Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
In keeping with my abstinence from daily blogging, I will not have any in-depth comments on the president's speech tonight or tomorrow morning, but I was struck by President Obama's reference to Eisenhower. His words:
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
I was riding back from an event today with a retired Marine Corps officer friend of mine when we started discussing Eisenhower's guidance to Project Solarium:
I do not know if President Eisenhower would have agreed with the current president's direction on Afghanistan, but I think he would have certainly recognized the considerations behind his decision-making process.
Somehow I knew you would comment right after the speech...looking forward to your other thoughts, if you have time in the future to post them
If you're still responding to commentary...
Would you care to offer your thouhts on whether there is any coherence at all between the president's putting an 18-month window on the beginning of withdrawals of forces, the task as you heard him outline it, and the strategy he presented for completing it? I don't tend to go out of my way to concur with John McCain or Fox News, but I am having a hard time seeing what is worth doing over there that can be done in 18 months. Granted, the promise to begin withdrawals doen not equal the promise to begin what will be a complete withdrawal. But doesn't it merely raise expectations of those who want that to be what it is? Given that the president campaigned on this decision and his supporters seemed not able to grasp that this was coming, why make it even more difficult for them? Or does he really mean that we're going to start getting out in full in mid-2011? I'd be surprised.
The point about not providing a blank check to Karzai I do take. But I don't really get the impression he much cares one way or t'other.
@ Exum
''I do not know if President Eisenhower would have agreed with the current president's direction on Afghanistan, but I think he would have certainly recognized the considerations behind his decision-making process.''
Fill 'yer boots man! The above statement was so vacuous that I thought it was written by a member of Congress :).
On a more serious note back in 2004 Bob Shrum crafted the idea that Bush took his eyes off the 'real' war in Afghanistan by invading Iraq. It was very effective politically, But what started out as a political zinger has, after five years, turned into foreign policy.
Eisenhower’s 1952 campaign is the first one that I can remember. I was six years old at the time, wore my “I Like Ike” button like all the other school kids, watched the conventions on television, listened to the speeches and, when Eisenhower was elected, he became “my” president and continued in that role until Kennedy came along. At that time, I became much more galvanized by Kennedy than by Nixon, but I never really forgot about Eisenhower. Now, in my mid-60s, I can look back and honestly say that Eisenhower is by far the all-around best president that I’ve seen in my lifetime. Like all others who have occupied that office, he was by no means perfect, but his sober attention to the affairs of state and his desire and ability to forge bi-partisan consensus, particularly in foreign policy, is something I truly admire.
I was reading Michael Moore's webpage. He wrote a letter to the President that began with ''Mr. Obama, do you really want to be a war President?'' Maybe it's just the president's style, but I don't think that he wants to be a war President. I think that he should have just pulled out blamed it on Bush and called it a day.
If Grant came back into vogue a few years ago as the example of the General who can grind it out over the long haul, Ike's example of finding the right mix between strategy, politics and managing coalitions as a General, and later his longer term view of the Cold War extending from the bayonets along the Iron Curtain to the economic and miltitary industrial complex of the US (though lets forget about the overeliance on nukes to the detriment of conventional forces under his watch) will probably make him a popular figure to compare our present crop of leaders up against again. The holistic approach to war if you will. Eventually Ike went to end the war in Korea, I'm sure President Obama would like to do something similiar only he doesn't have the luxury of just drawing a line on the map for his war.
@ Mike D - I do acknowledge that you get respect, but you would be ill-advised to expect my cash and jewelry.
@ Wayne Z - Well said.
It is dumb to commit additional troops and say at the start they will be pulled out in 18 months. Especially when the enemy can retreat to safe sanctuaries in Pakistan.
Congrats http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_coindinistas
Agree with Ike's 3 points to Solarium, but how is that #3 working out for the current administration? I am really dissappointed that they ran on the goal of working more closely with our "traditional allies" but don't seem interested in even trying.
Visitor @ 12:11 am-
WTF? You talkin' to me?
Congrats, you got the war you wanted but I just hope you don't hide behind your new "no longer daily blogging" shield. It would be lame to suddenly duck out of the public sphere you so eagerly used to advocate for escalation the second that the escalation occured. You're reputation is linked to the fate of this campaign. I sure hope it goes well.
Exum at Blogger DeTox...
