In an interview with Jeremy Scahill, Russ Feingold says that the Obama administration is whistling past the graveyard on Afghanistan. It’s a great interview, and it’s refreshing to see a Senator of Feingold’s intellectual caliber put pressure — any at all — on Afghanistan war strategy at a time when pretty much no politicians talk about the war at all. And there are many, many reasons to be worried about the viability of the enterprise, even if you accept the premises that the war is worth waging and that a counterinsurgency strategy is an appropriate means for waging it, as I do.
Feingold mentions the facts that both Richard Holbrooke and Adm. Mullen have conceded that there are some holes in Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, and tells Feingold:
"They admitted that it’s a problem, but where’s the follow-up? This administration is almost whistling past the graveyard on this issue." Feingold added, "How is it that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our special envoy to this region both agree that this could be a problem and that it is not talked about as a serious mistake if we’re going to keep increasing troops and increase that effect? This is, in my view, the central flaw in what is otherwise a policy that is better than the Bush administration’s. This is the central flaw in the thinking of the administration on this issue, and it needs to be pursued."
I’m not inclined to disagree. But it strikes me as still significant that the administration is grappling with these problems rather than denying they exist. It’s more than legitimate to criticize the administration for throwing Marines into southern Afghanistan without coordinating with the Afghan government for Afghan soldiers and police to hold what the Marines clear. But it’s also not as if there are two clear sides here. What’s struck me about the Afghanistan debate so far is how tentative and caveated and, frankly, open-minded the (for lack of a better term) pro-war side is. Here’s Josh Foust expressing skepticism. Here’s Steve Biddle. Here’s Andrew "Part Of The McChrystal Review" Exum, and here he is again.
Now, this isn’t meant as a kind of preening, to say, Oooh look how subtle and tortured the people who agree with me are, and by contrast look how unnuanced all you people who disagree with me are. There’s no substitute for actually answering the questions people are raising about Afghanistan. But I’m not sure that an inability to have thought things through completely by 4:15 on Friday July 24 is the same thing as whistling past the graveyard, and the side that thinks the war implicates American interests is refreshingly attuned to the flaws in their/our arguments. Now to fill the gaps, or determine that they’re un-fill-able and to change course.
Login Here




38 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
If you accept the notion that Obama administration reflexive secrecy is different (from Bush administration reflexive secrecy) because it is an extension of his campaign’s culture of message unity (not a cynical understanding that the public hates what they’re thinking), then the fact that the administration hasn’t announced a plan could be chalked up to the fact that it just hasn’t occurred to them that they need to be talking about it publicly. That’s my tenuous benefit-of-the-doubt scenario. Even if I’m right, good on Feingold for pushing; it’s not the campaign anymore, they need to cut that shit out.
To me, the question is neither complex nor nuanced. If the US is going to commit military forces and the wealth required to support them, they first need to make a viable case for there actually being a threat to American security interests. If they cannot describe the necessity for military action in terms of American security, no matter how high-minded the goals are, no matter what economic or social “good” you might be able to do, no matter what ancillary global or regional goals you might accomplish, there is no legitimate use for the American military.
You don’t need 65,000 troops to counter al Quaeda, the Taliban do not represent a threat to American interests, the only “safe haven” a terrorist organization needs to plan an attack is an apartment in Hamburg, and if a local insurgency in Afghanistan is a threat to American security, then you have to explain why a local insurgency in Somalia or Nigeria is not. If the concern is the stability of the Pakistani government, then any case that can be made on that basis for military action in Afghanistan can also be made AGAINST military action in Afghanistan.
Honestly, it’s a single, simple question. What is the threat to US security that needs to be countered by the deployment of 65,000 troops? Answer it and we’re done…
mikey
We’ve lost a war once before that lacked a strategic-interest argument, but at least there were pretty dominos.
There’s a story up now at the NYT about the US troops saying that the Taliban is tougher and bolder than the fighters in Iraq. This can’t be good.
Wonderful observations. My questions for formulating policy are:
What do we want?
What can we do?
And what can we live with?
Aside from a fairly hazy idea about the first one, the others have not been addressed. The current plan to vastly increase Afghani forces doesn’t seem well thought through, especially in terms of its ethnic makeup and the implications of that makeup, i.e. Pushtun vs. non-Pushtun.
