Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The Left and Afghanistan (Updated)
Michael Cohen has a great essay in The New Republic on the American Left and Afghanistan. Michael's own policy preferences cloud his essay somewhat, but his diagnosis of the problem and its consequences is spot-on: the American Left has failed to develop and market a coherent policy alternative to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. As a result, the American Left is frozen out of high-level policy discussions on U.S. policy in the region.
I question Michael's assumption that counterinsurgency cannot be a valid policy option for progressives, but I think he is correct that the American Left has been largely ineffective at forming a coherent policy alternative and then selling that alternative. Case in point is the Center for American Progress (CAP), at which several of my friends work. Says CAP's Brian Katulis:
[The progressives] were caught flat-footed in the face of the COIN public relations campaign, which came from the military, some civilians, and an echo chamber of think tank analysts and bloggers who played a cheerleading role rather than critically examining U.S. interests and policy options in Afghanistan.
This is disingenuous, of course. Brian and other analysts at CAP -- the most influential think tank on the American Left, with many alumni in the Obama Administration and a fantastic public relations staff -- have published extensively on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their 2007 report, "Strategic Reset," was a major report which argued -- contra the Surge -- for a phased withdrawal to take place in Iraq within one year from the report's publication date in June 2007. (Okay, in retrospect, that was a really bad idea.) But the problem with "Strategic Reset" and other papers is that not only did they fail to persuade anyone in Bush Administration, they also failed to persuade the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The Obama campaign's ultimate stance on Iraq, for example, looked a lot more like products being produced by CFR, Brookings, CNAS, and other think tanks in the center and center-left than it did anything produced by the Left. By late 2008, the Obama campaign's position on Iraq largely mirrored that of the Bush Administration!
Look, when the University of Nebraska stomped my beloved University of Tennessee in the 1998 Orange Bowl, it wasn't because of foul play -- it was because Tennessee was simply out-blocked and out-tackled by Nebraska. Anyone watching at home could see this.
Similarly, forming and marketing policy alternatives is the blocking and tackling of think tanks and policy-oriented intellectual life. Failing to form a coherent policy alterative and to market that alternative does not mean that you were overcome by an "echo chamber" of "cheerleaders" who -- unlike you, of course -- failed to critically examine U.S. interests and policy options. It just means that you fought a policy debate and lost it.
Cohen and I are in violent agreement that our policy debates would be enriched by the formulation of coherent policy alternatives on Afghanistan -- from left, right and center. If the current strategy fails, we will need alternatives and branch plans, and I have argued that for counterinsurgency to be relevant and effective, it needs careful criticism. But for the American Left to itself be relevant, it has to form ideas that it can then market to the public and policy-makers. Thus far, it has failed to do that on Afghanistan.
UPDATE: I've gotten some really good reactions to this post. I think it -- and Michael Cohen's article -- have struck a nerve. One reader wrote to suggest that one reason so many prominent members of the American Left have been reluctant to criticize the president on Afghanistan is because they are still hoping for jobs in the administration. Another reader wrote in to defend "Strategic Reset," arguing that while its central arguments were never ultimately persuasive, the report was important because it shifted the debate and staked out a position within Democratic policy arguments. Another reader -- a University of Tennessee graduate -- asked why I had to dredge up such horrible memories of the 1998 Orange Bowl and reminded me that Tennessee won the NCAA championship the very next year. (At the Fiesta Bowl, with me in attendence. They won by out-blocking and out-tackling Florida State, as I recall.)
Some folks at the Center for American Progress were upset with the post, and I understand: no one, myself included, likes to get called out by name in a post. Brian Katulis was particularly upset, and I can understand since I basically said his papers and positions on Iraq and Afghanistan had not been particularly effective. This is like telling an NBA shooting guard that his jump shot sucks, and Brian is a smart and serious scholar who I disagree with but respect. So I'm sorry about calling him out, though I thought it useful to illustrate the dynamic Cohen was describing. (And I thought and continue to think his quote was pretty disingenuous.) Another scholar at the Center for American Progress was upset that he was lumped in "the American Left," and I should have included a disclaimer that not everyone at CAP -- an organization for which I have a lot of respect -- is a card-carrying member of the Left. I understand they are an ideologically diverse and wonderful crew over there, though I am probably not alone in thinking CAP could reasonably be described as of the Left or liberal (in the 21st Century American definition of the latter word). I took what I perceived to be CAP's inability to gain traction for the positions laid out in their Afghanistan and Iraq papers to be emblematic of the American Left's inability to affect the policy debate on Afghanistan. I'm sorry if anyone at CAP felt that illustration unfairly pigeon-holed them. I think a broader discussion of American progressives and Afghanistan would be one worth having and told Brian I would be happy to participate in a public discussion of the issue sometime after I'm back off of dissertation leave.
