe is way up as a result of our invasion of Afghanistan.
March 3, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior to the arrival of the always-bungling Americans, the Taliban had for all intents and purposes eliminated the growing of poppies for heroin production. They deemed the farming of this noxious weed "un-Islamic."
Yet to overthrow the Taliban, the American military had to bribe for co-operation the many war-lord factions that the Taliban had previously driven from power in Afghanistan. This un-holy "alliance" succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban (temporarily) and installing the American puppet Hamid Karzai (a former spokesman for Unocal Oil) in Kabul, but it also brought back the poppies and the heroin trade upon which America's war-lord allies -- including, reportedly, Hamid Karzai's brother -- depend for financing and political support among Afghan farmers.
I really don't know how much drug trafficking the Taliban account for; but given the above history of war-lord narco-dependence coupled with the fact that I cannot seriously credit anything my own government and its Lunatic Leviathan military say about anything, I would bet that the American military spends more time protecting the Afghan drug trade than doing anything about it. In fact, the very continuation of the Afghan drug trade -- now currently at record high levels -- testifies absolutely to either (1) complete ineptitude by America's military in Afghanistan, (2) abject collusion by America's military in promoting and protecting their war-lord narco-buddies, or (3) both. Personally, I pick option (3) as too trivially obvious to merit argumentation.
Speaking of not-so-old marching songs, I really like the one by Bruce Hornsby called "Defenders of the Flag," from which I'll only excerpt:
"If these guys are the good ones,
I don't want to know the bad.
You wonder how it happened:
They just picked it up from Dad?
Faded Old Glory, hanging like a rag.
Defenders. Defenders of the Flag."
March 3, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Want to end the wars? Reinstate the draft. This time, make it truly universal--no student deferments. Add an alternate public service for those objecting. Had the VietNam army been composed exclusively of volunteers I don't know how much longer public reaction against it would have been delayed.
March 3, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A draft might cause the war opposition you are talking about, but the military isn't stupid. They learned that lesson from Viet Nam and are opposed to a draft. They've had their professional military now for a generation and don't want to go back. On the other hand, if the pols want to try and save the empire, the generals might have no choice. The best way to end the war is for our President to simply announce we are leaving and then get the hell out of there! In other words, the best way to end the war is to simply end the war.
March 3, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I served eighteen months in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972). I lost friends and high-school classmates (not to mention many good years of my own young life) in that stupid, meaningless misadventure. In the decades that have passed since then, I have never deluded myself that any of us served for -- or died for -- anything in the slightest bit worthy of the sacrifice. Except for one little thing: the constitutional amendment giving 18-year-olds the right to vote.
Now, America fortunately no longer has forced conscription. Now, no sane politician in America wants to arouse the normally somnolent "youth" vote by even seriously mentioning conscription. And I reject utterly any fatuous and facile speculation that another generation of Americans should have their lives disrupted, their arms and/or legs blown off, their brains battered into pudding, or even their very lives terminated simply to arouse a little political opposition to what doesn't need doing in the first place. As we used to say back during America's War on Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos):
"We don't have too few soldiers. We have too many wars."
"We are the unwilling led by the unqualified to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful."
"We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here."
and ...
"We lost the day we started. We win the day we stop."
So please desist from babbling any further bromides about what conscription might or might not do for America: a declining, debilitated, deadbeat debtor that can't even provide decent education, employment, and health care for its own citizens. Conscription won't happen because it does not need to happen and because the 18-year-olds who can now vote (thanks to us Vietnam Veterans) will not supinely allow it to happen. In any event, sooner or later, our Imperial Presidents and their General Motors Generals will use up what few "professionals" they have left in the Army, Marines, and National Guard. Then the country won't have to worry about bankrupting itself endlessly subsidizing our "warrior" wards of the state and their ticket-punching, fuck-up-and-move-up "leadership." America currently has a Peter Principle military which leads to unnecessary and endless Parkinson's Law "wars," or Ordnance Expenditure Expeditions, as I prefer to call these debacles. America doesn't need either.
The American military now has its "professionals" who will go anywhere and do anything that their "leadership" commands them to do -- without the slightest questioning of "why" or the slightest peep of protest at imperial militarism abroad and creeping crypto-fascism at home. And until the civilian Congress simply cuts off the (now hard to locate) funds for furthering the Lunatic Leviathan -- as Alexander Hamilton advised back at the end of the eighteenth century -- the "standing Army" will continue to pose a menace to our Republic, just as such cancerous growths have always posed to republics throughout history.
The time for demobilization has long since arrived.
March 3, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prolonged standing ovation Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo!!!!
The best single line among many excellent lines in my opinion and which bears repeating was:
"We lost the day we started. We win the day we stop."
March 4, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael, your voice must be heard. Jeezus. Blog. Keep commenting. I missed this somehow. Oleeb is correct.