"...I don't have a problem. YOU have a problem. I'm in control..I can stop anytime...NO DON'T TAKE MY INTERWEBS AWAY!! Please just one more post...YOU BASTARDS!! I won't forget this...." Shakes. Tears... threats, snarls...
As far as the speech. Nice. Hope he means it. I think this will change though. Uh huh.
I think Wayne Z and Buck Smith are right. However let's see if we can let go of tar baby in 18 mos. HMM. That would be Summer of 2011....so troops back home essentially on all fronts in time for 2012 race? Let's see that happen. Maybe it will.
Obama did not have a choice, no matter which president's words he referenced.
It is not about al-qaeda, never has been. It's a tribal thing.
Whoa!
Me, I want to talk to the political handlers of this "great country of ours."
You don't know from nothing if you can't figure out how bad your panties are showing.
You think you've got it all covered? No.
And you are not ready for what will happen when those pants catch on fire.
"Obama did not have a choice, no matter which president's words he referenced"
Not true, he is the President and CinC. Obama is using the same political calculus to make this decision that LBJ did on Viet Nam. He does want te political cost of pulling out or drawing way down. He does not want the political of fighting to win. It's a bad decision.
#2 is really striking (and true!) and shows how far the political climate has changed.
Buck, you're right on all accounts.
Here is the problem. It is bad to stay or leave. Stay, we die and pay. Leave, it is business as usual. I am OK with business as usual. Heck, it is their country. It is globalization that is the devil in the detail.
It would be nice if he actually meant it about acting within our economic means. The cost of the Afghan war is a drop in the bucket compared to the stimulus and other spending projects. Meanwhile, the rate of increase of the unemployment rate (not just the rate itself) is still rising, which means not only are we not creating jobs, we're still losing them.
I love that paintball "against" Hezbollah (in the Ricks piece). One wonders what Ricks typed first, then backspaced over.
Guys, it's over. It's done. It's finished. Stick a fork in it. If you have the misfortune to be posted to Afghanistan, please do everything possible to keep yourself and your friends safe. If you don't have that misfortune, try to avoid it.
Also, you can go to Amazon and order a copy of Wolfgang Schivelbusch's The Culture of Defeat. Yer gonna need it...
OK, so how does the enemy respond? How able are we to anticipate his response? Will we have the air as well as ground assets in place to meet his response?
Let's talk about the next year or so of the war. The Taliban have been on the offensive in Afghanistan, while the Pakistani Taliban has been on the defensive first in Swat, and later in N. Waziristan. American reinforcements enter Afghanistan beginning early next year, the logistical pipeline supplying them starts carrying more traffic, the new forces start deploying. Then what?
The Afghan Taliban have released an official response to the speech:
Afghan Taliban's Official Response to Obama's Surge Speech
Thomas, a little balance would be appreciated. Where is the recitation of the latest statements by the jihadists of the West: the religious extremists of the Christian and Jewish communities?
No funding for such a site? Why is that?
Glad to see you're back Andrew. Don't think I'm getting all soft on you now....
Perhaps President Obama's speech writer one day (two decades from now) will make the statement.... "Can anyone even remember now what Obama did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Afghanistan, brought home the troops, ended the wars in the Mideast, opened relations with Cuba and Iran, started the first nuclear weapons treaty with North Korea, won a Nobel Peace Prize and started a National Health Care Program. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?"
Looking back in history, Ben Stein said: "Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POWs, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?"
I think if we take a real hard look at our current President's speech; who wrote, edited it and gave advice / notes, that probably less than 50% was contributed by him. Maybe even less.... Perhaps he didn't even contribute besides just reading the document. You said that he made reference to Eisenhower? Most likely that speech was written by Emmet J. Hughes.
The funny thing about foreign policy, speeches and our government's affairs.....many times those who are at a GS 11 / 12 or FS 3 / 4 level write speeches for Secretary's, President's and Ambassadors. Almost laughable, but this is the way things run sometimes in Government. Stein was 24 years old and writing speeches for a man twice his age, who was also Commander and Chief.
Does anyone know who wrote President Obama's speech that he read on TV today?
Texas Thunder - OUT.
Maybe it was this 27 year old kid?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/barack-obama-inauguration-us...
Looks like Favreau has a pattern of borrowing ideas for former Presidential speech writer's and even focused his studies on periods of crisis.
Margaret, on-topic posts would be appreciated. This thread is about Afghanistan. Grind your personal axes somewhere else.