I'll challenge you again,
I'll challenge you again, don't keep dodging this question:
Can you put aside your neurotic navel-gazing and your attention-needy shout-outs to celebrity "friends" and tell us, without the snark, without the blame-shifting, without the leftist-pacifist bias, why we are losing ground to the Taliban in Marja. And then after telling us what we are doing wrong, tell us, in a step by step presentation based on facts on the ground, not ivory-tower PoliSci theories, how we can turn Marja around in a month's time.
I've had enough of your counterinsurgency crowd BS-ing their way to grants and air-time. Give us concrete, time-sensitive answers since we are in a state of war. Give us something that we can use, that can be tested in real-time. Enough of the post-mortem whiny "we told you so"s that marks your "brand-new" discipline.
Can you do that, Exum? Or are you too busy trying to be a celebrity?
Can somebody please delete
Can somebody please delete Marja-centric's retarded comment.
Marja-centric, are you
Marja-centric, are you retarded or just plain stupid?
The key word in your post is
The key word in your post is 'market'. Which is exactly the problem. You see all this as a business, as a way to make money. It is slightly unethical, but hey, one's gotta eat. But the true value of a business model is in the results, and I want to ask you: what do you have to show for all your well-marketed 'ideas'? Aren't they the ones being implemented in Marja? Then why does it seem to be failing? Why is the DoD resorting to variables such as, "it seems more crowded", to gauge success? Why can't success be as straightforward as, "the enemy was vanquished"?
This is why COIN is a hack science: you are uncomfortable around concrete results, resorting to the wishy-washy pitch of a magic tonic salesman.
I'm holding you to account. I want results to justify why you are earning the big bucks, much of it through government grants, which in turn originate with my tax money. Stop dancing around the issue and tell us what is happening in Marja and how you will turn it around in a month.
I think this is the "emperor
I think this is the "emperor has no clothes" moment of the COIN ascendancy. This is why Exum doesn't want to respond, and his fawning groupies are demanding I shut up.
Just answer the damn questions. Answer them in a clear, result-based manner. Don't wrap them around in theory and wishful thinking. We have a case study in Marja. Let that be the debate.
You're sore because you
You're sore because you weren't at the Willard for cocktails last night, huh, Marja-centric?
Marja-centric, you need to
Marja-centric, you need to smoke out or take a chill pill, or something. Go for a run, oxygen's good for the brain, I heard.
Having already read Michael
Having already read Michael Cohen's article I found his argument somewhat lacking, there is nothing about counterinsurgency per se that makes either a left or right wing strategy. One might expect those on the left to be more concerned about implementing it in a legal and just way, indeed the creation of an Office for Rule of Law and International Humanitarian Policy in the Pentagon, as reported on by Spencer Ackerman in the Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/86481/pentagon-creates-office-to-bolste... appears to be addressing that concern directly.
The indictment that Cohen should have made of the American left, from the evidence he produced,is that of disinterest in Afghanistan, something that I am not sure bears too much scrutiny.
Observing U.S. Politics from the outside a common observation is that when it comes to foreign and defence policy the American left, with a few notable exceptions, isn't very left at all, perhaps that goes some way to explaining why it is happy to go along much of the policies of the previous administration.
Having already read Michael
Having already read Michael Cohen's article I found his argument somewhat lacking, there is nothing about counterinsurgency per se that makes either a left or right wing strategy. One might expect those on the left to be more concerned about implementing it in a legal and just way, indeed the creation of an Office for Rule of Law and International Humanitarian Policy in the Pentagon, as reported on by Spencer Ackerman in the Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/86481/pentagon-creates-office-to-bolste... appears to be addressing that concern directly.
The indictment that Cohen should have made of the American left, from the evidence he produced,is that of disinterest in Afghanistan, something that I am not sure bears too much scrutiny.
Observing U.S. Politics from the outside a common observation is that when it comes to foreign and defence policy the American left, with a few notable exceptions, isn't very left at all, perhaps that goes some way to explaining why it is happy to go along much of the policies of the previous administration.
You're missing the point
You're missing the point here ... Why should the left have a policy preference for war strategy, qua left, at all?
I can absolutely see how a leftist or rightist world-view (pretty meaningless terms, but okay) will shape your preferences for withdrawing or invading or condoning waterboarding torture and such decisions. That's what politics is about, and it's obviously unavoidable that major political decisions are made through reference to the prevailing mode of political debate (ie partisan right/left arguments).
But whether an ongoing campaign is more efficiently run on the battlefield by using COIN or some other doctrine, that's really a technical military decision in which your views on taxation and gay marriage shouldn't play a part, whether pro or contra. That it does anyway, and that this is widely accepted and anticipated to the extent that the post above can be written by a smart guy like Mr. Exum, points to a fundamental problem -- and it's NOT that Liberals haven't been active enough presenting "a leftist alternative to COIN". That's a nonsense phrase! Such politicization should be avoided, not encouraged. The US needs a Liberal drone tactic or a Tea Party COIN formula like it needs a hole in the head.
The thing I don't get about
The thing I don't get about Cohen's piece is that it supposedly is an examination of why the Left, progressives, whatever are acquiescent on Afghanistan, but right in the piece one of the findongs is that a lot of them (us) believe in the objectives and importance of the campaign. Clearly also many don't, but when what is being presented as an ideologically coherent sector of the political space ("The Left;" "progressives," etc.) is itself divided on the very question you're looking at, what more is there to think about? The Left is well-understood to be the most marginalized of tha major ideological groups in the United States - even when the more "Left" of the two parties is in power, any honest observer understands that the true Left is still isolated and its influence is marginal in the government. So if it is itself divided on a question, as Cohen explicitly reports it to be, then where is the man biting the dog that needs to be explained? Many progressives simply support the effort (maybe they're out of step with progressive values on the question, but clearly it is not unusual for people who clearly fall into and self-identify with particular ideological camps nevertheless diverge on a few specific policy questions -this is one where apparently many do), and the rest are therefore so marginalized that to expect a powerful pushback from them is not realistic.
On the other hand, if Cohen can show that there are lots of progressives who do oppose the policy but are not expressing the opposition, then that is some thing worth exploring. But that is not his question. His question is why progressives in general are accepting the policy and not collectively raising more hell over it, and he provides a perfectly straightforward answer: because a lot of them support it.
Interesting that commentary
Interesting that commentary that dwells so much on "marketing" policy ideas adopts without question the use of "progressive." This term is itself an example of successful marketing, "progressive" having been sold as an attractive alternative to the politically toxic "liberal."
The short story is that American political liberals (progressives, the Left, whatever) have a very short recent history of interest in national security policy. The national Democratic Party has long been dominated by constituencies: organized interest groups with very specific policy agendas. Democratic politicians have been rewarded by appealing to those constituencies on the issues they care about; they have generally not been rewarded for showing interests in issues outside the scope of any of "the groups'" concern.
With the conspicuous exception of Democrats and liberals interested in Israel, organized groups important to the Democratic Party showed little interest in national security policy, or indeed in foreign policy generally, for most of the period between the fall of Saigon and 9/11. They weren't hostile to the military, or to any specific idea about America's role in the world; they just weren't interested. Like an oil tanker's momentum, the inertia behind decades of this orientation can't be fully overcome in a short period of time. Even now, almost nine years after 9/11, the most urgent issue related to the military for many liberals is the repeal of DADT, the cause of one of "the groups."
Liberals used to take a much greater interest in foreign affairs, but most of those who did are dead by this time. So, the think tanks and Washington wonks coming up with bright ideas about subjects like Afghanistan are pitching them to a generation of Democratic politicians that is paying attention only because it feels forced to. Most of this generation is still desperately reluctant to take risks on behalf of any policy choices very far outside the main stream of Washington thought -- because, from its perspective, there is little reason to think this would produce any political reward.
This might be thought to ignore a lesson from the 2008 Presidential campaign, when the winning candidate got a decisive boost by doing precisely what most Democratic politicians are reluctant to do. However, that was a Presidential campaign, and it was Barack Obama. With Obama in the White House, it's difficult for other Democrats to see how that lesson applies to them.
In short, I'm not sure a paucity of ideas or a failure of marketing are the main reasons behind the flummoxed attitude of American liberals toward the Afghanistan problem. I think it more likely that the audience to whom ideas must be marketed is still struggling to see how investing time and effort in this kind of issue is worth its time.
The left, and many on the
The left, and many on the right, have an idea- leave. But that is deemed crazy or irresponsible, and thus impossible. Poor Bacevich gets trotted out to play the role of opposition, patted on the head and then sent away. At this late date too many vested interests are at play to allow the US to leave Afghanistan, and some folks have real career aspirations, particularly for the office of POTUS. Safety, while it is the most trumped issue, is in reality the least of these concerns.
Zathras is correct, the Democratic party was, is, and remains a coalition of special interests and one-issue, arguably selfish, voters with a large element of group funding and structure provided by Wall Street, who have derived the greatest benefit from Democratic actions, as opposed to rhetoric. Foreign policy doesn't matter, we've got a number of red herrings to deal with first. There are a few "forays" into foreign policy. Witness the concern with gay rights abroad, particularly in the Islamic world, based on the assumption that homosexuality as Westerners understand it (a full-blown subculture and group identity) is a universal phenomenon. I'd really wish some of those folks would learn a bit about things like bacha bazi before they started spouting off.
The Democratic party might contain leftists, many of them deluded leftists unwittingly doing the footwork for the moneyed Wall Street interests, witness Obama, but based on its actions, it isn't leftist. It certainly isn't racist (mostly, but there are a few groups that could be counted so) or religiously motivated, but the lack of racism and lipservice to public secularism seems to be the working definition of leftist in this country. Republicans, on the other hand, are a much more holistic group, with a national-cultural outlook that provides a framework for understanding the world, that always amazingly motivates millions to vote against their own interests. Corporate connections aside, the Republicans have an enviable ally in the form of the Evangelicals. Everybody knows this stuff, oh well. What really helped me understand this nation was Ferguson's investment theory of politics.
Anywho, back to Afghanistan. Too many people's reputations, livelihoods, sense of selfworth, etc. is riding on this, and not just in the US. We can obfuscate the issue and make it overly complex, but just as with Iraq, this is a giant case of covering one's collective a$$. But if we want to obfuscate, by all means. Just remember to throw in some scary stories of Taliban filled toyotas cruising around St. Louis or DesMoines if we "lose."
really love your website,I
really love your website,I really love your website, it's so useful, i'm just sharing for my friends！Strong winter weather is hitting most of the United States right now. Many of the states that are not used to seeing even the slightest amount of snow, are being bombarded with strong winter weather. If you want to keep warm in this winter you might try adding some boots to your inventory like http://www.ugglouboutin.com/,Very practical.
really love your website,I
really love your website,I really love your website, it's so useful, i'm just sharing for my friends！Strong winter weather is hitting most of the United States right now. Many of the states that are not used to seeing even the slightest amount of snow, are being bombarded with strong winter weather. If you want to keep warm in this winter you might try adding some boots to your inventory like http://www.ugglouboutin.com/,Very practical.
Don't forget the Leftiest
Don't forget the Leftiest gals at Code Pink who back the current war in A-stan due to their fears that Taliban will brutalize women once Team America withdraws. See Christian Science Monitor article 6 Oct 2009.
I'm sure Samantha Powers feels the same way.
Lefty internationalist love do-gooder wars. An American intervention in Darfur would cream the panties of Samantha Power, Mia Farrow, Jane Fonda, Rachel Maddow, and the lappin ladies of Code Pink.
Chuck Schumer, Debbie
Chuck Schumer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Joe Lieberman (no, he' s not a moderate, he's a a lefty on all things besides wars against muslims, e.g. gays in military, pro- illegal immigration).
These Lefties are pro-war in Afghanistan, in fact they are pro-war anywhere as long as muslims are getting killed and occupied.
Regarding some comments,
Regarding some comments, such as COIN not being Left or Right and it being a "hack science," I don't know if I agree. As one who wrote an Anthropolgy MA in 1982 on the subject (I self-published it in Amazon under the title "Tribal Soldiers of Vietnam," I think I can speak with some authority. The Left is totally opposed, in my opinion, simply because individuals from tradition leftist disciplines become involved. I am speaking from personal experience as an Anthropologist. Simply writing about and trying to study my own experiences in Vietnam as a soldier led to my MA committee "charging" me with writing a "CIA training manual." Quite absurd when you consider the repeated failures of the CIA.
Speaking about the "science" part, the French understood insurgency and counter-insurgency very well, as I showed in my study, since it came from the Maquis fighting the Nazis. Not shilling for my book, but if you read mine or another other about that period you get an idea about "parallel hierarchies." The parallel governments delegitimize the actual government, as the Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas prove. The Human Terrain Teams in Afghanistan really don't seem to understand the concept, purpose, and end result of parallel hierarchies, prefering instead to use cute new terms like "shadow government." The HTS team I recently saw on National Geo, in my opinion, was clueless and doing more harm running around with an assault weapon wondering why tribes didn't want to talk to them.
I don't know if I was able to add to this discussion, but I see nothing new under Petraeus that wasn't tried--and found lacking--in Vietnam. My suggestion for analysts or journalists is start with the excellent French study in 1957 in the Revue Militaire d"Information and go from there.
Ditto the comment by Aron @
Ditto the comment by Aron @ 1:26.
National interests first. Petty political bs second. If your priorities are the reverse of that, then STFU and go away.
The Saudi's will turn a
The Saudi's will turn a blind eye to the IAF passing through their airspace to take out (or damage and delay) the Iranian nuclear facilities.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece
How do you like them now, King Dave?
