« The Apparent Unmotivated Idiocy of Labor Union Members, Especially Teachers | Home | In the Words of Uri Avnery, a leader of the Israeli Left: A Boycott Against Israel Will Not Work »
George Will is Right
I don't often say this, but George Will gets it exactly right.
But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent re-establishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums? U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000 to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters. Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.
This column is causing great controversy on the Right, but almost no comment from Progressives. Have we forgotten how Lyndon Johnson's obsession with Vietnam poisoned the legacy of his domestic accomplishments?
This is where Obama has to make his bones. Get out of Afghanistan.
Advertisement
I too think that George has got this one right for a change. But when he aserts "Sometimes genius is knowing when to quit", I wonder about his support for so much stupidity in the past!
September 1, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This area where traditional paleo-conservatives like George Will and anti-imperialist progressives coincide on foreign policy is one of the most interesting developments in American politics.
September 1, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as Will goes...even a broken clock is right twice a day.
As far as progressives/liberals go...many of them are hesitant to criticize the president for partisan political reasons. I think he is wrong in his plans for Afghanistan. For such a smart man I am a bit bemused that he never learned that Afghanistan got the nickname "Graveyard of empires" for multiple very good reasons. You cite LBJ, I guess the Dems achilles heel is some irrational need to prove they can be as 'tough' as Republicans when it comes to waging war. A macho 'our genetalia is just as big as theirs' mind set.
September 1, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Will isn't saying that the US military should get out of Afghanistan, he's only saying that the occupation should be ended while the killing, mostly from a distance, goes on. But why should the killing go on, and what are the goals of the continued slaughter? He doesn't say.
Will's contention that it is inconceivable that
Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more is unfortunately false. Look at Iraq -- six years of occupation by over a hundred thousand troops, plus an equal or greater number of civilian augmenters, and no end in sight (despite campaign promises). Obama has promoted the current expansion in numbers of US ground forces with this in mind, no doubt.
Regarding Obama being urged to "make his bones", i.e. killing one or more people as requirement for membership in a criminal gang, the metaphor couldn't be more apt. And isn't it interesting that in a supposed democracy one man gets to make decisions like this.
September 1, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. George Will is right - we need to get out. And you are right - we need to stay out.
When we first invaded Afghanistan, the military relied heavily on special forces who spoke the language, grew beards, built relationships and generally made progress. Then we replaced this nuanced approach to the very tricky situation with knuckle draggers who kicked in doors and assumed everyone not born in the bible belt was a terrorist. Good will was generally lost. Then we escalated to bombing raids which had a nasty habit of hitting any wedding occurring that week. And then drone attacks which have a similar affinity for a good party and are pretty thoroughly hated.
We need to end the occupation, largely nowish. If we want to work out a deal where we leave some troops to train the military or even a small number to support the Afghans on tactical missions, fine. But we need to stop blowing people up there. Dale Carnegie never addressed the issue directly in any of his works, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that detonating a bomb in somebody's living room is not the way to win friends and influence people. And that applies regardless of whether the attack happens while we have troops on the ground or they are all offshore on aircraft carriers.
National sovereignty shouldn't be a theoretical concept.
September 2, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we want to work out a deal where we leave some troops to train the military or even a small number to support the Afghans on tactical missions, fine.
No, it would not be fine. Out should mean out. No troops, no "advisors," no nothing. If they were there at all, they would get attacked and then we would have to "punish" the offenders and we would still be blowing people up.
September 2, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't my preferred tact but I would rather have troops on the ground engaging in legitimate nation building or law enforcement activities than all of the troops out and the only actions being air attacks. The former has the possibility of doing good, building support and being handled responsibly. The latter does not.
I'm not sure what the best way to deal with the situation is but I am open to the possibility that us just packing up and leaving could create some pretty serious problems. However, neither the path on that we are on nor the one Will advocates seems preferable or more responsible.
September 2, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Will says "That is inconceivable," the sentence is a little ambiguous, but I think he is not saying he doubts that it would take that many troops to carry out the described goal. He is saying that it is inconceivable that we could, or should, mount or sustain such an effort. And I think Taplin is using the phrase "make his bones" not to say Obama should kill more people but that he should "kill" the occupation. The phrase makes some sense because ending the occupation and pulling out fast would be a politically tough and gutsy thing to do.
Don't get me wrong; I am no fan of Will. erica is right in her comment about right-wingers "gaming the outcome" of things they write. But Will can be right for the wrong reasons, and if this can move the debate a little, then it's something of a positive.
September 2, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill CLinton was well educated and seemingly highly intelligent, yet, he went on national TV and said; "I did not have sex with that woman."
Obama is also well educated and seemingly highly intelligent yet he's pulling troops out of Iraq at the same time he's escalating the troop numbers in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is where armies go to die, Obama has yet to learn this.
Obama will get himself entangled in a quagmire of his making in Afghanistan, and it will soon become "Obama's war." Expect him to have to defend against this when/if he runs for a second term.
