My Thoughts on Afghanistan.

Filed in National by on December 2, 2009

I am a liberal. But I am not a pacifist. To quote President Obama, I do not oppose all war, just stupid wars of choice that are not in America’s interest, like Iraq. I approved of going into Afghanistan. We were attacked, for all intents and purposes, by Afghanistan. I was angered when the attention on Afghanistan was diverted to a bullshit war in Iraq. Afghanistan was left to deteriorate to the state it is in today.

And any semi-intelligent observer over the last two to three years knew that Obama was going to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan somehow. He intended and campaigned on a promise to go after those who really attacked us: Bin Laden, Al Queda and the Taliban. So to any liberal acting surprised and shocked today or yesterday, you are a fool. And a disingenuous fool at that.

Essentially, there were three options the President could have chose last night. Some on the left, and perhaps some in the middle and the sane right, wanted the US to leave now. And as I said, Obama was never going to do that. Those on the right want the US to stay until there are no Qaeda elements, no Taliban and a functioning stable democracy not financed by opium. None of these goals are possible or even reasonable, and if those are actually our goals we will be in Afghanistan until the end of time. But that is what the fans of perpetual war want: perpetual war. The best we can hope for is a relatively functioning government that can defend itself against the Taliban. That is the exit strategy we are using in leaving Iraq. If it is good for Iraq, it is good for Afghanistan.

The middle option between the two extremes is what Obama is pursuing. He is giving the Generals what they want now and giving them 2 years to achieve that limited goal of a relatively functioning government. If it works, great, we get to leave. If it fails, well, sorry guys we tried is what Obama will say. The right wing will accuse Obama of weakness no matter what he does. If Obama deployed the entirety of our volunteer army to Afghanistan the GOP would ask for a compulsory draft. If Obama promised to stay in Afghanistan until the end of time, the GOP will insist that we stay beyond the Rapture.

Personally, I think we have a serious President who actually thought about his options in Afghanistan from every conceivable angle. Those who do not think about their decisions and were negligent in sending our boys and girls to their deaths in Iraq call that “dithering.” I call it what I wanted. I wanted a serious intelligent President who made the best decision after careful analysis. I think he has made the best decision here after a careful real analysis.

How do I know it is the best decision?

Because he pissed off everyone. Liberals and Conservatives.

So I will support the President and his decision for now. For now. If this plan fails, I want us out. If this plan works, I want us out. That is Obama’s plan as I heard it last night. If he deviates from it “according to the conditions on the ground,” then he will lose my support.

About the Author ()

Comments (41)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TPN says:

    Buddy, if your ass was on the firing line you wouldn’t be so flip as to validate this war escalation around some phony left-right calculus of how many people “Liberals and Conservatives” Obama “pissed off” by ensuring that more Americans face grisly deaths in a God-foresaken worthless hell hole.

    If the whole f*%$ing world eventually gets haired-off by his loaf-splitting, what’s that mean? Obama’s decision powers have become ultra-infallible? Above all those chattering mortals?

    Please.

    You either support using the violence of war to achieve hegemonic geopolitical ends in faraway places, burning our blood and treasure off into the coffers of the arms and war industry, or you don’t.

    Obama does. And apparently so do you.

  2. a.price says:

    and you apparently are an unrealistic nonviolent extremist. You cant just let it alone. Bush and yes, Clinton ignored the taliban and al queda and we saw the end of that folly. It is one thing to go about business in the world in a way that promotes peace and cooperation. But when you have a whole movement of people who have decided violence is the only way, there is nothing to do but make sure they can’t kill you.
    You seem to see things only in black in white either yo uare at war for an evil cause, or you arent and all things will be puppy dogs and rainbows.
    grow up hippie.
    There ARE dangerous people in the world who’s only goal is to kill people not like them. No i’m not talking about the right wing extremists in this country (this time). And what of countries like Israel who face terrorist threats from all sides, all neighbors, all the time. Who are you to judge their decision to use force? would you actually let the Taliban take control? Let them bleed into Pakistan… another unstable government? let them get nukes? think a non violent public relations campaign will make them any less likely to use those nukes on whoever they can as soon as they can?
    And dont act all surprised that Obama is sending troops to Afghanistan. I dont know if you voted for him or not, but it was a campaign promise so suck it.