Funny if he got played like this, he should know better. That's what you get for being a good hearted turtle. *STING!!*
Once again, the comments and
Once again, the comments and the article itself reflect a profound misunderstanding of the goals of U.S. foreign policy. The goal is to gain control of resources and the economic advantages that comes with that control.
Sudan's conflict - from Darfur to southern Sudan - is an oil war conflict. We'd only take military action to secure those resources, but since the Chinese are there too, direct action against the Sudanese government (based on the Saddam Iraq model) is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, U.S. troops have been doing counterinsurgency in Sudan ever since the early 1980s - back then, they were working for Chevron and targeting the rebels - now, it'd probably be the reverse.
Iraq is of course an oil war - look at the oil majors who are in Iraq now, but who couldn't get in under Saddam - BP has the contract for Rumaila, correct?
The think tanks are paid to ignore this fundamental factor, which doesn't play too well at home - U.S. troops dying so greedy fucks like BP can get their hands on the world's last cheap oil reserves, that's not so good, is it?
This is what the think tanks on the left and right won't talk about, because they're intellectually dishonest toady name-droppers more concerned with finding the right ass to kiss than in any kind of honest analysis of facts on the ground.
Elf - "Nuke them from
Elf - "Nuke them from orbit. Its he only way to be sure".
AM - It is simple. The American left has not proposed an alternate to COIN tactics because the American left embraced COIN.
correction: "Nuke them from
correction:
"Nuke them from orbit. Its the only way to be sure"
Maybe this NYT opinion piece
Maybe this NYT opinion piece is to blame for the tink tank angst:
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/opinion/12herbert.html
Forget about it. Commanders can’t even point to a clear-cut success in Marja. As for Kandahar, no one will even use the word “offensive” to describe the military operations there. The talk now is of moving ahead with civilian reconstruction projects, a “civilian surge,” as Mr. Nordland noted.
What’s happening in Afghanistan is not only tragic, it’s embarrassing. The American troops will fight, but the Afghan troops who are supposed to be their allies are a lost cause. The government of President Hamid Karzai is breathtakingly corrupt and incompetent — and widely unpopular to boot. And now, as The Times’s Dexter Filkins is reporting, the erratic Mr. Karzai seems to be giving up hope that the U.S. can prevail in the war and is making nice with the Taliban.
There is no overall game plan, no real strategy or coherent goals, to guide the fighting of U.S. forces. It’s just a mind-numbing, soul-chilling, body-destroying slog, month after month, year after pointless year. The 18-year-olds fighting (and, increasingly, dying) in Afghanistan now were just 9 or 10 when the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked in 2001.
This perpetual war agenda is going to crash the domestic U.S. economy in the end, you know.
Perhaps I'm missing the
Perhaps I'm missing the point or demonstrating my naivete, but doesn't all this demonstrate that foreign policy thinking is beyond the traditional left/right paradigm. Outside of issues such as miranda rights and the treatment of detainees, the deployment of troops and the use of force is first and foremost a security issue. However, when we say left vs. right, we are talking about the Democrats vs. the Republicans, which is really just party politics. Republicans have successfully aligned themselves wholeheartedly with the military; therefore, regarding the surge, Democrats could either be for the surge and with the Republicans or against the whole thing all together or propose their own more complicated, less rational strategy, which is what they did, not because they thought it was right, but because they needed to in order to define themselves against a President whose public approval rating were hovering just above Truman's during the Korean War. You're currently seeing the same situation vis-a-vis the oil spill. Republicans (not the right) want to hit Obama and decry regulation at the same time.
The left (not the Democrats) basically feels the same way about the use of force as the right but are, perhaps, slightly more reluctant to deploy it, but in the end the U.S. is 75 to 85 percent moderate and rational regarding foreign policy. [Note: I'm excluding the far left (peace, love, dope) and the far right (the government has no right to say or do anything, ever) in this.]
If you're making it more complicated than that, then you're making it too complicated.
Well what should we embrace
Well what should we embrace antoinette? Let's hear some suggestions.
By the way nukes are sure . Not that they're the only tool in the box, just the biggest hammer.
Now where did we put that nail? Hmmm.....
"As a result, the American
"As a result, the American Left is frozen out of high-level policy discussions on U.S. policy in the region."
When was this ever not the case? You're talking about liberals, like the ones who escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
But liberals now can't go against "the troops" even if the troops don't know what they're doing. The troops are paid to fight and that's it. It's not the job of soldiers to have perspective. But soldiers fighting for a democracy should be aware of their responsibility as citizens. And they don't. And now we have a professional army, basically an army of mercenaries, who have little idea what democracy is.
Given a choice between a weaker US and a more stable world or a more powerful US and an unstable world whiih would you choose?