Whistling past the graveyards in Iraq, Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands dead.
Senator Feingold one of the best we have…consistent. I have high regard for this senator and Jeremy Scahill
There is no strategy in Afghanistan that can succeed using the military. The hole in the policy is to use the military. The same monies poured into schools, clinics, roads & universities would be better spent.
Or better yet, spent at home. What we have is a continuation of Bush’s Keynesian economics, deficit spending, with the hope of generating prosperity in some sectors at home. And it works.
Afghanistan is another MIC money pit.
Could this be the beginning of a campaign to sell America ok the 20%ers and the GOP that America is not interested in this war? If we get more Senators talking about this on the Sunday Political shows this might be.
I want the GOP to explain why we can afford a war in Afghanistan but not healthcare?
The Taliban has a lot more practice in fighting than the Iraqis. Like a couple of centuries pretty much non-stop.
If we don’t have a big scary enemy, we don’t need a big expensive DoD. To oppose this is to oppose free enterprise: there are contractors and political donors to feed.
How can the GOP argue we can win the war in Afghanistan if Pakistan won’t less us send troops into Pakistan to get Ossama? I want the GOP to explain why Bush gave Pakistan billions in aid but Pakistan won’t let us send troops.
Pakistan will get Ossama sorry Bush fell for that line. Billions for Pakistan but nothing for Americans who want Healthcare? Sure that will go over great with Americans.
This “war” is already over. The only unknowns at this point are the costs – in dollars and lives.
Now if only the contractors could install a shower without electrocuting our troops the GOP might have a good talking point there those contractor jobs are not the ones we want to keep:)
Agreed that and Bush’s pride he will say Obama lost Afghanistan and the danger is the longer Obama keeps this war going the more likely it will be true.
I say end the war as soon as possible then blame Bush he had years to win it. Maybe if he had not invaded Iraq we would have won.
This is off topic, so I do apologize, but after I saw this, I was so infuriated, I had to blog about it somewhere.
Yeasterday, Mika Brzezinski made one of the more ignorant and racist comments I have heard in quite sometime.
Here is the clip.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2288
they’re both heros.
Seems to me that the potential threat is in Pakistan- an increasingly unsettled nation with nukes and delivery systems. Presence in Afghanistan offers proximity to Pakistan and may be the best argument for staying there and attempting to stabalize the place.
The borders between the two nations are probably of no more than academic interest to those who live there. Neither government has much impact on what goes on in the hinterlands apparently.
Expect Karl and Darth on every talking heads show if we do have a debate over staying in Afghanistan. The talking head shows would get a lot more ratings if they had a real debate instead of having Karl or Darth just speak unchallenged or have a fake Dem give them a few softball questions and then fold.
Both sides Us and the Righties would watch.
Word is that Bush had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora. He could have finished that job, pulled out the troops and we’d have long since been free and clear. Instead, he got a hard-on for Iraq and here we are, jammed up in (at least) two quagmires, both of which are likely to be hung around Obama’s neck in the end.
Sometimes I think Mika’s real Dad was the milkman. I disagree with her Dad on stuff but he is smart. Mika not so much lets see these statistics Mika.
Considering Lou Dobbs is finally under fire and hopefully loosing his show now was not the time to embrace de stupid.
Do you suppose Mika is a product of the milk man, and not of Zbignew? She’s dumber than a bag of hammers…but she does such a nice job pressing Joe’s shirts…
Looks like I owe you a coke.
A real history of just what the Hell was Bush and Rummy thinking that day would be great. Sometimes I think Bush won’t have a Legacy because nobody on his side will be willing to talk truthfully about the mistakes.
And without mistakes just what is Bush’s legacy?
Great minds think alike? Is buying people Cokes a new FDL tradition? If so why don’t I get these memos?
I still think there is a secret FDL alarm clock that goes off whenever there is big news. The day Rove resigned Everyone just happened to be awake early that day?
4x as many people die every year in the US from a lack of healthcare than the total of troops who have died in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003 put together.
Lots of wealth will be required/needed to prop up any Afghan “standing army”–wealth Afghanistan does not have. So who is going to infuse this wealth to support any kind of viable,mobile(airborne capable) Afghan Army?