September 1, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
August 4, 2009 -- The top U.S. general in Iraq said Tuesday that he disagrees with a colonel's memo urging an early troop withdrawal even though the security situation is better than expected since American forces turned over security in urban centers to the Iraqis more than a month ago.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the first senior American official to comment on the memo, told The Associated Press the Americans need to stay the course in Iraq.
"Our goal here given us by the president is a secure, stable sovereign self-reliant Iraq. We're not there yet," he said in an interview at a U.S. base after meeting with Iraqi officials in the Anbar provincial capital of Ramadi.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32283779/
September 1, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Bacon asks;
"really"?
Don, note the date of your reference, then the date of this, almost a month later.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_moving_out
By CHELSEA J. CARTER, Associated Press Writer Chelsea J. Carter, Associated Press Writer – Sun Aug 30, 5:49 pm ET
BAGHDAD – The U.S. military is packing up to leave Iraq in what has been deemed the largest movement of manpower and equipment in modern military history — shipping out more than 1.5 million pieces of equipment from tanks to antennas along with a force the size of a small city.
September 1, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, and it seems to me they are leaving with the melancholy sense that it was all for nothing.
Only to go on to yet another meaningless hellhole, to put their lives on the line for no rational purpose.
September 1, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not disagreeing with a word, John, and I'm mighty worried.
About the electoral poltics issue, I realize he's damned either way. Republicans would love him to stay there cuz they can say he's made a huge mess of things. He leaves and it's maybe even better: he's a coward who abandoned our allies, stole defeat from jaws of victory, and dishonored our soldiers and their families, especially the fallen and that can never be forgiven.
September 1, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Overreach,
I still remember what Porter Goss, then head of the CIA said to a congressional committee; (paraphrase)
'people are coming to Iraq and fighting us here, and they will learn guerilla and terror tactics then take and use these tactics to other parts of the world.'
He was right, the tactics used in Iraq, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, are now being used in Afghanistan.
I think Afghanistan is being overshadowed right now by the health care debate, but the deaths there are mounting and I'm sure the Republicans are already formulating a game plan to attack Obama and the Dems for what is going on there.
September 1, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afghanistan and healthcare defeat. Sheesh, he'll be LBJ without Medicare.
September 1, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before we hand out the "good job" stickers to George Will for this simplistic column, let's ask ourselves why he's writing it. Seriously, no Republican writes anything without gaming the outcome.
Obama's in a tough spot, having supported the Afghanistan invasion which was, let's face it, a bad idea. Declaring the WAR on TERRA and locating it in Afghanistan was an idea that was never worth supporting, especially given the lack of real US interests in the area and the difficulty of getting anything done there. The much-maligned "Police Action" would have been a better idea. Dems who got drawn into supporting the war for fear of seeming soft should be kicking themselves every day about that one.
That said, having shot the whole place up, it will be tough for Obama to get out. Probably some sort of focus on the Pakistan border is in order, and it would be nice to actually find Osama bin Laden.
But not because George Will said so.
I am just against awarding good job stickers to Republicans for the next four years, period, I guess.
September 1, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm saying is that George Will is probably not interested in Obama's decision about Afghanistan, what he's really doing is setting Obama up to skewer him later no matter what happens. It is crucial to remember that Republicans are always, always, always doing this whenever they offer what seems to be friendly advice.
September 2, 2009 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can blame this on the centrist idiots as well. All those DLC types think Democrats have to have their own war to prove they are tough (while they are proving they are anything but tough selling out everything domestically).
And don't think all these independents abandoning Obama come from the center right.
September 1, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of Afghanistan, yes.
But more drones and airstrikes, NO!
George Will is not right. He is a war criminal, and TPM is whoring, we have only to quibble about price.
September 1, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see somebody on TPM talking about this finally, even if it takes a douchebag like Will to stir up a hornet's nest. The money for a one-payer system and a whole lot more needed investments in our country's infrastructure is being squandered in bank bailouts and the endless sinkholes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just goes to show what a cynical charade is the "change" promised by the Democratic Party and our president.
September 1, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trudeau at Doonesbury is raising good questions on the Afghanistan issue this week.
September 2, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree, but why didn't George Will make the same points about our Iraq misadventure? Is it even possible to have a discussion in this country about the limits of military force as an instrument of foreign policy? The lessons of Viet Nam were learned by the British previously in Afganistan, the Russians in Afganistan, and the French in Algiers. Is this the one lesson that America simply cannot learn? Does America suffer from a learning disorder?
September 3, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is Will's key question: "If U.S. forces are there to prevent re-establishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?"
Indeed. These days even foreign-policy types with a heavy realist bent, and even people who despise the UN and other institutions which try to play a role in nation-building understand that "sovereignty vaccums" (good phrase) can be both breeding grounds and basing areas for al qaeda or similar groups.
In such places, where al qaeda begins developing a presence there should be broad international support for efforts to target them.
Building a nation costs a ton of money and even then is frought with a high risk of potential failure. There may be independent humanitarian, as opposed to national defense, reasons why undertaking it in a specific context would ideally be a good thing to do.
Purely humanitarian nation-building efforts need broad international support and funding and a viable plan. And such efforts need to be broadly desired by the people in the country in question if they are to be seen as legitimate and stand much chance of success.
September 3, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink