I’m interested to hear what you think about President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. I understand some of the criticisms of Obama’s decision: we are getting more deeply involved in an endless quagmire; we can’t afford to spend trillions fighting — for what, exactly? — when there are so many desperate problems here at home; and that waging war in Afghanisan does not necessarily make us any safer.
But here’s the thing: I have read a lot this morning, and I have yet to see a convincing, comprehensive critique of Obama’s decision. The analyses I read are flawed for two reasons. First, they ignore the fact that we already ass-deep in a mess that Bush-Cheney created. Like Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, I do not profess to know enough about the intricacies of our foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan to proclaim what Obama should do. Too much of the criticism from the left, like that of Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation, boils down to a paraphrase of Mr. Garrison from South Park: “War and guns are bad, kids, mmmkay?” Talking about the ideal recipe is not useful when the kitchen is already on fire. Second, pundits seem to be cherry-picking reasons for why we should not go. Thomas Friedman, for example, criticizes Obama’s decision almost entirely on economic grounds. I understand his arguments, but I do not think the problem is this simple.
I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan because he is the rare, thoughtful conservative that I learn from. I appreciated his take this morning. He opposes the surge, and makes some excellent points in the process — especially this (emphasis mine):
The way our politics of fear is now constructed, there is no limit to the costs involved in nation-building in every conceivable failed state that could be a safe harbor for Jihadists. We cannot have the adult conversation about how much terrorist damage the US should tolerate compared with the costs of trying to control this phenomenon at its source. We are not mature enough as a country to have that conversation. And Obama has decided it isn’t worth confronting that question now.
I am inclined to support Obama’s decision for two reasons. First, walking away does not seem to be a viable option. Again, I do not completely understand the complexity of the possibilities of staying or moving forward, but I do believe that there is enough of a security risk that completely abandoning Afghanistan is not a reasonable path at this time. Obama did not create the mess, but it is now his job to clean it up.
Second, I still trust Obama. You may chuckle at that, but one thing I have long appreciated about him is his pragmatism. Many liberals rip him for not being progressive enough, but I don’t think they are willing to engage with, for lack of a better description, the messyness of life. Yes, it would be a perfect world if schools had enough money and the military had to hold a bake sale, but that has never been the case and, bumper sticker sentiment aside, it never will. It is a messy, ugly, conflict-filled world we live in, and pursuing a “war is bad, mmmkay?” philosophy is simply not reasonable, at least not at this time. (My 21-year-old self would rip my current self at this point, but…well, we learn and mature, right?) It is easy to take the higher moral ground when you don’t have to deal with the fallout. I appreciate that Obama is willing to make tough decisions that may benefit us in the long run even if they damage him politically in the short term.
The most convincing point on Obama’s pragmatism on this decision comes from Ambinder at The Atlantic:
The logic is the same as health care: we must spend more now to save later. It’s a difficult notion to sell but it carries with it the hope of something better. This wasn’t Bush on an aircraft carrier or Obama in Iowa railing about Iraq or Hillary and Iraq. This was a community organizer turned war president. He had always argued that Afghanistan was the good war, the one that should have been the center or our attention. For years the Left in America echoed that line until Iraq started to ease, and now many of the Afghanistan-only shouters have become advocates of a full retreat. That’s their right. But if Obama lost Mother Jones and The Nation and Salon tonight, he’s hoping he can get them and everyone else back with something resembling victory on the ground, however incomplete. Let’s hope he’s right.
Similarly, here’s what Obama told reporters at the White House:
“The strategy that I’m pursuing is designed to say let’s see if we can change the conditions on the ground in a time certain period. There are risks associated with that, but in the absence of that push, we are in a situation that doesn’t change, and there are big costs associated to troop presence, to casualties, to a slowly deteriorating situation over a course of years that are at least comparable and probably worse than us going ahead and making this big push now.”
What are your thoughts? If you have helpful links, please share them. (And if you’re coming here from Facebook, please comment here rather than there.)
{ 11 } Comments
I too am willing to trust Obama. The strategy seems to me to be basically getting us back to the position where we were when Afghanistan was considered a military and political success (i.e., before we decided to divert attention and resources to the completely unnecessary Iraq debacle), and then work like hell to turn power back over to the local government and get the hell out as quickly as possible. There’s a good chance anyway that increased numbers of troops will lead to lower casualties due to a stronger military presence.
Of course, Afghanistan is where empires go to die, so this may be a pipe dream. But at least we can say we gave it a try, as opposed to just walking away after years of culpability by way of neglect.
You enjoy reading Sullivan?!? Funny, that didn’t seem to be your response when I gave you that subscription to The New Republic all those years ago . . .
I’m still thinking about this one. I’m inclined to “trust” Obama also, though why I would trust any pol at this point is beyond me . . . still, that whole “you can’t trust any of ‘em” mentality is about as useful as “war is bad, mmmkay.” (Learn, mature, etc.)
It does seem that, to some extent, he’s saying “put up or shut up” to the military, which might not be a bad thing . . . and he DID inherit all of this. We really just can’t walk away . . .