You have something to say. I will listen.
March 4, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Michael!
March 4, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what should have happened, of course. When Wolfowitz and his crazy friends wanted to pursue a Mesopotamian adventure as as reaction to 9/11 of all things, they should have been permanently shut out of the conversations/transferred/fired, for giving the President something much worse than mere bad advice.
Those wackaloons dispensed with, how to deal with Bin Laden? A reasonable set of options should have been developed, with likelihood of reasonably quick success/failure soberly considered for each. If they'd done that, they would have quickly ruled out invasion of the country as something between not cost effective and impossible. That would have left them with some kind of targeted operation of capturing Bin-Laden, or otherwise terminating the maniac's command. And then either let the Taliban stew in their own savage, caveman juices, or try to get some other poor fools like those forces in the North to deal with them. With cash and "humanitarian aide", not American lives, that is. Plus, yeah, chase terrorists and shut down their financing.
This is what any reasonable manager would have done. But instead of managers, we had a weak buffoon in Bush, largely controlled by the madman Cheney, and now we are in this putrid mess.
March 3, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
MH, with all due respect, I would send my sons to fight in Afghanistan under Obama and the new military leaders. I would not have sent them under Bush and the military "yes men" in charge.
I also was an anti-Vietnam activist and only reluctantly supported the Iraq adventure after Powell's presentation to the UN (to my everlasting regret that is probably outmatched by Powell's own regret) although three weeks into the war, I changed my tune because the military adventure was going seriously off the rails.
But Afghanistan is not an area we can shrug and turn away from as we did once before. The Taliban protected al Queda and there's no reason to suppose this has changed (other than the proverbial wishful thinking). Pakistan has nuclear capability and we have the Taliban on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. The risk is simply too high.
Another point I would like to make clear. Being a liberal does not make one a pacifist. I am a liberal but not a pacifist. And I do believe we have to engage in Afghanistan with our military as well as State Department types.
My two cents....
March 3, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
it isn't a mater of being pacifist. It's a matter of making smart decisions. Staying in Afghanistan is not a smart decision whether it is under Bush or Obama. Military action there is a dead end and no solution to any of the problems in that region.
March 3, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We certainly don't have enough policemen to send to Afghanistan and that means we send the military. Look, our state department and UN folks have to be protected from the Taliban and the mercenaries while they are rebuilding a country that, yes, we helped to destroy. We then turned 90% of our attention to the Iraq adventure.
All of this has to be fixed. It is simply too dangerous to turn our backs and allow terrorists in this region of the country to overtake Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's not forget that Pakistan has nukes and a "father" who is not against selling the technology on the international scene to definite bad guys.
March 3, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very idea is a failure from the beginning. We'v misplayed it entirely and maintaining our military there just makes it worse. They can police themselves. They must. We can provide the resources and they can rebuild their own country as they see fit. It's none of our business. We need to get out. Our continued presence only compounds the damage you speak of it does nothing to contain it.
March 3, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Taliban protected Al Qaida" ...
So? What has America done in the last six years but generate even more Al Qaida -- in both Iraq AND Afghanistan?
America helped create Al Qaida in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union there. Then Al Qaida turned on America for stationing its infidel Christian military on sacred Islamic soil near Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
America also trained the 9/11/2001 hijackers to fly American commercial jet aircraft at American flight simulator schools. No 9/11 hijacker learned anything at all about how to fly our own airplanes in Afghanistan.
America also sold those same hijackers the little box-cutters that groups of only four hijackers needed to subdue hundredes of docile American passengers who passively went to their deaths rather than suffer the slighest cut or scratch putting up a fight.
America also provided the planes, the explosive fuel, and the airline ticket reservations for the Al Qaida hijackers, too.
So, why didn't America attack itself for all the "aid and comfort" America provided to those who found everything necessary to attack America right in America?
Come to think of it: What the hell does Afghanistan have to do with anything? That arid, land-locked, mountainous wasteland has no natural resources worth stealing and a proud, independent populace that regularly eats invading imperial armies just to relieve the crushing boredom that otherwise passes for "living" in that impoverished backwater.
And, anyway, to simply repeat what one would think everyone already knows by now: The nineteen highjackers who pulled off that spectacular stunt on 9/11/2001 came from Saudi Arabia (15), Egypt (3) and either Yemen or Pakistan (1). None of them came from either Afghanistan or Iraq. So, did America attack Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Yemen/Pakistan, all U.S. "allies" and together the most notorious supporters and enablers of Al Qaida Jihadism? Of course, not. As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times put it: "Suck on this (Muslims)!" and "We had to hit somebody." And that about did it for serious reflection in America about just what had precisely happened and who, precisely, America might have wanted to hold properly responsible (hint: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and America itself).
