Afghanistan is not Iraq. Indeed, it’s a whole new ballgame and one where there is no real goal. We have heard of long term goals, short term goals, winning the hearts and minds goals, the stability (whatever that means) goals, realistic goals, unrealistic goals, in fact there have been shoals of goals and all of them have one thing in common. None of them explain just what the fuck we are doing in Afghanistan.I shall mightily refrain from commenting on the people who voted for Obama, hoping for change.
By all accounts al Qaieda has been dismantled and scattered. The Taliban are not al Qaieda but an entirely separate entity. And is shifting the Terror Wars from Iraq (who our leaders seem to forget had nothing to do with al Qaieda) to Afghanistan really the change people hoped for when they voted for Obama?
-Rob Payne at Halcyon Days
Many anti-Iraq-War Progressives nonetheless got behind Obama's rhetoric of escalation, soon to be program of escalation, in Afghanistan out of a desire to to help him prove "his martial bona fides while running as the ostensible peace candidate. The Donk's committment to escalation even as he purports to be antiwar is a source of constant amusement at Who Is IOZ? headquarters, and we raise our shot glasses in salute to overcoming cognitive dissonance and killing foreigners For Their Own Good™." (Musings, multiple, here.) But with al Qaeda dispersed to regroup as a regional irritant in East Africa, at least for the time being, Rob's query as to what the fuck we're doing increasing our commitments to the Subcontinental borderlands deserves attention.
First, related developments. Our supply lines are taxed and vanishing quickly. Bad Vlad recalls the gleeful American backing of the Mujahadeen and the emasculated Soviet Empire limping from Afghanistan to the mother-bosom of its own fast-approaching doom, and will now glory in denying the US foothold in Central Asia. Western political and media types crow about Russia's declining fortunes and the certainty of the Bear's ultimate compliance due to the declining price of certain fungible natural commodities, but as the Ukraine-EU gas imbroglio demostrated, Russian assertiveness is by no means on the wain, and let's also not forget that although the spiraling profits of the Russian petrol industry are constrained of late, these mostly nationalized energy resources still provide positive revenue for their economy, which is more than you can say for the Western powers. The specter of the United States, which is the debtor economy, lecturing Russia, which is not, in full American self-congratulatory style on the feebleness of its economy in the $40/barrel era tickles. Russia sees a strategic interest in getting America out of its backyard and has to tools to do so.
America has no clarity about the purpose of its presence in Afghanistan. Obama has already stated in clear terms that his administration will not brook starry-eyed projects to create Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan, and that's commendable as far as it goes, but one notes that exchanging an impossibility for an abstraction is no mark of realist acumen. "Stability," the currently desired outcome, has a certain amorphous quality, no? The central Afghan government is illegitimate. The Taliban, despite the persistence of acid-throwing stories in Western media, have actually moderated somewhat over the past several years in order to garner more popular support in the territories they now control, which are widespread. With the exception of the garrisoned capital city, the situation on the ground now is not altogether dissimilar from 2001, except that in the interim we have also managed to aid in the rapid disintegration of central authority in Pakistan. Oops.
Newsweek recently ran a piece asking if Afghanistan was to become Obama's Vietnam. The predictable progressives aired their predictable outrage that just two weeks into his rule, anyone would have the temerity to raise the question, but they remained silent on the more salient point, which is how exactly the question or comparison is inapt. Well, there are a thousand small differences, but the narrative arc is strikingly familiar. Obama seems to self-imagine himself as the great mediator. Temperamentally and intellectually, he seems committed to notions of "bringing people to the table." Though not burdened with the "CEO President" moniker, the Obama Administration far more than Bush's speaks in goo-goo management tones. But Afghanistan is not composed of "stakeholders." Obama has so far proven inept at mediating the marginal differences between Washington's palace factions. His apparent plans to do so in Afghanistan are as yet more doubtful.
26 comments:
"Newsweek recently ran a piece asking if Afghanistan was to become Obama's Vietnam. The predictable progressives aired their predictable outrage that just two weeks into his rule, anyone would have the temerity to raise the question..."