  3. spktruth says:

    You libs take the cake! You are going to take a “wait and see attitude”. Are any of you of the Vietnam era. Those of us that are…see the writing on the wall. So you all think that escalating a war while our economy is in the tank, homes foreclosed on, $12an hour jobs if you can find one is aok? What gibberish. This has nothing to do with a ridiculous campaign promise he made, it has everything to do with facts on the ground. With facts you are expected to change something you said during a campaign, that is if it is for the welfare of our country. $30 billion this year (Obama says), does that mean 2009, or all of 2010. Do you know who the Taliban are? Do you know who the Pashtun are? Do you not know we are dealing in another civil war. You libs here have no history, only mindless following of a no hope and no change pres.

  4. John Tobin says:

    Delaware Dem. You are right, that he gave fair warning.
    From the NY Times 7-16-2008:
    In an address in Washington that was the most detailed outline yet of his national security strategy, Mr. Obama said it was time to rapidly end the war in Iraq, which he opposed from the start, and to begin to address the resurgent Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he said posed a far greater danger to American security than did the chaos in Iraq.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16campaign.html?ex=1373947200&en=a10958f76e1a5d26&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
    __________________________________________________________
    I think when he presented himself as the messenger of change a lot of people inferred some changes he did not imply. I don’t think I would described those people as fools or disingenuous. I think a lot of the details are more nuanced than they appear in the middle of a campaign when impressions can matter as much as policy statements.

  5. A. price says:

    more proof that people who are resolved to hate obama will pick whatever side they have to to stand against the president.
    spkbull, what is YOUR strategy? keep in mind the people who attacked us still wish to do so and WILL if they can. Iraq was a mistake and the afghan situation may have been resolved, or at least made stable had we not gotten stuck in iraq. i bet you want to totally pull out and let the taliban take control… then into pakistan… where there are nukes…. naw those facts aren’t worth looking at because they challenge your belief that everything obama does is the work of satan.

  6. TPN says:

    For the record ‘a. price’, I am an Army Infantry Gulf War veteran, deployed to operations in northern Iraq in 1991 as part of the 6/502nd Inf Regiment (Berlin Brigade out of Germany). I served 8 years active Regular and Army Reserve including the 11th Special Forces Group, 5 years IRR, discharged in ’04 with rank of Captain.

    I don’t know about your flip ‘hippie’ remark, but yeah I grew up quite a bit seeing it all up close as a 19 year old ground soldier.

    Nonetheless, thanks for the homily.

  7. Dana says:

    If it is in our vital national interests that Afghanistan not become a safe haven for al Qaeda again, how does that cease being in our vital national interest once we pass a date on the calendar? If it is important that we defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban, why does it make sense that we would turn that job over to the Afghans if we can’t accomplish it ourselves by mid 2011?

    I’m old enough to remember a similar speech, by another President. he, too, was going to make sure our overseas allies would be able to take over the responsibility of their own defense; President Nixon calle it “Vietnamization.” Do I need to tell you how well that worked out?

    The President said:

    I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

    Yet he also said that our commitment was not open-ended, and we couldn’t let it cost too much. Is our security at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or not?

    If you watched the speech, you saw an auditorium filled with mostly silent, mostly somber Americans, because they are the ones, directly, who will be the instruments of the President’s policies. The President stood in front of that audience and told them that some of them are going to die. Well, they signed up for that, signed up to put their lives on the line for our country. But I imagine that it’s hard to tell a young man to go out and face danger just so you can meet a deadline on the calendar.

  8. anonone says:

    a.price wrote“There ARE dangerous people in the world who’s only goal is to kill people not like them”

    Yes there are. And many of them happen to be in control of the funding and command of the American military.

