 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
March 29, 2009
By: AVOIDING SLOW-MOTION ESCALATION IN AFGHANISTAN... Barack Obama's appearance on Face The Nation provided the first opportunity to quiz him on his new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af-Pak, in the preferred foreign policy nomenclature. He categorically ruled out the kind of practices that would greatly expand the war, while simultaneously characterizing the mission of disrupting and dismantling Al Qaeda safe havens, most of which are in Pakistan. As he carries out a retooled strategy in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's leaders before pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country. One wonders if that sovereignty extends to the continued drone attacks on suspected Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, which under this construction Pakistan's leaders must have knowledge of. What Obama appears to be saying is that he will offer tools to the Pakistanis in exchange for them carrying out the goal of helping the international community minimize the extremist threat inside their borders. In addition, Obama rejected the premise pushed by those seeking a maximalist strategy that more troops always equals more stability. OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation. […] I have to note that I find this Af-Pak strategy decidedly mixed. So much of it depends on the participation of the Pakistani government, and yet they have not been trustworthy to this point about going after militant elements in the tribal regions. Obama seems mindful of the dangers of mission creep and a slow escalation, and yet there's no articulated exit strategy to deal with the possibility that the Afghan government is too corrupt and unpopular to sustain itself against a popular insurgency. I appreciate the more comprehensive civilian-military strategy that understands more troops will not complete the job by themselves, yet there has been an explosion of civilian population-inflaming airstrikes inside Pakistan, the very actions that necessitated additional troops in Afghanistan, according to some. Obama praised the work of the Afghan National Army today, calling them "effective fighters" with "great credibility," and yet credible reports have shown the army to be ill-disciplined and addicted to drugs at rates of 75% or more. Afghanistan has been perilously neglected over the past 7 years, and this strategy may represent the best chance to turn around flagging fortunes. But the more you look at the intractable problems that exist in the region, the harder it is to find a vision of success. —dday 5:43 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)Comments
There's no right answers for this situation. There's just less wrong ones. Pulling the troops out now, could hurt Obama politically and the country physically later if Afghanistan falls apart and Al Qaeda gains safeground. I'm not a fan of military action in Afghanistan, as I don't think it'll necessarily succeed, but if the troops just focused on hunting Al Qaeda and they ignore the taliban or use them purely as a tool for gaining information, then I have no problem with the military in that area. Posted by: Chris on March 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINKEssentially, to stabilize Afghanistan you'll have to turn it over to the ISI. Don't want to do that? Then you'll have to dismantle Pakistan. Because the ISI are at war with India, which they see as an interminable, existential conflict, and they view Afghanistan as a natural proxy theatre. Posted by: alan on March 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINKThis could be the opening gambit of a "carrot-and-stick" policy; the carrot being direct contact and the provision of "tools"---and the stick being a subtle hint-or-two at the only two words on the planet that the Karzai government might actually fear: Regime Change." A wholesale expulsion/replacement of a corrupt system with something that truly embraces transparency, legitimacy, and the denouncement of all corruption would be a perfect foil to (a) the insurgent/terrorist network, (b) the huge illicit drug trade, and (c) the GWB-43 rendition of the Soviet puppet-regime that held sway prior to the Taliban seizing Afghanistan the first go-around. Posted by: Steve W. on March 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKNever forget that we could have dealt with Af-Pak much better if we hadn't diverted into Iraq in March 2003. So what Bush-neo/cons wanted essentially ruined or complicated at best, our national security - and they like to complain about the rest of us being unpatriotic, why do you hate America, etc. (even as they now plot to undermine respect for the Presidency, the government, with kooky "resistance" talk in time of war - isn't that treason?) Posted by: Neil B ♠ on March 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINKNot only does Pakistan have knowledge of the drone attacks, but some of them are being flown out of Pakistani airbases. Their protests are for domestic consumption. dday-- I think Obama measures 'Success' not as containing or creating a new nation or ideology, but rather creating a new one but rather simply undermining the motives and presence of the Taliban is. His goals seem realistic and indeed quite different from those Bush held. Posted by: Insanity on March 29, 2009 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINKoops--meant to say Obama does NOT seek to create a new ideology or nation or democracy...but rather has much more defined goals... Posted by: Insanity on March 29, 2009 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINKFor the first time in my life a war I can cheer... NYT: Pakistan and Afghan Taliban Close Ranks In their written statement, decorated with crossed swords, the three Pakistani Taliban leaders reaffirmed their allegiance to Mullah Omar, as well as the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. This is no time for wishy-washy liberal angst. This isn't the USSR again and Stalin isn't a so-so guy who is going to wither away and leave a utopia. We are talking: Vermin. Zombies. World's Worst Conservatives. Taliban. Al Qaeda. It is their way or they shoot you in the face, cut off your pecker and stuff it in your mouth. Got that? They should never be allowed to rule anything again. Ever. Our obligation is to kill them faster than they can breed. We must build up the Afghan military. We must recruit the world in this effort. We must invest in Pakistan and Afghan infrastructure. We must populate their skies with drones. Whatever it takes. However long it takes. Civilization can afford this investment in its future. Barack was right when he said in the Rachel Maddow interview: Military power in Afghanistan is necessary but not sufficient. The necessary part is now. We are sending our soldiers to the good fight. The Orcs are amassing. Time to get behind our guys and cheer for scalps and Taliban shrunken heads. This is the battle we want. Think of it: A chance to war against the world's worst conservatives pricks! These guys are like Russ Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on steroids. And they are begging for a battle on their home turf, not ours. Crickey. Raise my taxes please! The sectarian nastiness about to hit Iraq will be a challenge. At any rate, Af-Pak is also about oil, pipelines and the industrial complex cities being built along the gulf in Pakistan. It's all a massive mess, completely Gordian, and a sword won't do the trick. Posted by: SteinL on March 29, 2009 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINKWith our limited resources, seems to me we should have some sort of logical priorities. http://www.democrats.us/editorial/hayes091806.shtml Our number one security problem is the corruption in Washington on enforcement of immigration laws. As many as 60,000 illegal aliens from terrorist countries many have entered through Mexico (not to mention the Mexican drug cartels in the US). We're really dependent on bin Laden for security. He seems happy enough to let us bankrupt ourselves from fear. Number two is chamberpot immigration. I've nothing against Moslems, but it hardly seems the time to take in massive numbers. We'll end up like England. Do we need enclaves practicing Sharia law? Paramilitary Moslems? Zealots who put religion above our first amendment? Number three is Congressional rubber stamping of all things Israel. Our nation should stand for justice and fairness, not for the Israel lobby. Posted by: Luther on March 30, 2009 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINKAm I the only one who has apostrophes rendering incorrectly on this blog? Is there something wrong with my computer? The carat-a, C with lines through it, and the Trademark ummm trademark thingie triptich in place of the apostrophes are making it impossible to read. Posted by: Hazy on March 30, 2009 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