And thats the issue with these braindead pigdogs. They see "change" as a cure and not a prevention. No no no! its only been two weeks! We've got to wait and see if they're gonna roll out the ovens.
Sorry to inject a tiny flicker of hope into this site's customary pessimism, but this morning with my not-coffee I just happened to read two articles in a "respectable liberal" publication which basically agree with IOZ. Perhaps there's some faint, tiny hope that our political elites might give up on this particular Pyrrhic war in, maybe, six or eight meat-grindin' years, instead of 16 like with Vietnam, if "sensible liberals" are starting to wake up to the things IOZ is noting here.
Of course, Ted Rall has said what IOZ said since Day 1 of the war, but Ted Rall is one of those people like Michael Moore, a good Liberal wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with him.
Norman Solomon has almost the same status, but perhaps less so, and today he wrote up a piece:
> The US war effort in Afghanistan owes itself to the enduring "war on terrorism," chasing a holy grail of victory that can never be. ... Now, on Capitol Hill and at the White House, convenience masquerades as realism about "the war on terror." Too big to fail. A beast too awesome and immortal not to feed.
Then also today there's Steve Weissman:
> I could go on, but it all boils down to the one lesson of Vietnam that Robert Gates and his Pentagon brass do not want to accept - that Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis and other people in Asia, Africa and Latin America will no longer accept the United States and Europe occupying and running their countries. Counter-insurgency can prolong the pain, but it will never overcome the anti-colonial dynamic, as the British Empire, the French Empire and others all learned before us.
Gosh, I feel so much better now that a couple of ineffectual pwoggie democrats are no longer thrilled with Hopey McChange's Afghan Surge. Guess we can take the rest of the decade off now that "sensible liberals" are on the case.
...Oooops, of course, I wasn't counting the seven years we've already been in, when I said we might get out in another six or eight. So, hopefully we'll get out in 13 or 15 years _total_, rather than 16 like Vietnam. Progress! Hope! Change!
Come on. Don't you realize that this is a "flawed, but necessary" war?
(I love that phrase given to us by the great SteveB, because it excuses just about everything. "We are compelled to do X for the Good of the Nation, and don't blame us if it doesn't work, by the way." As Jim Carrey would say, "Well, righty, then.")
It's just like how Green Lantern's Power Ring had a "necessary flaw in its construction" which prevented it from working against anything that was the color yellow!
< / end geek reference >
The predictable progressives aired their predictable outrage that just two weeks into his rule, anyone would have the temerity to raise the question...
Links, please?
And, while I'm just thrilled to hear that I've been promoted to "the great SteveB", I believe the context in which I used the phrase "flawed but necessary" is, "It's necessary for the government to increase spending when we're on the brink of a massive depression, but knowing how our government works, we can expect that a lot of the spending will be for useless and ridiculous things." You disagree?
And - get this - I think we should have pulled out of Afghanistan seven years ago. In fact, I remember getting on a bus from Madison to D.C. in October of 2001 to take part in a protest against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which hadn't happened yet. But never mind, I must be a mindless Obamabot, because I disagree with the Great IOZ (just returning the favor.)
Well I myelf am an Obamabot because I don't like driving slow in the fast lane!
Ioz,
Thanks for the mention here in your post on WTF we are doing in Afghanistan. Yeah, it really is something that our patriotic liberals are so behind Obama when it comes to wielding the war machine. If Bush does it, that’s bad, if Obama does it, that’s good. It’s good to know that tribalism is not extinct especially amongst righteous liberals. Personally I think it would be hilarious if Putin put the nix on Obama’s grand plan to stick it to the heathens in Afghanistan, Putin would actually be doing us a favor if he can pull it off.
I believe that the amorphous quality of “stability” has a very real purpose because it allows the Terror War in Afghanistan to remain as it is, open ended. If people are unable to define our reasons for being there by using terms of nebulous meanings then our mighty leaders can keep redefining the criteria for staying or withdrawal. All mighty convenient for the military-industrial-scientific-complexers who know doubt would like to see the U.S. embroiled in endless wars all over the planet. It would keep all that money rolling in and such a deal it is.