    TPN is right. Obomba is wrong. It is time to stop the killing. It is time to stop the horror that is war. America is an aggressive and belligerent nation – it is not peace-loving. It has been involved in aggressive actions against smaller nations for the majority of my 50+ years on the planet. It is time that liberals and conservatives wake up to that fact.

  9. jason330 says:

    Our Afghanistan policy is pure horse shit. Unless you are willing to resort to genocide, occupations like this never ever ever ever ever work. Sorry. They don’t.

    You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…

    On the other hand It was pure pig shit under bush, so things are looking up…right?

  10. anon2 says:

    Unfortunately, this administration is forced to finish the job in Afghanistan, a job the prior administration failed to do by moving forces to Iraq before al qaedi and the Taliban had been defeated in Afghanistan. The democrats are cleaning up republican messes on all fronts.

  11. A. price says:

    again, what is the alternative. you KNOW we cant jsut let them have afghanistan. does anyone want pakistan to fall to the taliban? unless we are willing to go into afghanistan and take ALL their nukes, and blueprints and materials we must stop terrorists form getting them. WHAT IS THE OTHER OPTION? there isnt one. so knee jerk anti war liberals need ot realize the president they voted for is not going to be a 100% liberal all of the time. there IS such a thing as necessary war and this is it.
    Obama is not Bush,
    Biden is not cheenee,
    Gates is not Rumsfeld.
    we have smart responsible people at the helm and it is time stop being left wing reactionaries and understand the world is not black and white.

  12. delacrat says:

    Comment by A. price on 2 December 2009 at 11:19 pm:

    again, what is the alternative. …does anyone want pakistan to fall to the taliban?

    I don’t care if Pakistan “falls” to the “taliban”.

    … and the fact that Price is over here posting, instead of over there stepping on IEDs, proves that he doesn’t really care if Pakistan “falls” to the “taliban” either.

  13. A. price says:

    screw you delcrat. you dont know me or anything about me. pakistan has nukes. do you care if people who kill without thought have nukes? im glad you aren’t an office holder. no person who claims to hate this strategy has proposed anything different. it shows you are nothing more than reactionary left wingers… no better than glenn beck.

  14. mikeb302000 says:

    My disillusionment in President Obama will certainly not drive me into the conservative camp, but it couldn’t be greater. I now believe he’s a puppet dancing to the tune called out by the Military Industrial Complex, which includes the Petroleum gangsters. It’s too bad.

  15. delacrat says:

    Comment by A. price on 3 December 2009 at 12:29 am:

    screw you delcrat. you dont know me or anything about me.

    (oooh ….. Have I found a nerve !)

    pakistan has nukes. do you care if people who kill without thought have nukes?

    FYI… Sacred Israel has nukes, China has nukes, russia, england and france have nukes. (Iran does not have nukes)and , heck WE have nukes. and we’ve actually USED nukes. ….TWICE. All of the above mentioned nuke nations have killed far, far more innocent people than has Pakistan. So should we attack them as well?

  16. a.price says:

    Our use of nukes is something we as a nation should be ashamed of forever. Unlike (sacred?..do i sense hostility?) Israel, or China, or India, France, Russia, England… etc.. Those seeking Pakistan’s nukes have stated that if they get them, they WILL use them to kill Americans, westerners, Hindus… just about everyone who doesn’t follow their right wing (yes) theocratic playbook. I NEVER advocated bombing Pakistan. I’m not some war hawk right wing nut. What i DID say was it is important for the security of the world…. not just us.. that Pakistan’s nukes be kept safe. No one…. not democrats, republicans, americans, europeans, NO ONE thinks Pakistan is capable of protecting them by them selves for very long.
    Does it just blow you mind that i can be totally against the Iraq war, but can understand the need to use force in Afghanistan as long as it is responsible? esspecially after the epic failure of the Bush regime.
    Honestly the best course of action would be for pakistan to not have nuke… or any country for that matter, but i live in reality. That will never happen, so the only way is to stop people from getting to them.
    We can make people not want to kill westerners through our actions and how we conduct ourselves overseas, but of the people who are already resolved to kill?

