Afghanistan

Re: Obama Got It Right – The Daily Beast, by Leslie H. Gelb

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the guy who came in second out of two in the Presidential race in 2008, is pounding the pulpit about what he considers an “arbitrary” withdrawal date from Afghanistan. 

But McCain, speaking with “CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric following Mr. Obama’s speech on Afghan strategy, said repeatedly that he disagrees with what he called “an arbitrary date for withdrawal.” The Vietnam veteran often used the same phrase in reference to the war in Iraq, including during his campaign against Obama for the presidency last year.
 
“Success is what dictates dates for withdrawal and if we don’t have that success and we only set an arbitrary date, it emboldens our enemies and dispirits our friends,” McCain said. (spelling corrected)

Here’s my reply to McCain: Grow up.

Success usually doesn’t dictate dates for withdrawal. Success only tempts an invading country to linger on, like the Hundred Years War, or like in Iraq. This time will be no different. It’s usually the lack of success that has dictated withdrawal. Remember Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? It was probably the least successful campaign in the History of the World and the French Army was faced with the choice of either withdraw or perish. The same thing happened to Germany in World War II, withdraw from Russia or loose the whole war. The 18 month timeline that Obama outlined in his speech would only serve as a starting point for withdrawal, not the end date.

I’m not saying that we must withdraw with our tails between our legs, I’m saying that there are different visions of victory other than John McCain’s archetypical version of military success as pushing a wind blown flag onto a mount at Iwo Jima. If McCain could come back down to earth for a few minutes, he could easily see that that type of victory isn’t going to be the reality in Afghanistan, as it was certainly not the reality in Iraq. Al Qaeda is not going to wave a little white flag in surrender. For Afghanistan to be Taliban/al Qaeda-free it is the Afghans themselves who will have to gain confidence enough to lift up their own government. Our enemy, al Qaeda, will not be so embolden if they are faced with an Afghani government that stands strong against them.

I’m also saying that I support President Obama’s idea that victory can be met if we satisfy our own national interests and leave Afghanistan in better shape than we found them both militarily and economically without it costing us an arm and a leg. Success can be measured in many ways, but better is better.

The following is a snippet from a blog in The Daily Beast today by Leslie H. Gelb called Obama Got It Right which outlines a few things that could help bring about the “victory” in Afghanistan that McCain so desires:

Obama’s middle course at least offers some promise of success—and perhaps more importantly, gives Afghans a more than decent chance to get their act together. And if they do, they need not fear American abandonment. As I understand the president’s policy, he would continue to fully support a continuing Afghan effort after most American troops are withdrawn at some indefinite point in the future—with money, arms, training, intelligence, and logistics—if Afghans shape up their government and demonstrate a genuine willingness to fight.

What can be done to strengthen the odds for the Afghans?

First, stand up to the baloney being served by many Republicans. They’re trying to create the impression that Obama has committed to withdrawing all American forces in a year or two. In fact, all he’s said is that he would “begin” withdrawals in July 2011, and that the pace of further withdrawals would depend on “circumstances.” That is not a timetable for withdrawals. It is merely the beginning of an unspecified process of withdrawing most U.S. forces from combat. It is the duty of TV anchors and journalists to point out that distortion every single time it is uttered. It is un-American and unpatriotic to repeat such lies. It undermines the very confidence the Afghans must have to shoulder the burdens they must bear. Unless rebutted, these Republicans will foster the very defeat in Afghanistan which they insist will destroy American security. False Republican charges of an Obama pullout are already rattling Afghans and Pakistanis—and causing policy problems for the future.

Second, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and America’s top military brass, including especially Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus—the NATO commander in Afghanistan and the overall U.S. regional commander, respectively—should clearly state their full support for the president’s policy. Anything less than that will create self-defeating suspicions and doubts about the policy from the outset. They got almost everything they asked for, and faster than they requested or expected. And while no one talks about it, they also have more than 100,000 defense contractors at work in Afghanistan right now. Plus, they’ve been given thousands of other military personnel to provide various services in Afghanistan that don’t count against the presidentially approved totals.

Third, America’s great Pakistani friends have to effectively shut down the Taliban and al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. Otherwise, no level of U.S. forces can stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. Washington is giving the Paks billions of dollars in economic aid; America is their life line for arms and intelligence as well. They can’t keep telling us to fight in Afghanistan and yet at the same time help the Taliban kill us there. It’s outrageous. Even China and Russia shouldn’t stand in America’s way on this. They’ve got as much to worry about from these Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists as Americans do. Also, conservatives and liberals should be able to join hands to send a strong message to Islamabad as well. Mr. Obama and the United States can use some nonpartisan help here.

Finally, at West Point, Mr. Obama talked to Americans as grownups. Wouldn’t it be nice if some considered responding as adults—as Americans first and political nutjobs and self-serving pols second? Obama put Afghanistan into a larger and more meaningful context than the affairs of one country alone. “As president,” he said, “I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who—in discussing our national security—said, ‘Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.’” Washington is confronting six other actual and potential crises around the world, in addition to an economic crisis at home. Afghanistan ranks near the bottom of that list, and we shouldn’t forget it.

Most important of all, Obama reminded us, is the American economy. “[We have failed],” he said, “to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy… So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.” He continued: “But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy.”

The economy is another thing that Bush lied about about as he pursued an illegal war with Iraq, then the long illegal occupation of that country by keeping the true cost of the Iraq war off the books. He borrowed money from China and other places until it nearly bankrupted our government. For the first time in history, no efforts were made to sacrifice to pay for the war. It was all done on the credit card. We are now suffering from that irresponsibility.

________________________________________________________