Of course you'd say US power brings stability but the facts say otherwise. Are you one of the geniuses behind Matiullah Khan?
And liberals can't criticize "the troops." But the troops think the planes on 9-11 were hijacked by Iraqis.
"Imperial Grunts" That title defines them as brave assholes, nothing more.
Please stop making the world safe for democracy. Please.
I think you're from Venus,
I think you're from Venus, Visitor. Mars belongs to US! The planet of war, remember?
If only we WERE highly paid mercenaries that didn't know much about democracy. Good grief, I'd love to see a civics knowledge comparison test. I think we'd beat most PhD's...
"Given a choice between a weaker US and a more stable world or a more powerful US and an unstable world whiih would you choose?" You're right, you can't be from this planet. The last time we had a weaker US was 1939. The last time American troops left Germany was 1933. There's reasons we do things, ya know. Please compare the previous 500 years to the last 50 to see what I mean.
Actually under Pax Americana Europe has enjoyed peace for the first time in centuries, much of Asia has been at peace, and democracy, prosperity and food have spread to corners of the world that were frozen in time for millennia. Most of it without war, and most of our wars are reactive and defensive.
But enuf about us. Let's talk about the next carbon energy Titan of the Mideast. Israel, which just found huge natural gas deposits within it's waters. Drill Baby, Drill. Oye!
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-geopolitical-game-changer...
"but in the end the U.S. is
"but in the end the U.S. is 75 to 85 percent moderate and rational regarding foreign policy."
Honestly? The masses hate whoever they are told to hate, same goes with be afraid of or like, "we're all Georgians now!" or we were for about a month, and oh yeah, Yemen, booo, booo scaary. Were you in the US post 9-11 when we became a nation of chicken-little, blood-thirsty, yet mall-happy fraidy cats? Remember that unsaid, but implied over and over again, idea that Saddam and Al Qaida were bosom buddies? Look it, the moderates want other people to do their dirty work for them, they want those scary Mr. Taliban men dealt with (but that's only post 9/11; no problems in the 1990s), but they themselves don't want to. Moderates, it appears, don't really mind torture too much, as long as they don't have to see it. Moderates are too busy watching Food Network or Keeping Up with the Kardashians to be bothered with what their government does in their name. Truth be told, moderates don't mind a little blood just so they don't have to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater like that nasty man Mr. Carter said they should.
Moderate just means sheep, and hypocritical little grazers at that. And if the shepherd isn't rational, or is entirely venal, well, when is the last time sheep ever thought for themselves? The anti-Vietnam movement for years was a fringe thing, until the middle class started getting afraid of the draft and Dan Ellsberg manned up and said the nation was being run by a bunch of amoral cretins like Johnson.
Hey Exum,I was wondering
Hey Exum,I was wondering what you think of Paris Hilton's new hairstyyle?
I thought CNAS was a
I thought CNAS was a "Democratic Party" think tank. From Anti-War.com (which has seems to be staffed by mainly very small "c" conservatives and libertarians):
"After the organization’s annual conference, Nagle (sic) told IPS that Obama will have to shift policy next year to give more time to McChrystal, because he would otherwise be too vulnerable to Republican attacks on his Afghanistan policy going into the 2012 election campaign."
So if you're a Marine stuck in a patrol base in northern Helmand wondering how the gravel pit you're guarding is linked to US security just remember that you're effort is really designed to ensure Obama get's re-elected. Lucky you.
PC COIN has all the makings of a left wing policy. Soldiers as builders. Big government. Big budgets. Big spending. Lots of jobs for civilian academics. Social engineering.
A truly conservative policy would be "let's get out let the Afghans handle it and while we're at stop borrowing money from the Chinese".
F*ck it. Nuke em. Let
F*ck it. Nuke em.
Let the Afghan's handle it. Riiiighhhhttt.... Been working since Tora Bora and before.
It's "Nagl" not "Nagle".
Interesting that Karzai flipped before we could stab him.
Once you take money for
Once you take money for something, you ARE in business. That is not wrong as long as you're reponsible.
Then you have to do marketing. Part of marketing is advertising and differentiating your product. Hence left , center , right. Those that are most effective get the most MONEY.
Why do politicians pay so much more for a job whose salary is so much less??????
If the far left pushed for different policy, they would not be far left anymore....it is pretty simple.....they don't want the money. You have to respect someone that is in it because they care.....I wish more felt that way. I don't mind folks that do it to keep a home over their families head. It becomes a problem when your salary is part of your ego and you live in a McMansion for the same reason. The McMansion syndrome impacts both left and right.
Good Ole' boy in Florida who works at the Duda farms gave me a piece of wisdom. We are standing in the center of a Republican victory rally...., "You either have to have something they want or get in their politics". Guy did not work at a University, in a think tank, or have some "head up my ass, I am better than you cause I have a degree" acedemic degree attitude.