  17. a.price says:

    “My disillusionment in President Obama will certainly not drive me into the conservative camp, but it couldn’t be greater. I now believe he’s a puppet dancing to the tune called out by the Military Industrial Complex, which includes the Petroleum gangsters. It’s too bad.”

    mike, i guess you didn’t vote for Obama. Or you just didn’t pay attention during the campaign when he said that if elected, he would continue military operations in Afghanistan to fight organizations dedicated to not just attacking Americans, but Christians, Jews, Muslims who pray differently from them…This should not come as a surprise to anyone, but apparently not all of “generation O” attended class.

    agree 100% that iraq was about halliburton profiteering, and oil, and propaganda, and even a “daddy doesn’t love me complex” but this isnt Iraq.

  18. pandora says:

    At this point, does it even matter what these wars were all about? We’re stuck with them, and if anyone has a better idea of how to get out of this mess without making a bigger mess, I’m all ears. I don’t have an answer.

  19. a.price says:

    I am just in shock at people who put Obama in office, admiring his pragmatic intelligence are now screaming bloody murder because he is a) keeping a campaign promise, and b) approaching a war… something that should never be taken lightly… with *GAHSP* pragmatic intelligence.
    Would anyone deny that the Taliban, in all it’s variations is not a threat to global security? do you have faith in Pakistan to keep it’s nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists? This is not about invading, or nation building… the job Bush set out to do after september 11th was a good one… he messed up beyond comprehension but it doesn’t change the fact it is still left undone. so you ask what is victory?
    We were close. we had seriously compromised AlQueda and the Taliban and all that was left was to mop up and train an Afghan security force that could deal with what should have been a minor threat….. but we never finished up and never trained jack squat. All thanks to Dubya, Dick, and Donald

    Now it is Obama’s job to apparently surprise his supporters by doing EXACTLY what he said he would do. “Victory” in this war will not be killing all the Taliban, but making them un able to pose a threat to an Afghan security force… be it cops or troops.. that we must also train. Then we leave. Pretty much what was said in the speech. Pretty much what was said in 2 years of running for president.

  20. pandora says:

    You have a point, a. Another thing that surprises me is how many supporters cry over the fact that Obama didn’t go for single-payer. Hello? He didn’t run on that. Sometimes liberals/progressives are their own worst enemy.

    Patience is a virtue. And after all the work we did on getting him elected it’s quite bothersome how quick we are to throw in the towel… in less than a year.

  21. anononthisone says:

    All throughout Bush’s presidency, we liberals critcized Bush’s Iraq action while saying that he diverted us from our important mission in Afghanistan. Now, we are saying that said mission is not important. Pick one. My belief is that liberals believe that government has the ability to do good – opposite of Reagan et. al. If part of “doing good” for its people is keeping them safe from an enemy with the desire and means to kill us, then so be it. That is not to say that at the same time we should ignore the slew of domestic issues, but we must reasonably (not passionatly and rashly) address ALL issues.

  22. cassandra_m says:

    Now, we are saying that said mission is not important.

    This is not universally true. Most of us who said that the Afghanistan mission was important talked about this in terms of dealing with al-Queda remnants that needed to be dealt with. The Taliban had been destabilized enough and I suspect would not be in the business of collaborating with al-Queda or any transnational terrorist bunch for a really long time. The effort that Obama has approved is one that takes on the Taliban and the Taliban isn’t much of a threat to American interests. Frankly, I think that Joe Biden had it right on this one — let the Special Forces do what the Special Forces do and send in the drones to pick off the players that you need to. While I think that the Taliban is definitely not a force for good, it isn’t as though we are fighting back on some of the atrocities in Darfur which are even more horrific.

  23. donviti says:

    And any semi-intelligent observer over the last two to three years knew that Obama was going to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan somehow.

    Just begging for it aren’t you 🙂

    Really, that’s the defense that non-pacifist liberals are clinging to these days?

    While you are using the “semi-intelligent” argument, can I as well? Because any person with half a brain would know that 2007 is not 2009 and back in 2007 we thought that Kharzai was legit, Obama didn’t know that Kharzai’s brother was on the CIA payroll and diming out his drug lord competition to the CIA.