Margaret,
Who are you speaking of, and how many people do they have, how many failed states or failing states do they have sanctuary in, how many states support them with money, covert aid, intel, training...how many people have they killed, how many planes, ships bought down..how many beheadings...etc, etc...
You are conflating Kodiak Bears with gnats. Except in this ecosystem, there are many more bears than gnats.
And it is a personal axe.
I suspect we just turned what could have been no more than an embarrassment, into a disaster. The entire strategy process was a joke, as illustrated by the way the 80,000 option got pre-eliminated directly from the start as politically uncomfortable, disappearing down the memory hole never to even be considered (and let it be said I'm actually even more strongly against that one than I am this one, it just illustrates how bankrupt this process was going in). Even Biden's so called alternative was simply a continuation of the current strategy, at more or less current troop numbers. Two months of deflection and hot air and they settle on the same conventional solution they had going in, with some figuring around the margins, mostly according to domestic partisan politics.
Big-picture strategy? Hah. Our policy process is a joke.
I'm eagerly anticipating Londonstani's next Pakistan Dispatch...
I think it was a very good speech. The "withdrawal date" is a joke, but I dont think it will have any serious impact on affairs on the ground.
IF the US/NATO forces are seen to be taking the initiative and going after the taliban and have a plan for all aspects of the problem, people will see that and react accordingly. If they seem to be just treading water, people will see that too and react accordingly. If a deal is being made to allow Pakistan to reinsert its proxies into Afghanistan in exchange for an orderly withdrawal, we will see evidence soon enough. If no deal has been made and Pakistan is pressured to drop its proxies and help NATO pummel them before 2011, people will see that too. There is only so much you can do with PR, the rest is actual work (and kinetics?)
The salafist/jihadist insurgency will continue and nation states will have to fight against it because it is not compatible with the existing international system. Some states will take a while to figure this out. If this works, Pakistan will have chosen to dump these people and will be getting help in its fight. If this does not work, the US will suffer a setback, but will be able to cut its losses and move on, but Pakistan will be at the center of a much bigger mess than what exists now and will have to figure things out after dragging its people through unnecessarily bitter experiences. But what the hell, that wont be the first time history takes the roundabout way...
Thank you, Zathras and Elf, for your responses.
To recap: Thomas posted the latest bulletin from "View from the Occident", with the remark: The Afghan Taliban have released an official response to the speech: Afghan Taliban's Official Response to Obama's Surge Speech.
My comment: Thomas, a little balance would be appreciated. Where is the recitation of the latest statements by the jihadists of the West: the religious extremists of the Christian and Jewish communities?
No funding for such a site? Why is that?
Zathras replied: "Margaret, on-topic posts would be appreciated. This thread is about Afghanistan. Grind your personal axes somewhere else."
Elf agreed, and added context.
By which one understands that here we are supposed to be debating what strategy or tactics might be most successful in winning the war in Afghanistan. That is the context in which Zathras and Elf wish to see discourse continue. I consider my comment to be relevant to Afghanistan, although the tactics and the strategy I address are different from the focus preferred by my critics.
Reading a wide variety of news sources exposes one to a perspective somewhat different from what might be considered the common perspective in the U.S.: That what we in the US and Europe consider 'religious tolerance' really is tolerance of select religions, including tolerance of extreme religious views aired on mainstream media sources.
They are the extreme views of the religious majorities of our countries. Those religions which do not have substantial representation in our populations are not viewed with equal tolerance. Instead they are castigated, and stigmatized, because of extreme views expressed by some of their members.
When someone addresses violence toward an individual using Christian symbolism, as recently was done toward Andrew Exum, they are condemned. However, that we currently are in a war originally fueled by just such extreme views toward the Islamic faith is observable only by reviewing newspaper and magazine articles that have appeared in the years since 9/11/2001.
It is difficult to respond to the accusation of being off topic without a compilation of information like that provided by the many people who study Islamic jihad. I desire greater balance in the study of religious extremism because I consider it necessary in order to understand how and why we continue to be faced with a war against people toward whom we, as a united country, have a limited grievance. 'How' has been discussed here. Why appears to be a topic regarding which similar discussion is discouraged.
'They' have a grievance toward us. It is one I consider to be rooted in a natural reaction to the expression of antagonism from those who view Islam as an enemy. There are many Christians and Jews who do view Islam as an enemy, and they are people with political will and power. They are people whose views we find expressed in our mainstream media. They are people, nationals and bi-nationals of our country and its allies, who desire war against other nations wich they see, and depict, as representing Islam.