He did have a 20/20 global view.
*Taliban....COIN will not work unless we have something the Taliban want. Right now we are getting in their politics.
*Anyone that thinks the far left is NOT interested in National Security is stupid. Peace rallys in the 60's shaped policy.
*Far left think tanks don't want the think tank money, they want to get into the administration's politics.
Good to see division in the Democratic Party. Keep it up boys.......Left and Right are relative anyway. One commenter equated far right and right with wrong and more wrong, that would mean that about half the American public are wrong. What is right and wrong anyway....it is more about "better", doing something that "betters" earth's future. If you can say that your life is about creating a "better" world for your children, then you have done the "better" thing.
Reagan was correct in one thing....we are all Americans. Like to see us get back to being American. Drop the labels and get Afghanistan/Iraq behind us, stop handing out foreign aid like we can print money, get the deficit spending under control, make having a home a dream again rather than a wall street future, use our schools to improve our American youth, stop off-shoring of our future, kick out the people out of the US that would do otherwise and welcome those that will accept our culture and language, get government out of our lives and bring back individual common sense and responsibility, .........otherwise get back to taking care of our own and being proud to be American. Get the polish out and shine up the city on the hill.
..............Why in the hell are we going to give GAZA $400M dollars ????????? Cause America is ashamed of creating their problems? We have to stop printing money..............How much have we paid the Taliban? Sons of Iraq?........Are our American children eating and going to better schools? Bring the money home and get out of their politics.....and we will not have a reason to be ashamed anymore......spend the money on polish...becoming "better".
Think the far left think tanks are just fine.......They are giving the administration an alternate view.
"The American Left has
"The American Left has failed to develop and market a coherent policy alternative to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. As a result, the American Left is frozen out of high-level policy discussions on U.S. policy in the region."
This is not true at all. The majority of the American left seems to be standing behind "The Biden Option" of shifting away for COIN towards a scaled back Counter Terrorism approach. This seemed to work in other conflicts especially in Northern Ireland. It starves the insurgency of air and using CT and Police enforcement tactics against the hardcore terrorist systems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html
Drawing down troops, focusing on AQ instead of the Taliban, increasing covert ops in Pakistan, more reliance on drone attacks and speeding up training of Afghan forces. In Swoop today, who normally have impeccable sources:
http://theswoop.net/ln_english/index.php
"In relation to Afghanistan, Pentagon officials tell us privately that behind the scenes doubts are growing that the US counterinsurgency strategy is viable."
This has been obvious for at least a couple of years. Best policy would be to let Karzai negotiate with the moderate Taliban thus splitting the movement in two, move troops back to defensive bases in preparation to leave starving the remaining insurgents of foreign military targets, use CT to focus on the AQ elements and increase covert ops including drone attacks in Pakistan.
Not perfect but more workable than the current "clear and hold" tactic which should fail dramatically if tried in Kandahar.
"Pakistani intelligence is
"Pakistani intelligence is so deeply involved in the arming and funding of the Afghan Taliban that it holds a seat on the militant leadership council and has sent the president, Asif Ali Zardari, to make prison visits to captured leaders, a report by the London School of Economics has said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/13/pakistan-spy-agency-accused-...
Maybe we can get some 'centrist COIN' advice on how to deal with this? Something beyond things like this Nagl quote, Oct 2009:
"And interestingly the Pakistani government is beginning to take counterinsurgency more seriously and putting some degree of effective pressure on the Taliban and perhaps even on Al Qaeda and its side of the border."
That sounds good! However, the Pakistani deal seems to be that as long as the Taliban they sponsor only attack targets in Afghanistan, such as the Kabul medical clinic run by Indian doctors that was attacked Feb 26, they get left alone, even sponsored. This applies to the Haqqani network in particular, they say. What great allies!
Does the money for the Taliban (via the ISI) comes from Gulf Arab petrodollar sources, ultimately?
In this light, Nagl's suggestion that "The long-term answer and our existing strategy is more Afghan troops on the ground. We need to double the size of the Afghan army and Afghan police over the currently planned increases" - does that make any sense? This gives Pakistani-financed Taliban more targets, and also puts a heavier burden on local populations.
Even more ridiculous is Nagl's other suggestion, that Afghanistan could earn foreign currency by sending "the mountain people of Afghanistan" around the world on U.S. peacekeeping missions - because "they're good soldiers." WTF? The mercenary-based economic model?
The State Department is still refusing to support a realistic development model for Afghanistan (water and electricity and jobs), and if there's currently a more screwed-up program than USAID Afghanistan, which would that be?