    Any semi-retard yes…retard- would know that there are only like 100 to 200 AQ in Afghanistan. They would know that there is no such thing as a central government in Afghanistan. They would also know how occupiers are viewed by Islamic people.

    That speach he gave was supposed to make us all forget about the past 7 years and draw on 9/11. It was Bush in sheep’s clothing.

    2007 is not 2009. And what WE know now should make any semi-intelligent person understand that Adding troops to only withdraw them in 18months is horseshit. Especially after how long it is taking us to drawdown from teh EXACT SAME strategy in Iraq.

  24. jason330 says:

    I agree with the WOP. I bet all my liberal semi-intelligence chips on Afghani-jesuschristwhatare wedoinghere-stan being one of those promises Obama didn’t intend to keep.

    Dumb ole me.

  25. donviti says:

    go figure that he fudged on ridding washington of Wall St. Influence….

  26. cassandra_m says:

    Really, that’s the defense that non-pacifist liberals are clinging to these days?

    And why not, exactly? John Tobin upthread provided a link to a debate Candidate Obama was in where he pretty much said that he would leave Iraq and finish Afghanistan. He did campaign on doing exactly this so I’m having a hard time understanding why this is a surprise to anybody. As misguided as any of us think that he was on this, it isn’t like he’s inconsistent with what he said he’d do.

  27. jason330 says:

    DV – It is crazy isn’t it? The charges of “socialism” are what really put the cherry on top of the sundae of American political lunacy.

    Cassandra,

    Speaking for myself, I thought (wrongly) that we’d be trying to leave decision making based on fantasies and dreams of magical ponies in the dustbin of history.

  28. A. price says:

    YAY if we get out RIGHT NOW, maybe the Taliban will take Pakistan by dec 2012 so they can use the nuke to carry out the mayan prophecy. I have yet to see any link backing up your claim of the endangered 200 al queda members, or a better solution to this problem.
    Jason, DV, i mean this from the bottom of my bloggin heart, i have ALWAYS respected your opinions and agree with you almost always. This time however, i sence your anti war sentiments are getting in the way of you seeing the grim reality that Obama needs to fix yet another Bush screw up. You can say get out now, but that still doesnt account for the very real danger that exists there.

  29. jason330 says:

    I’m not anti-war Pricey. I’m pro-results. I realize that Bush left Obama a shit mess, but I don;t see that “boots on the ground” is the way to get the results we want.

    Also, none of this means that I have soured on Obama. I just disagree with this policy.

  30. donviti says:

    And why not, exactly? John Tobin upthread provided a link to a debate Candidate Obama was in where he pretty much said that he would leave Iraq and finish Afghanistan. He did campaign on doing exactly this so I’m having a hard time understanding why this is a surprise to anybody. As misguided as any of us think that he was on this, it isn’t like he’s inconsistent with what he said he’d do.

    because it is complete bullshit for one. The people clinging to the logic that because he is keeping a campaign promise look like bland partisan followers. The past 2 years have changed the situation as we know it from 2007. So to act like this is 2007 and his campaign promise is still valid is lunacy and disingenuous and insulting you ones intelligence.

    It’s like trying to say that the same person buying a Pinto before he knew about the car catching fire still would after he knew it. I call bullshit.

    We know more, it’s worse. The government is a fraud. AQ is non existent and in Pakistan. We are chasing the same failed logic of Vietnam. We have been there 8 years. We surged in Iraq and look what is happening as we leave. Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq and we will have less troops. Need more?

    This notion that War is Peace sells with you guys is nauseating. Add more troops to get out. Right…sure…I’m not buying what is being sold to me.

  31. donviti says:

    Jason, DV, i mean this from the bottom of my bloggin heart, i have ALWAYS respected your opinions and agree with you almost always. This time however, i sence your anti war sentiments are getting in the way of you seeing the grim reality that Obama needs to fix yet another Bush screw up. You can say get out now, but that still doesnt account for the very real danger that exists there.

    right, and the russians screw up? and the Brittains? And Khan’s? whatever man. This isn’t anti war as much as it is same shit different day. The very real danger of what? Women in burka’s being stoned for looking at another man? Or heroin get too costly? What is the danger? AQ spreading to other countries we don’t already occupy (too late)?