We face a challenge which President Obama has stated his intention to resolve, within a limited time frame, by establishing a limited objective - the elimination of al-Quae'da. But if the antagonism toward Islam is allowed to continue unabated, continues to be tolerated, continues to serve as a cause for others to fear their own annihilation, then the effort to eliminate al-Quae'da is futile. That antagonism is the most significant reason for al-Quae'da's continued existence.
So I ask for greater balance.
Good point. Who wrote Pres Obama's speech?
Looks like Favreau has a pattern of borrowing ideas for former Presidential speech writer's and even focused his studies on periods of crisis.
Man studies relevant information before making decision SHOCK!
@Visitor - who must be Margaret -- OK thanks for answer.
I don't think the USA has an historical antagonism towards Islam. It is not the majority religion of the culture, the founding culture or the civilization we sprang from, but I can't find historical antagonism going back farther than the past 3 decades at most, beginning really no farther back than the Iranian revolution and the seizure of the embassy.
Even then it was not antipathy towards Islam, but anger towards the perceived crazies that seized our embassy, violating not only diplomatic laws, long established treaties but sacred customs and the ancient Law of Nations going back millennia. This was followed by more bewildered head shaking in Lebanon and during the terrorist acts that followed, but Islam as the antagonist is still not mentioned.
Islam prior to the last couple of decades was exotic, far away, not understood and really not considered as a factor. I was taking Middle Eastern History/Political Science in the mid 80's and while of course Islam is covered as the central part of the history of the region it was not taught as the central factor in the troubles. What was covered was politics, the history of the particular nation state or group, recent history as regards the then US/USSR struggle and colonial and post colonial history. To the extent religion was regarded as a primary motivating factor that would have been seen as fringe and fanatical.
You can still see the mindset of the last paragraph is dominant amongst most of the Western scholars and indeed this blogs namesake. AM is almost religious in his ignoring of religion and faith as a factor. Not to be blamed, most of academe and most of our elites and certainly our governing elites have no experience with faith being a pillar or center of life. That's why evidence to the contrary is ignored, political and economic factors are paramount, and if pressed real but insignificant or imaginably significant Christian zeal against Islam is dragged out as the strawman to attack. Because no committed secularist can face the return of God as a force in man's affairs.
While we're channeling Eisenhower.."Dwight David Eisenhower, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith -- and I don't care what it is.."
I'm agnostic before we stray onto false paths.
Prior to 9/11 you just don't see either more than a dim realization that "Islam" as we have come to understand it even exists, never mind strong hostility to it. Post 9/11...uh..er..be happy Christian notions of forgiveness and the English sense of justice and fair play are so deeply embedded in America's DNA.
Margaret, if you study not us but the founding documents and holy men of Salafi Jihad you'd find that they begin about the 9th century, not in response to any grievance except the stalling, defeat of Islam as an expansionist military power, and the re-emergence of other powers in particular Byzantium - or the Romans as they were called - as the center of the known world. That's also when the particularly nasty and misogynistic strain of Sunna thought becomes the dominant and recognized Koran and Hadith.
In short, their grievance is they were not having the world submit to them. It was frustrating in the 9th century, it must be beyond maddening now with the Islamic World so terribly behind the West on every front, when from the 8th and 9th centuries until the decline of the Ottomans it was a beacon of learning and culture rivaled only by - Constantinople.
In short, their main "grievance" is that Dar Al Harb -the House of War - isn't yet literally prostrate at their feet.
While they can drag the brief dalliance with colonial rule by the French and British of two centuries into it - as a distraction - we can point to four centuries of Turkish depredations in the Balkans alone. We can also point to outrages, piracy and slave/murder raids against Christendom and then the West from the 7th century to now, indeed Islam has now and has always had bloody borders with any different faith.
While 9/11 and since have indeed stirred up strong anti-Muslim feelings in some American Christian quarters, it's not a dominant factor in our Foreign Policy. Secularism is ingrained in our government, and non-sectarianism is a pillar of the founding documents (although atheism is not).
Had a chat with a British friend of mine about my family's European heritage. End of the discussion went like this, "that's the problem with you Yanks, always worried about the past, I am just worried about where I am going". What he said was true for himself, at that time, and became true for both of us as our jobs were off-shored to the Asian rim. Little Wall Street wisdom, past results do not guarantee future returns.