Elf, I am not a leftie.
Elf, I am not a leftie. Alternates to COIN that make sense to me have been suggested by “Mac” McAllister, Dave Maxwell, Robert C. Jones, and Mike Few on the Small Wars Journal.
I also agree with Gian Gentile and Schmedlap.
I give tongue-in-cheek lip service to radical movie quotes and greatly enjoy your riffs on the need for radical violence to be rid of Al Qaeda and those that harbor and fund them. The current slow way of war in Afghanistan is frustrating. Action with quick results is a heady idea.
I do not care where the ideas for a successful way ahead in Afghanistan come from - the political left, right or center- makes no difference to me.
There are leftist critics of
There are leftist critics of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. You don't read them. Michael Klare, Derek Gregory, James Der Derian, Steven Graham, Eyal Weizman, Oliver Belcher -- all leftist critics, with coherent analysis, of what (not) to do in Afghanistan.
Good post. I liked in
Good post. I liked in particular the distinction you drew between an "echo chamber" causing someone to lose an argument and someone simply being out-argued. And I think you are right in this case. In general, it's funny that in many DC debates, the winning side argues that they won on the merits and the losing side says they were victims of an "echo chamber".
Here's an interesting proposition - the Left and the old-school realists and the libertarian wing of the GOP actually have a lot in common now in terms of foreign policy recommendations. All want US withdrawal from Afghanistan/Iraq and a reduced American footprint in the world in general. How long is that agreement likely to continue? Is it just an Afghanistan/Iraq thing, or does it reflect deeper shifts in preferences?
Just out
Just out today:
http://www.truth-out.org/false-advertising-about-iraq-surge60326
U.S. Discovers Vast Riches
U.S. Discovers Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan
We're there for the good of the people. That's why we picked Karzai when the ex-King was more universally popular.
Support Matiullah Khan. Support the The Taliban. (you used to say that) Support the ISI (you said that too)
Support the Phalange! Support Israel. Support the Saudis. Support Nguyen Van Thieu. Support the Shah. Support Saddam Hussein. Support the troops. That's the one thing that hasn't changed. And the joke's on them which is one tragedy among others.
Hamas and Hezbollah defend. I'll give them that. The barracks attack was a reprisal.
When was the last time the US backed a political movement that was actually popular?
Ed Koch on Jesse Helms "He may hate Jews but he loves Israel."
Christian Zionism. Every time I hear anyone anyone refer to Christian Europe I think of Buchenwald.
Military Intelligence is an oxymoron. Same as always.
"PC COIN has all the makings
"PC COIN has all the makings of a left wing policy. Soldiers as builders. Big government. Big budgets. Big spending. Lots of jobs for civilian academics. Social engineering."
Entirely correct. It's civilian progressivism transported to military policy. And suffers from all of the same knowledge-based flaws.
NP antoinette .... sometimes
NP antoinette ....
sometimes I kid, I kid...although certain things need to be left on the table, or a hand ominously kept under it.
Glad someone else saw Astan has found vast mineral deposits. Now they have something besides smack to fight over.
On the Left vs Right matter.. Gallup shows near record number of American's consider Democrats too Liberal - 49%.
Record is 50% (1994).
On Progressive think tanks - Zak I don't think you can really say they're not interested in money. It depends which one, but when you are in bed with George Soros, it's about the money. The rest is fluff. Look at this Carbon Indulgence Tax Cap and Trade Scam. I don't know how they keep a straight face, wait...they must be thinking about all the money they'll rake in if they could pull this off. Right now they can't.
"although certain things
"although certain things need to be left on the table, or a hand ominously kept under it. "
By which I mean our potential resort to ultimate weapons. I don't of course mean rice and schoolbooks.
Here's a chemistry book, Ali. Now you can learn how to refine opium more efficiently, or if you like make more powerful explosives. Knowledge is power...
The mineral story was old
The mineral story was old news recycled as propaganda, and I got caught.
Yeah well, never trust the gub'mint or their whores.
@M Shannon, The Staff and
@M Shannon,
The Staff and TOC jockeys, and the Pentagon are...however it's much more entrepreneurial downrange. See "Imperial Grunts". Most of the real doers in the Army have a strong rebel streak. That's been true of the American Army since the Revolution, it was remarked on by Von Steuben - he complained that the American Soldier needed to have the reason for everything explained to him, instead of just doing it.
Hi there, You've got carried
Hi there, You've got carried out an extraordinary job. I will absolutely digg it and personally recommend to my buddies. I'm sure they'll be benefited from this web-site.
My brother suggested I may
My brother suggested I may well like this website. He was entirely correct. This post really produced my day. You may not imagine just just how much time I had spent for this facts! Thanks!
Add your comment