The good news from tonight's speech is that Obama seems serious about wanting to get out of Afghanistan. I actually believe him. He recognizes that the costs are too high for an open-ended commitment. In short: he is a "reluctant warrior."
Looking at the situation in Afghanistan today, he has judged that the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal today would be unacceptable. He is hoping that an Afghanistan surge will provide America the opportunity to leave without everything going to hell in a hand basket in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't really buy this line of thinking--the fear of a resurgent Taliban/Al Qaeda threatening the United States I think is overblown.
But I do understand why making a decision to leave now is so unpalatable, especially when we have a new team of military leaders who have a new strategy that they say will work. Pulling the plug even before they have an opportunity to succeed, and risking pulling the plug and then potentially watching things fall apart, would be a very difficult thing to do. The right thing to do, perhaps, but very difficult.
Of course, the new strategy probably won't work, and that is where the bad news come in. If and when the Afghan surge doesn't work, what speech will Obama make in 2011 when we are supposed to be bringing the troops home? If the situation does not improve, does Obama have the guts to pull out in 2011 and, in essence, admit defeat? Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is where I would like to see some clarification in the word "Defeat", or more accurately, I would like to see the administration's definition of a "Win." Let us know now what our goals are, and don't hinge those goals on the whims of unpredictable tribal leaders or foreign troops that we have no control over. Of course this may be a bad idea militarily, but I would like to be able to say when we pull out that we did everything within reason to stabilize and improve the quality of life for the good people of Afghanistan. And in the future maybe we can show some creativeness in battling "terrorism" in non-military ways.
the only problem with defining "victory" in a concrete way is it makes it hard to say we achieved it if things don't go as planned. with a vague definition, there is at least the Vietnam option of: no matter how bad things are going, simply "declare victory and go home." under that scenario "victory" may very well mean "defeat," but at least we get to "go home."
that said, i very much would like to know, more specifically, what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. i'm just not so sure we want to label it "victory."
I think the word "Victory" itself is tainted in this context. I would prefer to see a set of goals that cannot be undone.
1. Provided x amount of assistance to local provinces (schools, wells, infrastructure)
2. Trained x amount of soldiers and provided them with arms to protect the citizens of Afghanistan.
3. Provided instruction and materials to farmers to grow crops for the people instead of poppy for the Taliban.
etc.
It puts us in a position of accepting credit for good work done and puts responsibility on the people of Afghanistan to continue the good work on their own. I know there's a lot more to it than just that. I know there's a war going on too. My brother-in-law serving in Iraq said something profound to me - "I came here to fight for my country. Instead I'm guarding contractors and training soldiers. So, I guess I'm fighting for the Iraqi's, for their success."
Post a Comment