Which leads to next question–how does this newly put in place Afghan Army avoid being taken over by Afghan warlord(s) who in turn choose(s) to turn this trained in modern methods and lethally shaped force on Afghanistan to brace up said warlord(s) regime imposition on Kabul?
Americans are borrowing from Asia as is to keep Pentagon Asian land and air wars going–or is this a version of American arrangements with Taiwan and Israel? Hard to see how works out.
Tom Englehardt in recent days wrote about ‘American Hell’–go to http://www.tomdispatch.com. and seek it out–it is a worthy read.
Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan for what? That question must be directed to western energy firms abiding interest in Asian energy resources,extraction and transport venues.
American activities in any of the South Central Asian ex-Soviet -stans likely are not very wholesome or able to withstand much if any light of day overview.
The American people are funding the Pentagon which is in Asia playing sword to the American Dollar. Lots of Asians getting killed by Americans as this unfolds. One can only imagine how Americans would like having Asians invading and attacking us with large troop inputs and fighter jets/bombers/killer drones flying overhead under control of Asians somewhere in Asia?
Answer: not well.
Jenna and not-Jenna?
PW’s upstairs
Kiss Up, Kick Down: Our GOP/Media Complex in Action
Afghanistan is shaping up to be Obama’s Vietnam. What is the mission? Do Americans ever learn the lessons of history? Do they ever look to how other nations solved thorny problems, like health care? No, the ruling elite and a far too sizeable number of citizens only know hubris.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Eric Patashnik’s Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted hosted by Steven Teles
It is too sad and ironic (?) to think that Russ is too smart to be elected president. Or, would he be forced to compromise if he were POTUS? At least in the Senate he has somewhat more freedom. *sigh*
I think there probably is an endgame here. Put in enough troops to stop losing while you pound away at the Al Qaeda leadership with Predators and perhaps commando teams we don’t know about. When you’ve killed the right people in Al Qaeda, a case can be made that Afghans can sort things out themselves with our economic aid, the Taliban being no real threat by themselves. Gates has pretty much said we are not going to be there forever.
Experience only applies to an individual. While Afghanistan has a history, it does not necessarily advantage the Taliban. Its history might actually advantage the warlords like Dostum. Only time will tell.
The failure in the US strategy in Afghanistan is to put military troops in who have not been trained in interpersonal relations and who are operating without reliable translators. It is the singular trap of every foreign occupier in a different culture. We saw in Iraq when the skilled US troops said on NPR, “I wasn’t trained to do security; I was only trained to kill.” And then Fallujah blew up.
Nice hypothesis, but the fact is the U.S./NATO presence in Afghanistan and operations on the northwest frontier of Pakistan are destabilizing Pakistan.
After Vietnam, I am still stunned how easily we allow our politicians to invade/wage war with whomever they feel is the enemy-this time around. Afghanistan may prove Obama’s undoing unless he gives us a good reason for being there and an even better plan as to how to get out. For: If, after some miracle, we happen to “win” and “elections” establish our puppet Karzai and his government as defacto , thereby solidifying perhaps the most corrupt and offensive government on the face of the earth, will this give us the “security’ we are looking for? Will it stabilize Pakistan?-No. Will it mean an end to the Taliban?-No. Will it put an end to Al Quaida?-No. Will our presence as invaders further inflame the Afghan people, no matter how many grammer schools we build?-Yes. The list goes on, so why are we still there?
Saying that operations in Afghasnistan are anything other than a small part of the things that render Pakistan unstable is a stretch and the cessation of the operations in Afghanistan won’t do a thing toward turning pakistan into a successful state.
Yes.
Contrary to what all the brains on both sides have been saying since the beginning, Afghanistan *is* Vietnam. You need to have lived through that horror, along with the sense of denial that most people had about its utter futility, to understand that. Post regime change Afghanistan is exactly the same as post regime change Iraq. Both are, as Synoia says, MIC (Military Industrial *Congressional* Complex) money pits. Bring the troops home, secure the damn borders and get some real detectives out there to keep tabs on our enemies. We’ve got an Ocean on two sides of us and a common border with just one country each to the North and South. If the U.S. military and federal law enforcement can’t protect us from that kind of superior strategic and tactical position then we need to scrap the whole national defense establishment and build something new.
Would be great to see him run or at the very least the V.P. spot. I believe he has been married three times that might get in his way