Tweet
If there’s a scorecard to be had, Andrew Exum provides it. Here he is, talking about how he didn’t want to be baited into the "pro-war" side of a NewsHour debate on Afghanistan, because his own thoughts are too nuanced for that label. But:
As I walked out of the studio last night, though, Gwen Ifill turned to me and said, "Look, I understand you’re not some fire-breathing hawk, but you’re about the only person we can find in Washington to defend this war at the moment."
No Steve Biddle? (Well, Biddle said the war was a close call for him) No Anthony Cordesman? Did the world suddenly run out of Kagans?
More seriously/to make a meta point: this is the main difference with the Iraq debate. The advocates of the war (… so to speak?) are haunted by the proposition that they may be wrong, and the proposition that they could make things worse. You find no certainty among Richard Holbrooke or whomever. And they certainly don’t have enthusiasm for the war. They’re pretty… Exum-esque: worried about making things worse, from a variety of directions.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Um, what critics of the Afghanistan war? Surely you’re not talking about George Will, who just wants to turn it into a video game that kills real people. Seriously, as someone who has opposed this war since Oct. 2001, I’ve yet to hear a critic of the war anywhere except Pacifica radio.
It’s worth noting that the US goals in Afghanistan are not very imperial. The Taliban is an enemy because it decided to defend and hide al-Queda. Should some Pashtun warlord knock out the Taliban and turn over Osama bin Laden, the US should be okay with leaving said warlord in charge of Kabul and whatever else he can control.
This is distinct from the more ideological goals of, say, the USSR in Afghanistan. The British wars of the 1800’s were also not so relaxed as the US today, they wanted to counter Russian expansion. The US isn’t worried about that.
This all means that the currently bleak outlook doesn’t have become rosy in order to be done with the job, it just has to be more dismal for al-Queda.
It’s also worth mentioning that the administration continues to be as vague as possible about what we’re actually DOING with all those troops in Afghanistan, because as soon as they identify a specific purpose or goal they’re in a political straightjacket. This leaves even someone who WANTS to support the presence of american troops in the somewhat awkward position of being unable to say exactly what it is they support.
More and more I’m getting the impression that the Obama team is trying to leave the back door ajar throughout the process. And I am encouraged by that perception…
mikey
That’s because they’re non-true-believer inheritors of a war whose outcome should have been determined years ago. And the fire-breathers regard this war as a bastard-stepchild to the confected candy apple of their eyes.
@mikeyhemlock @miked, I half-agree. Only half because of Obama’s “war of necessity” description at the VFW and Clinton’s recent similar comment. If they have an eye to the exits, then using language like that is criminal malpractice. It’s really hard to come up with Plan B for a war of necessity.
But yeah, the vaguery… pains of intellectual honesty? I’m still trying to figure this out.
But c’mon.
What CinC is going to come out and admit to commiting troops and taking casualties in a “war of choice”.
“War of Necessity” is the only context America will swallow, so ALL wars have to be described that way. The debate is funny. Nothing awful will happen to America if we chose NOT to fight this war, unless we also chose to stop doing counterterror ops at the same time.
We can’t seem to accept what our own lying eyes are telling us. This is somewhat bizarre…
mikey