Of course, some of my kids’ friends have dads who are over there, so this is going to cloud my thinking a bit . . .
Still trying to work this all out . . . .
I never put Obama anywhere but slightly to the left of DINO Bill Clinton. I feel badly for the people who voted for Obama thinking they were getting a progressive, but they had their chance to vote for progressives and didn’t. Ultimately I have little sympathy.
(As a side note, it’s also interesting to me to see the 180 degree flip of the last few decades reach its completion. For most of my life, the right was isolationist (except when it was empire-building) and the left was expansionist. The last shovelful of dirt’s been tossed on that; it’s overwhelmingly conservatives that want to meddle, liberals who want countries to stew in their own juices. )
Aaaaaanyway, you’re right that the mess has been around, it’s our fault, and we need to clean it up a bit before leaving. (And one of your FB commenters was right: This goes back to Reagan, and even to Carter, not to Dubya.) I’m OK with a consensus, with the gummints over there getting two votes, pretty much. I’d be very OK with shifting the burden to U.N. peacekeeping forces, because that’s what they’re there for; I’m not so naive as to think there’d be no agenda there, but I think it’s more likely to be an agenda that takes a wider perspective.
(Worth reading on the larger issue:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/obama_regret.php )
Yes, this is a war that Obama inherited. The problem is that we have so screwed up our foreign policy over decades in that region, siding with one then the other then their enemy etc…Iran contra, deposing the shah, strengthening Sadaam then kicking him out. Giving money and arms to Osama. The question isn’t just when does it stop, it is why did it start. Israel is part of it, oil is too, power, land grab. Whatever. This wasn’t about democracy. What a total farce. I can’t believe people ever fell for that. Despite all of this. I support the troop surge as long as the exit strategy is in place. I had heard that the surge could have been larger, but there are Nato troops that are also being called up. It doesn’t help though, that Karzai is still in power as he is a puppet to all the corruption. The West liked him because he was culturally acceptable to us. What a mistake this all has been. Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes.
Thanks, all, for your thoughts.
@Suzie, Bob — you’re right that the problems go way back before Bush-Cheney. I was thinking more specifically about how our current troops got there, but you’re right that we’ve been screwing up there for decades. Sadly.
@Tom — I appreciated the kindness behind your gift, but I honestly didn’t like TNR then, nor do I like it now. My memories are a bit fuzzy, but I thought Sullivan was a poor editor who enjoyed pissing off liberals just to do it (Hitchens-style). Devoting an entire issues to Murray/Herrstein & The Bell Curve was a horrible decision and was the final straw for me. It’s only been in the last couple of years that I’ve enjoyed and appreciated his writing. I think he’s mellowed a bit. And, of course, I’ve learned a lot since then, too.
Here’s a decent piece, expressing some of these same feelings of ambivalence, from Fred Kaplan at Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2236148/
I’ve argued from the start of Iraq that Afghanistan was the right war IF the goal was to eradicate a serious terrorist threat. I’ve also thought for three or four years that the crux of securing Afghanistan was to first secure Waziristan. But I’m also, like you, not a foreign policy expert, just a pragmatist.
And that’s why, even though it sours my tongue, I’m open to Obama’s surge and was please to read he addressed Pakistan. The war is ugly, I want to be done, but to borrow your phrase, we’re ass-deep.
my student today told me he is being shipped off in a month. He looked a little scared. So I asked him, “where to”
“a desert” he answered.
“which one”
“I dont know,” he said looking even more nervous. “They just said a desert.”
Anyway you slice it, this is what it comes down to……
Joanna, that’s really sad. I’ve had the relative privilege of not having a personal cost in the war all of these years, but now three students of my former students and our nephew are all likely headed there w/in the next several months. Scary.
Jason – always good to hear your thoughts, thanks.
(My 21-year-old self would rip my current self at this point, but…well, we learn and mature, right?)
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. I completely agree with you on the inability/reluctance/refusal of a certain category of liberals to engage with ‘the messyness of life’. That is such a perfect description and it’s exactly what drives me nuts about the debate. Honestly, I can’t listen anymore.
Look, nothing happens in a vacuum. Every move has political implications and, like it or not, the US is a center-right country. And I think it’s better to do a bit of good by playing it up the middle than to try to do a ton of good in left field and ultimately failing because of lack of support.
The wars suck. They were horribly mismanaged. But they’re Obama’s reality and responsibility now so he has to do the best he can with what he’s got. And really, liberal people, do you want the Taliban to come back? Do you remember what they did to the population in general and women in particular? Do you really think that it would be any different the second time around?
I’d rather take a pragmatism with even shallow roots in idealism than idealism devoid of pragmatism any day. And it’s for that very reason that I will continue to trust Obama.
And if you want to hear a great interview about all of this, check out the Fresh air interview with Peter Bergin from earlier this week. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121020669
The man is way smarter, articulate, and knowledgeable about the issue than I am ever going to be,
For a convincing (to my mind) take against the surge, see Malalai Joya. Her book is A WOMAN AMONG WARLORDS, and I’m still in the first chapter, but here’s a short speech by her as well:
http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/03/no-nation-can-liberate-another