"on the 'wain'"? Is this a bit of cleverness that has eluded my enfeebled brain, or a mis-spelling?
The funniest thing about those who feel betrayed by this pointless escalation is that this is EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WANTED TO DO!
But hey, I can't worship a dude without martial bona fides.
I voted for Barry, but I drink heavily.
The 800 lb. gorilla in Iraq was opium. True. Just ask Michael Kinsley.
The 800 lb. gorilla in Afghanistan? Good dope?
There may be hope for our country after all.
I told you I drink too much....the 800 lb. gorilla in Iraq was OIL, at least it was not good gin.
'I shall mightly refrain from commenting on the people who voted for Obama, hoping for change'.
I won't.
Ioz' last phrase is the key point.
Anyone who voted for Bubba in '92, Gore in '00 and Obama in '08, expecting something "new" from this bunch...well, you know what you are.
I voted for Obama because I wanted to vote for a winner for the first time in my life.
Mr. Daulton: No real substantial criticism here, but on your Michael Moore and "good liberal" point:
Thought you ought to know.
"On the wain" is a lot like being on the wagon. Which, you know, you don't really expect in a place where they sometimes use vodka for currency.
"It's necessary for the government to increase spending when we're on the brink of a massive depression, but knowing how our government works, we can expect that a lot of the spending will be for useless and ridiculous things." You disagree?
If that's the case, then it looks like there's not much difference between "flawed, but necessary" and "flawed by necessity". Or, to requote you, "any government spending is good, even if it's on crap".
any government spending is good, even if it's on crap
Even if a lot of it is on crap. What's "a lot"? If even 10% of an $800 billion bill is crap, that's $80 billion of crap, which is a lot of crap, by anyone's definition.
Keynes famously said that he didn't care whether people were employed digging holes and then filling them up again, as long as people were employed. I haven't seen examples of spending in this bill that would fall into the "digging holes and filling them up again" category. IOZ, blithe generalist that he is, doesn't provide any. Do you have any specific crap in mind?
keep digging SteveB, you're almost there. though when you're done, you're going to have to fill it all back in.
"It's necessary for the government to increase spending when we're on the brink of a massive depression."
here's a problem: the economy already putters along on massively wasteful government spending, without which millions of "private sector" jobs would dry up immediately. are you saying that the government should simply spend more? create millions more jobs that are wholly dependant on government spending (my favorite proposal is "rebuild all the roads")? what about the next depression? just spend more again, i suppose.
our economy isn't "contracting", it's withering, of necessity. the notion that we can prop it up with newly printed money and that one keynes quote everyone on the internet knows is about as rational as selling bonds to china to prop up our housing market. like how that one worked out?
Ah, yes. I love this site. IOZ and the commenters here talk admirably and in clear-headed, specific, and moral terms about the clusterfuck of blood we've engineered abroad. For that, I commend them. When we turn to the home front, unfortunately, we hear a lot of vague happy libertarian talk about how the government is the enemy and we should all bake our own bread in little disconnected communes as civilization collapses around us, enjoying the last stashes of pot and meth with the final fucks of our lives. Give me Keynes instead. We'll worry about tomorrow; I'd rather that people didn't starve or go cold today. If that isn't ideologically pure enough for you, piss up a rope.
It's a spiral, right? People lose their jobs, spend less as a result, and so other people lose their jobs. Repeat until everyone's unemployed. You get that, right?
So, to stop the spiral, the government steps in and employs some people, so at least there's some spending going on, so some people not employed by the government get to keep their jobs.
Sorry for the "Keynes for 3rd-graders" tone of this, but something tells me it's necessary.
"Sorry for the 'Keynes for 3rd-graders' tone of this, but something tells me it's necessary."
Sweetheart, you may think you're talking down to somebody, but you ain't.
"Repeat until everyone's unemployed. You get that, right?"
no wonder the democrats treat you people like holes to fuck.
Post a Comment