    I’m glad you respect me. Feel free to read my blog 🙂 But spare me the we are in and we have to fix the mess Bullshit.

  32. donviti says:

    crud! can’t edit anymore: repost:

    And why not, exactly? John Tobin upthread provided a link to a debate Candidate Obama was in where he pretty much said that he would leave Iraq and finish Afghanistan. He did campaign on doing exactly this so I’m having a hard time understanding why this is a surprise to anybody. As misguided as any of us think that he was on this, it isn’t like he’s inconsistent with what he said he’d do.

    because it is complete bullshit for one. The people clinging to the logic that because he is keeping a campaign promise look like bland partisan followers. The past 2 years have changed the situation as we know it from 2007. So to act like this is 2007 and his campaign promise is still valid is lunacy and disingenuous and insulting to ones intelligence.

    It’s like trying to say that the same person buying a Pinto before he knew about the car catching fire would still buy it after he knew it caught fire. I call bullshit.

    We know more than from 2007 and it’s WAY worse. The government is a fraud. AQ is non existent and in Pakistan. We are chasing the same failed logic of Vietnam. We have been there 8 years. We surged in Iraq and look what is happening as we leave. Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq and we will have less troops. Need more? Oh, did I say their government is A COMPLETE FRAUD????? How are we going to rectify that by July 11? I know, wave the O-wand and viola! new Government in 18 months after they have never had one since….ummmm….NEVER.

    This notion that War is Peace sells with you guys is nauseating. Add more troops to get out. Right…sure…I’m not buying what is being sold to me.

  33. John Tobin says:

    DV,
    So you agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson?:
    Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

    I guess the real question is when does consistency become “foolish consistency”

  34. Rebecca says:

    You might want to read this op-ed piece from this morning’s NYT(12/4). Here’s a taste . . .

    “Progress depends, as General McChrystal seems to recognize, on reaching accommodations with the tribes from the bottom up, not the top down. The smartest surge will be one of cash payments to local leaders. You can buy a lot of Afghans for a small fraction of the cost of deploying a Marine company.”

    The whole piece can be found at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04hastings.html?ref=opinion

  35. cassandra_m says:

    This notion that War is Peace sells with you guys is nauseating. Add more troops to get out. Right…sure…I’m not buying what is being sold to me.

    And here you are again — making up positions that no one here is even arguing just so that you can get your rage on. Which I’m calling bullshit on. It’s stupid and disrepectful. It’s bad enough to have to deal with the stupid virus from the local wingnuts.

  36. donviti says:

    Cassy,

    I’m not making up positions. these are your and this sites positions. You are fine with an increase in troops b/c it was a campaign promise. He is escalating a war to achieve peace is he not? There is little there to miss in my assessment and statement.

    your knee jerk reaction to answer any and everything I write is so predictable.

    . It’s stupid and disrepectful. It’s bad enough to have to deal with the stupid virus from the local wingnuts

    You don’t have to deal with it at all. You enjoy it and get off on it. It makes you feel superior to type long thoughtful diatribes explaining why you are right. Simply move on like the adult you think you are and ignore it.

    or sink to my level and engage. It’s up to you entirely.

  37. DV,

    There is no “site position” on the war or any other issue. Each person has his/her own opinion over here.

    I think my position is that no one should be shocked at escalation in Afghanistan because Obama did mention this as a candidate. He’s not going back on a campaign promise.

    As for the troop build-up, I guess I can see his reasoning but I don’t think it’s going to do any good. I stuggle with the question – is Afghanistan completely unwinnable. If it is, we should get out sooner rather than later. I do recognize that we have strategic interests in Af-Pak so the best I can do is “it’s complicated.”

  38. donviti says:

    fair enough 🙂

  39. a.price says:

    oh good. i hate when mommy and daddy fight