It is about Globalization. We can spend time surfing the past, we need to put 99.9% of our effort into the future.
Timely Wall Street Journal article.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125978649644673331.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDD...
#1) Obama did not have a choice. Take your pick Oil, middle east politics, Iran Nukes, 9/11, Opium funding. If you do not like what he did, sit in your house, in the dark, get rid of your car, grow your food in the back yard (don't grow hybrids), barter and forget the dollar, stick you head in a comfortable place and hope for a better day.
#2) Wish I could predict the future 100% , 100% of the time. Life would be easy.
#3) It is a small world isn't it? We have a lot more ways to reach out to each other than in the 60's.
I liked Ike,good President. Good vision, I think he made the past and saw the future.
If Iran wants nukes, I think we should rack 'em, stack 'em, launch 'em and arm 'em. Then ask Ahadinejad if he still wants them......mid-flight. If Iran is still around, then we can get out of their business, if they will get out of ours. It would fix Afghanistan and Isreal too, Iran is helping them. Back to reality......
In my real world, I would like to the US in Afghanistan as a friendly nation helping to switch from opium production to wheat and food so the people can feed and heal themselves. That would be a nice future and an honorable exit. Got to crack eggs to make an omelette.
Rosen from Hemland:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.1/rosen.php
OT, but a question: I have seen the number 80 of folks killed in the May 7th Hezbollah demo in Beirut quite a few places on the net now. Is that an accurate casualty count?
Kus eh shir, "a pussy's peom" (aka BS)
Good article. Looks like we all have a long journey to fit into the next 18 months. Hope we are friends at the end.
Thanks, once again, for the response.
Looks like Favreau has a pattern of borrowing ideas for former Presidential speech writer's and even focused his studies on periods of crisis. "Man studies relevant information before making decision SHOCK!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but this same young and inexperienced 27 year old man never served in the military, has had no formal military training or instruction and studied information and borrowed materials from a time period concerning the Chosǒn chǒnjaeng "Joseon war". I'm sure you realize then this was a "proxy war". This was a prototype for several sphere-of-influence wars / police actions that later followed Korea. Relevant information? So you're saying Afghanistan (right now) is a proxy war? Do you think Afghanistan will last as long as Korea?
You better add it to the list then buddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars
Wow. You nearly went a whole 24 hours without posting.
http://addictionrecoverybasics.com/
Step 1. Admit you have a problem, and place yourself in the hands of a higher power. No, not the internet.
A Ninja should have more self control.
@elf: Excellent comment at 6:28AM.
Elf, I think you proved my point by focusing on the activity of Salafi Jihad without comparing it to the activity of sects of the Christian, or any other, religion.
In my opinion, analysis which fails to use comparative methodology is inadequate for arriving at dependable conclusions.
The comment at 3:43 am was mine.
Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941
Requiem in pacem
The comment at 3:43 am was mine.
Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941
Requiem in pacem
Re: proved your point...
"Elf, I think you proved my point by focusing on the activity of Salafi Jihad without comparing it to the activity of sects of the Christian, or any other, religion. In my opinion, analysis which fails to use comparative methodology is inadequate for arriving at dependable conclusions."
Margaret, did you see my earlier comment that it's comparing gnats to Kodiak Bears, except in this ecosystem the Bears (Salafi Jihadis) outnumber the gnats (killer Christians) ? May I add by several orders of magnitude? Then there's the question of quasi nation state and nation state quasi support, hosting, arming, training, funding?
OK. I guess we can compare the two more than I have done. Please apply comparative methodology to the two cases, because other than the snapshots above, I cannot. There's not enough data on the Christian side unless you want to introduce time warps back to the Crusades (themselves a counterattack/reaction), on the other side there's overwhelming data with lots more coming. So by all means open source hack away, one and all!! Show me up. I can't come up with a valid comparison.
Eric Rudolph/Army of God compared to: UBL and A.Q. It's just too lopsided.
That's like comparing a two bit street gang with the Third Reich. But if I missed something, lemme know.
"IMO analysis which fails to use comparative methodology is inadequate for arriving at dependable conclusions."
You can't mean that as a blanket statement in every case, surely?
But in any case I can't make a comparison without going back in time, if not to the Crusades than to the 30 Years War.
Add your comment