General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy isn’t anyone talking about Afghanistan?
Posted on Sunday, 08.19.12
By STEPHEN M. WALT
Remember the war in Afghanistan? You know: It was the good war, fought in response to al Qaidas attack on 9/11 and the Talibans refusal to turn them in, and subsequently justified by 1) the need to prevent future terrorist safe havens, 2) the desire to liberate Afghan women, 3) the imperative to bring democracy and modern governance to an underdeveloped tribal society and 4) as always, the need to preserve American credibility.
Writing on The New Yorkers website, reporter Dexter Filkins warns that our long and costly effort there is likely to be a failure. Were getting out, he says, but there is little sign that we will leave behind a properly functioning Afghan state. He notes that neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney is saying much about the war in this campaign (in part because there is about an angstroms worth of difference in their respective positions). But he says You can bet that, whoever the president is, hell be talking about it after were gone.
Three points. First, it is not really news to hear that our Afghan project is failing, because the effort to impose a centralized state from the outside was probably doomed from the start. Its possible that a focused international effort from 2002 onward would have succeeded (and especially if the geniuses in the Bush administration hadnt taken their eye off the ball in order to invade Iraq), but the odds are against it. Plenty of people have been warning for years now that this war was going to end up a failure, which is why some of us opposed Obamas decision to escalate the war in 2009 and called for disengagement instead.
Second, even if Filkins pessimism is right, it is not clear why the next president will want or will have to spend a lot of time worrying about Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were truly a vital strategic interest, it wouldnt be all that hard to convince Americans to pony up the resources to stay. But the fact is that Afghanistan isnt a vital interest: its a land-locked and impoverished country thousands of miles from our shores. The only reason that we went there in the first place is because a handful of misguided crackpots decided to hide out there, and subsequently got very lucky in staging a dramatic attack on U.S. soil. Once they were scattered and/or killed, Afghanistan reverted to being the strategic backwater it has always been. The American people understand this, yet Obama had to concoct a face-saving strategy of escalating first in order to withdraw later. If the next president whoever it is is smart, hell spend as much time worrying about Afghanistan as Carter and Reagan spent worrying about Vietnam. Which is to say, hardly any.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/19/2955336/why-isnt-anyone-talking-about.html
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)I have been wondering about how much money Cheney made through his corporation from Afghanistan and Iraq. This was a shameful way of stealing from us all and I hope Bush's staying out of the camera now is because he is ashamed of himself for allowing Cheney to rip us all off.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)how willing people are to throw their principles out the window in the name of political expediency and being on the winning side.
Skittles
(153,212 posts)been doing it for YEARS AND YEARS
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)It's been eleven fucking years already. He has a bottomless thirst for the red red vino on tap, and doesn't care about what you might call the cost.
rug
(82,333 posts)He's no longer Pres. Bush.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)His tax cuts are still there, his permawar grinds on and I hear they've been taking it on the road to Yemen and far off places, the unconstitutional police state measures are all still there, the busted out bankers aren't in jail but rolling in dough, tens of millions are out of work - hell they added 3.6 million to the SS disability list just to hide 'em - shit all looks the same!
If Bush isn't still President who's the new President, then? Is he the one who told Cheney to get hairplugs and lose the glasses?
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Unlike the person that got us into it. He got us out of combat in Iraq, and it's too unstable to pull out right at the moment.
rug
(82,333 posts)If it remains unstable "at the moment" in 2014, do you advocate staying until the right moment?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You say it is "too unstable" to leave now.
But a "timetable" means we are leaving on a fixed date rather than due to the situation on the ground.
Starting to see the contradiction or does it need to be spelled out?
In other words, we are leaving, if what Obama says is true, whether the situation is stable or not.
Which begs the question, why aren't we just leaving now?
Or how about this question: Why did we even go in in the first place? Leaving on a timetable implies either that we have given up on the goal or that the goal has been accomplished. Problems, problems, contradictions, contradictions.
BTW, the soldiers that die tomorrow, or the next day...will that be in the furthering of a specific goal or just shit outta luck that they didn't make it until the arbitrary bell rang?
Solly Mack
(90,789 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I never forgave Reagan for his wars, not Bush I or Bush II. Although I accepted that clinton's work in Bosnia was well done, I never forgave him for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with his embargo on lifesaving food and medicine.
Neither will I forgive Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan and creating new enemies in several other countries through his dramatic escalation of the Drone assassinations and for not vilifying Bush II for his torture and other war crimes.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)to the 'conditions' on the ground, and will probably (and wrongly) be 'extended' once it will be clear the 'goal' has not been reached.
And remember, pipelines are still 'needed' (one day or another, although it will always be 'another' until the day there won't be any oil left).
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)designed to silence anyone demanding that it end.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)A bit like I hope to win the lottery's multi-millionaire jackpot every time I throw (minimum) money away...
It's a hell hole.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)excuse.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)As opposed to the past decade and year?
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)It goes back to McCarthy and Eisenhower calling Truman weak on Communism.
I've been saying since 2009 that Obama's escalation in Afghanistan was about political calculus and nothing more. The alternative was McCain/Palin who certainly would've been no better and may have started a war with Iran. The current alternative is Romney/Ryan who will certainly be no better and may start a war in Iran.
I'm not saying that justifies Obama's actions. I'm just saying that's the current state of affairs. If anybody has a good suggestions for how to improve said state of affairs, I'm all ears.