America has no business in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The people of those two countries never attacked America. Yet America has already damn near bankrupted itself stupidly fighting the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time -- again. I never thought when I returned from Vietnam (in 1972) that I would ever see my country go so completely bat-shit nuts all over again. Brother, did I ever overrate the intelligence and memory capacity of my fellow citizens!
I supported Barack Obama for President because I wanted to punish those of our politicians who had stupidly authorized Deputy Dubya Bush's stud-hamster vendetta against the seminary-student Taliban and the toothless tinpot Saddam Hussein. I also wanted to reward those politicians who opposed those two rank stupidities. Voting for Barack Obama came as close as I could get to those goals, given the limited choices available. But I don't support his dawdling in getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and will work as hard as I can to see that the Congress simply cuts off funding for any more of this imperial nonsense. Enough with the endless excuses already!
March 3, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama NEVER opposed our entanglement with Afghanistan. Never. The vast majority of Americans do not oppose and still will not oppose it. If you knew of Obama's policy positions, you should have known this.
The Taliban controlled Afghanistan and provided a safe haven for the terrorist training camps that bin Laden ran. These non-Afghans that you point out were responsible for 09/11 were trained there under the safe wings of the Taliban. These folks simply relocated to Pakistan and are pitching a fit there--a nuclear armed Pakistan, I might add. Now, we find that the Taliban is surging again in Afghanistan.
Are you actually adovcating that the terrorist safe haven return? What will prevent that? It has to be something more than wishful thinking.
And, yes, our military will function more as security and police forces. I don't have a problem with that because I disagree with contractors doing that sort of work. And I certainly don't blame other countries for their waning support since the Bush years were very non-productive in Afghanistan.
March 3, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
By your logic, we should have an armed American presence in every country where a terrorist organization might train, recruit or plan operations against us, sufficient to control that territory against the wishes of its native population and government. As it is, our existing military commitments are 3-4% of GDP.
At some point, it profits us more to modify our behavior rather than expect exercises in international social work to mitigate or eliminate the consequences. We've spent a trillion dollars maintaining the illusion of progress towards a democratic ideal in Iraq and Afghanistan, while a trillion dollars invested in converting our electrical generation and distribution infrastructure would have done more to break our dependence on brutal dictatorships that serve as bin Laden's best recruiters.
It isn't hippie nonsense to suggest that throwing guns at our problems abroad is an expensive proposition with mixed results. I voted for Obama, but as a veteran, I will adamantly oppose any make-work wars of the kind we have grown to expect since Bush 41.
March 3, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
By your logic, we should have an armed American presence in every . . . .
We do!
March 3, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
March 4, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The terrorist safe haven has never shut down. What are you talking about? Do you really believe that stuff about controlling them? The military certainly won't get that job done. It is our military backup to the unfair exploitation of the third world by our business interests that drives the muslim terrorists. We recruit more new followers for them than they ever could on their own.
March 4, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where you live Michael, but have you ever considered running for Congress?
March 4, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
cube-dude/mom/whatever:
perhaps the fact that Afghanistan is covered by rock and sand rather than jungle and swamp has the big boys convinced that they can prevail this time around.
But consider this: the geographic area of what was South Vietnam is only about 30% the size of Afghanistan and over half a million American troops couldn't bring the bacon home for LBJ to have with his eggs for breakfast.
And in 'Nam, there was only one tribe at odds with the larger population. They were the Montagnards and they loved the G.I.s. They were very effective in fighting against the nationalists and yet we abandoned them. And how many tribes and narco-warlords are there in Afghanistan? The larger Vietnamese population bent in whatever direction the wind blew, always had it's hand out and black marketing grew exponentially, thanks to G.I.s looking to make a lot of extra bucks. Oh yes, there were drugs floating around as well.
As a 'Nam vet, I can't begin to describe for you your own blind stupidity. And your generosity with the lives of your own kinfolk is WAY beyond belief.
March 3, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a pacifist. I just don't see Americans dying in Afghanistan or Iraq. Diplomacy, yes. But no more of our kids.
March 3, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the solution, folks:
put ol' Rush Limbaugh in charge of a battalion of marines and send them into Pakistan to get bin Laden.
Perfect. If he gets him, he's got a leg up for 2012. If he doesn't, the Paki's will slice him up for a whole lotta bacon.
Just imagine - Limbaugh, the would-be TR of the 21st Century turned into 10,000 BLTs.
March 3, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do muslims eat bacon? If not, then he may just end up as dog food. Good riddance!
March 4, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's all this about war in Afghanistan?
588 deaths in and around Afghanistan in over seven years? That ain't war; that's Friday night in the good old U.S. of A.
March 3, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hats off to the several Viet Nam vets here who so eloquently expose the folly of our foreign military misadventures!
March 4, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here! Hear, hear!
March 4, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink