Obama's Afghanistan Contradiction
He's trying to sell a tough slog while saying his commitment is not open-ended.
With the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama faces a contradiction. He says he wants to win the war but he will not commit to fighting for as long as that might take.
This tension between policy and rhetoric was on full display in the White House briefing room earlier this week. On Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked repeatedly about Afghanistan and the strategic assessment that had just been completed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander there. Gibbs noted that Obama had yet to see McChrystal's review, but he said over and over that the Afghanistan war had been "under-resourced" for years by the Bush-Cheney administration and that "it takes a long time to implement" a change in strategy. Asked if the situation in Afghanistan was spiraling out of control, Gibbs replied that McChrystal's review had concluded "the situation is quite serious but the war is indeed winnable."
Later during the briefing, I asked Gibbs to define "winnable." He answered:
The President and his advisors have talked about disrupting, dismantling, and destroying al Qaeda and its extremist allies. We have to ensure that there are— while there are those currently plotting to do our country harm, that we don't provide them a safe haven to do that; that we have a government in Afghanistan that is self-sufficient, that we have a security force in that country that's able to deal with the challenges that are presented to it.
But without being prompted, Gibbs added this statement: "Our commitment can't be forever." I followed up by asking, "How can you say the commitment is not forever if you set up those goals? Maybe it will take close to forever to reach those goals." Gibbs responded:
I don't think it will take close to forever. But I don't know what year that would be.
So Obama has established high benchmarks for victory in Afghanistan—particularly, a working government and a functional military that can handle the Taliban and other challenges. But the White House maintains that the president's commitment in Afghanistan will not be without an end—without specifying when that end might be. The tasks Gibbs outlined could well require many years to accomplish—that is, if they are even achievable. Yet with polls showing decreasing public support for the war, Obama is not pledging to stay in Afghanistan until these objectives are met.
That leads to an obvious question: if the goals are critical to the security of the United States, shouldn't they be pursued until the job is done? It seems as if Gibbs was almost saying, We'll give this a shot and see what happens. Which, of course, is a formulation Obama cannot voice—even if it reflects the true sentiment at the White House.
Obama is in the awkward position of hard-selling the war--we must do this, this and this--while downplaying what all this could entail. It's a rhetorical balancing act that could end up being tough to sustain. And it's slightly reminiscent of what the Bush-Cheney gang tried to pull off when they were pushing the case for invading Iraq.
The politics of the war are becoming more dicey for the Obama administration. Liberal Democrats are increasingly concerned about the deployment of additional troops (and McChrystal may soon ask for even more soldiers), and when columnist George Will wrote this week that US forces in Afghanstain should be "substantially reduced," he signaled the possibility of opposition from the right. (There is indeed the potential for a left-right coalition against the war.) For the time being, Obama's most reliable supporters on the war are congressional Republicans. This poses a dilemma for him: can he simultaneously keep Democrats from open rebellion by promising that Afghanistan won't turn into a Vietnam-like sinkhole, while preserving GOP support by standing firm on the war?
Speaking about McChrystal's assessment, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday said that "time is not on our side." But he did not say why. Given what the polls indicate, the public is losing patience. Yet the mission in Afghanistan, as defined by Obama, will take loads of time. How Obama deals with this friction could end up shaping his presidency more than his handling of health care reform.
Page 1 of 1 
It's all about the OPIUM.
It is why we went there in the first place. The Taliban had stopped the opium growing.
We sure fixed that!
Now heroin on the street is cheaper than prescription pain medicine.
Something Stinks!
Inaccurate. Poor conclusion.
Inaccurate. Poor conclusion. Taliban stopped opium growing?
The Taliban had been ministers of heroine trafficking for years. (BTW: Years ago the PLO survived on money derived from drug smuggling.) Clinton had cut a deal with the T/ban. $500-mil in increased US aid in return for the end to opium growing. They did not stop the growing, only the distribution. They began to stockpile and used the US aid to pay the farmers. Early in the Bush admin (March, 2001) he cut that aid grant back. At the time, Al Queeda was in Afgn. and acted as enforcers for the T/ban. These events can not be detached from 9-11. Having said that, opium farming and distribution has been in full swing while the USA has been in vicarious charge. It is one of the bargaining chips we played in return for local Afgn. support. We're chumps. Perhaps filthy ones. But don't pin the Opium trade on us and exclude the brutal T/ban.
Legacy
-
tagged as:
- solution
Fish or cut bait. Forget proping up the corrupt Afgani government (Vietnam II). Rather, invoke the Powell doctrine and/or come home ASAP. If we just leave the jihadists gain a victory and if we stay under the pretense of nation building we waste money and lives. Rock and a hard place I say.
Trust Jesus
Where is the anti-war
Where is the anti-war movement when we need it.
not that straightforward
And what would the anti-war movement's goal be? It was pretty straightforward to oppose invading Iraq. Does removing troops mean more airstrikes? That could actually increase civilian casualties. Let the Taliban win? That would be a disaster for Afghans, though maybe the Taliban would hesitate to let Al Qaida back in. Or maybe the Taliban wouldn't take over more than they have now. More troops might just alienate Afghans getting tired of foreign troops. How badly does Afghanistan need a strong central government? Can the current government even function?
So I think the anti-war movement is doing what I'm doing: trying to think through the repercussions to every option.
http://www.ravensblog.net
No
So I think the anti-war movement is doing what I'm doing: trying to think through the repercussions to every option.
That's not called thinking, it's called being a coward, and is in no way antiwar. Antiwar means actually opposing wars on principle, and not only opposing them when they are easy to oppose.
Keep "thinking" while the complex keeps killing. Coward.
Best Article I've read recently
I've read Corn for years. He is too far left for my taste but he writes well.
This one was Corn, without the agitprop, and that is very good.
No political push, but clear prose and enough knowledge and insight to be brief. That touch of defining the issues, putting in all the facts you need, briefly citing the major opponent's positions, and leaving the question of what to do about it in the able hands of the reader.
Brilliant, thanks.
Afghanistan
In All due respect, we would all like the war to be over and Obama never promised he would pull us out of Afghanistan. As progressives, we have to do our best to work gradually and unilaterely with other countries when it comes to Afghanistan. If it was just people like us living in America, we would never have to go to war with any country unless it was declared on us, but in reality Obama has a very tough job and has enough opposition to go up against. The international community has our support in Afghanistan unlike Iraq and people like us make up about 22 percent of the population of the US. I wish there were more progressives but too many Americans are just too stubborn to change their hangups about the same ol issues, especially White Males. That is why we have to do our part to help Obama reach his goal but not be critical when he does things that we may not agree with. That is the only way we will get through this.
So basically you want
So basically you want progressives to blindly do whatever Obama wishes and turn a blind eye and stifle your opinion when you think something isn't right? I can't believe you actually said that.
No wonder there are only 22% of you in the country.
Wow
If it was just people like us living in America, we would never have to go to war with any country unless it was declared on us,
What an ignorant comment, perhaps the most ignorant misperception I've ever seen on the Internet. How does your statement explain Iraq? South America in the 80s? Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s?
Are all progressives this ignorant?
The reality of Jihadists
This post is in response to Legacy's post about pulling out of Afghanistan ASAP.
Legacy wrote: "If we just leave the jihadists gain a victory and if we stay under the pretense of nation building we waste money and lives."
That statement, I believe, grossly underestimates the consequences a jihadist victory might reap. A jihadist victory over the U.S. would most certainly serve to increase enthusiasm and morality for their ultimate goal....the destruction of the western world, specifically the U.S.
The most important reality in this entire scenario that escapes so many people's minds is that JIHADISTS HATE AMERICA! That does not mean all Arabs hate America, or even a majority of them. But the guys with the weapons are the ones we should be concerned about because they most certainly do and genuinely want to see the United States in ruins.
With this in mind, we cannot pull out of Afghanistan until a self-sustaining government is installed as to keep Al Qaeda in check. If we pulled out now, the jihadists would increase aggression towards the U.S. with devastating consequences.
"War On Terror"
Aren't al Qaeda and its extremist allies terrorists? I'm confused...This sounds like a war on terror, but it can't be...the Dems said that the WOT is nothing but a "bumper-sticker slogan." Hillary said we're not supposed to use that term anymore. If I'm not mistaken, at one point we were even told that the WOT was over. WTH?
Afghanistan Surge
Obama needs a Bush moment; (in fact he needs a lot of them)
some of the "progressive" comments are a hoot
The "jihadists" hate the U. S. because of our Empire. I see no support above for simply dimsmantling the Empire, cutting off aid to Israel,(and hence Egypt) vacating the bases in Islamic lands and on our way home, forcing Israel off the West Bank and Samaria. Then promising to quit overthrowing governments and/or meddling in any way in the Islamic world.
That will reduce almost all of the hate, but I suppose "progressive" imperialists
won't agree. So the Empire will eventually and deservedly collapse like Rome, drained from within and without.
"progressives"
In the world of the Progressive True Believer, war is called "humanitarian intervention" and is done for benevolent reasons like stopping genocide and teaching women calculus. It is not genocidal when the US does it (it just never happened, e.g. Iraq), and it never has anything to do with pipelines, trafficking, military bases, or Empire. It is all about top-down do-gooding.
The silver lining is that it gets easier and easier to identify exceptionalist nonsense, especially now that Obama has exposed all the antiwar fakers that used then compromised foreign policy for fascism lite.
I would actually like to be a Mujaheden now.
Just think, they whipped Alaxander the great {1120 AD}, they whipped the British Empire {1854} they whipped the Soviet Union {1985} and now they have a better than average chance of whipping the Americans. The difference being, in Afganistan, instead of base-ball season, they have "fighting season". These people have been kicking ass for 5000 years. Put that in the perspective of a American presidential cycle, and you can see why their so happy.They've got people there whom have never seen a clock, a calender, anything like that. Yet they know they've got time on their side.Christ, they've got everything on their side, terrain familiarity, sanctuary {in Pakistan}, a source of money{poppies, kidnapping, extortion}ideology, {the Koran}, a endless source of recruits {poor Afgans, refugees in Pakistan, foriegn fighters, ect} How can they lose? They must be walking in high cotton right now. And the Soviets, the Soveits bombed them flat. You cant beat them on the ground, ahh, Jesus, what a mix-up.
Except that in previous
Except that in previous conflicts, the local fighters were Afghans. this time we have our share of them on our side (and some). The insurgency is mainly supported by imported jihadists and weapons from Iran.
The "powers that be" will soon become the powers that were.
So yes, we can stay in
So yes, we can stay in Afghanstan for years and years, like s. korea, we have been "helping" that splendid place since 1949 and this is only 2009, if after 60 years, my Gawd, 60 bloody years of peace keeping at how many trillions of dollars?
Would it not be cheaper to just adopt them and give them an allowance and let them shoot each other, if thats their choice?
Any person who thinks we are winning the war in Iraq and or Afghanstan needs to loook closely, then consider Iran and a few more places like that. And putting more young men and women into the mix master to grind them up and hold the line is so insane it passes this mans understanding.
What are we getting by shooting the locals in Afghanstan?
How is this going to make them love us?
Who cares if they love us?
What is our goal in being there?
Are we simply playing solider, with no real game plan of winning?
Define winning.
Looks like one huge clusterfu-k to me.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DECIDE THAT WE ARE NOT THE WORLDS POLICEMAN?
NOR THEIR MOTHER, WITH THE RESPONSIBILTY OF WIPING THEIR NOSE AND WASHING THEIR BACKSIDES?
Inquiring minds would like to know. and yes, the muslim president was going to end the war and bring home the troops.
he lied, he has about half the brains of my cat.
We need to bring the troops home, give them lots of guns and ammo and let them shoot each other 7 days a week till they kill each other or get tired of war.
Its simple, really, they will kill us or we will kill them, choose wisely.
Mixing up the Taliban and Al Qaeda
You do need to listen carefully. Gibbs said "winnable" meant: "The President and his advisors have talked about disrupting, dismantling, and destroying al Qaeda and its extremist allies"
Your interpretation was "So Obama has established high benchmarks for victory in Afghanistan—particularly, a working government and a functional military that can handle the Taliban"
There is a difference between Al Qaeda and its extremist allies [a part of the Taliban] and all of the Taliban. As the administration has pointed out, many are Taliban for hire--- the biggest local employer-- and also are intimidated by the extremists among the Taliban who intend to stay a long time, while the villagers wonder whether we are about to leave them to the Taliban.
The answer is in respecting Afghan history and heritage and engaging in development, and certainly not in completely mixing up all of the Taliban with the 9/11 terrorists.
What about the future?
Nevermind the epic moral struggle surrounding the future of the US/Afghan war, what about the future? What happens when the Chinese/Russian-American-made , purpose-built, unobtainium-powered warbots finally stride victoriously through Afghanistan, make their way to the Mediterranean sea, march beneath the waves, only to arrive in Florida, walking down Main St., fluent in 100 languages, looking for the Creator, and no worse for the wear? Beep. Click. Chirp.
Klaatu marachas necktie
taliban and islam
The words "terrorist" and "insurgent" mask the fundamental fact that the Taliban is above all a Muslim movement. Traditionally several of the extremist brands of Muslim movements have been fed by anger of the poor about the sumptuous, immoral, hence ungodly lifestyle of the rich and powerful. I think that the Taliban is in that tradition. Ergo: even if the current Taliban is "defeated" whatever that means a new one will spring up eventually.
We crucify Barry Bonds at
We crucify Barry Bonds at the water cooler for taking steroids in
pursuit of excellence, and yet we set the precedent for "success or
extinction" at the very beginning of life when WE decide who we will
even let into this world and who we won't.
I said this on the other thread already, but...
I think it merits repetition, opium. Heroin. Drug addiction. What steps can we take in this country, what steps can Europe and Russia take, to essentially destroy our half of the business model that feeds the opium trade overseas, not just in Afghanistan, but in south america, Africa, AND various parts of asia? If they grow the dope in the US, won't that at least keep the money local, stuff like that?
Klaatu marachas necktie
Obama's Afghanistan Contradiction
Contradictions? "How can you say the commitment is not forever if you set up those goals? Maybe it will take close to forever to reach those goals." Good question, among others. I'm not seeing the word "policy" anywhere which might indicate longer term thinking. A courageous and forward thinking policy needs to be set (transparently) as to where and why we would occupy a country and if we don't occupy the country due to very good reasons that we have worked out in our democratic society, how we will manage global concerns in relation to that country, and then partnerships need to be made, based on building some trust that we mean to back this policy. This will convince others in the global community of the value of a shared commitment behind our policy. Afghanistan is probably a good place to start. I thought that was what we were suppose to be doing in the new world. What doesn't work is "winnable".
my opinion
Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.
