Naive Question

[poliphilo]

If you say you're going to have a surge but afterwards you'll withdraw aren't you effectively telling the enemy to hang on in there?

Comments

[algabal.livejournal.com]

He can say it because, in truth, it's an indefinite commitment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/afghanistan-2011-drawdown_n_376362.html), no question about that. America going bankrupt is the only thing that will bring down this empire.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

So it's a withdrawal, but it's not a withdrawal; I see.....

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

Well, they would have to leave some indigenous forces in place with the integrity, mandate and firepower to fill the vacuum. Can't see it happening in a hurry.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Me neither. Afghanistan is a godawful mess. It's going to take a Herculean effort to turn it into something ressembling a modern democracy.

[silveredmane.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he's trying to tell the polar opposite constituencies by whom he's being pressured that he is listening and intending to produce what they've demanded.

I heard a theory lately. Here it is in short form:

In 1963 John Kennedy announced that he would end the war in Viet Nam. Within two weeks of that announcement he was assassinated. The documents to reinstate the war were already written and signed, and came into effect within 24 hours of his death.

Obama's life is being threatened (and, to some extent, controlled) by that same military junta. The "uninvited guests" were brought into the recent state dinner as a reminder to Obama of how vulnerable he is - and that, if he wants to stay alive, he has to keep the war in Afghanistan going. Less than a week after the state dinner he announced a(nother) surge.

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

Sounds plausible from here.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's very scary.

I hope it's not true, but I can't say it would surprise me if it was.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

I think the uninvited guests were harmless and not there to make a point about security - but the point was made none the less.

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

More likely he's trying to please everybody, but nobody is pleased.
Me? I am completely disgusted with the whole show!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure what I think. Iraq was clearly illegal and immoral and a huge mistake; I'm not so sure about Afghanistan. My fear is that this is a war that will just go on and on and on. Something I read recently said that what is really happening in that country is a civil war that has persisted for centuries- and the rest of us would be well-advised to keep out of it. We don't understand the issues and none of the combatants wants us there. Afghanisan chewed up the Brits in the 1890s and the Russians more recently- and it's likely to do the same for the Americans and their allies.

[sovay]

Afghanisan chewed up the Brits in the 1890s and the Russians more recently- and it's likely to do the same for the Americans and their allies.

It didn't even work so well for Alexander the Great . . .

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

This really is a country like no other. I just wish the politicians and the generals had read their Kipling before they took the plunge.

"There's the river low an' fallin', but it ain't no use o' callin'
'Cross the ford 'o Kabul river in the dark."

Well, yes but...

[jubal51394.livejournal.com]

Only because he didn't say out loud that he intends to wipe the enemy off the face of the planet first!

What kind of criticism would he have endured if he'd said that directly and openly?

Re: Well, yes but...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure he- or any Westerner- really understands what that country is all about.

Re: Well, yes but...

[jubal51394.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that you're correct there.

But if you listened to him talk you understand that the purpose was to remind us Americans (mostly) that this is about AlQaeda attacking NYC.... and as such it is necessary that America respond in a specific way to an attack on our homeland... or lose the respect of the world.

Re: Well, yes but...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

But Al Quaeda aren't in Afghanistan any more. Or not in any big way. The thing is they're an international organisation- which can set up shop anywhere- or maybe not so much an organisation as an idea.

[sovay]

The thing is they're an international organisation- which can set up shop anywhere- or maybe not so much an organisation as an idea.

I don't know if it is possible to prosecute a successful war eight years too late. Time can't be rolled back somehow. The Iraq War will not vanish and be forgotten; neither will its dead. It's not an invalid question, how you redirect your resources and national attention from an utterly unjust cause to one with an arguable goal. But I don't think this is the answer.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Gordon Brown has taken to saying that we're in Afghanistan to keep the streets of Britain safe. This is so obviously untrue it reeks of desperation.

[amritarosa.livejournal.com]

Sounds like someone might get pregnant. "Surge and withdraw" is not a good birth control strategy, either.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Isn't it interesting how the language of sex mirrors the language of warfare!

[amritarosa.livejournal.com]

yes, indeed!

[sovay]

Isn't it interesting how the language of sex mirrors the language of warfare!

"Militat omnis amans . . ."

[(Anonymous)]

It's kind of like a replay of GWB's war talks.
Obama has reverted to citing 9/11 as justification for policy -- as did Bush. Agreed, that Bin Laden is probably hiding out somewhere in the region (most likely Pakistan by now). That was our original reason for opening hostilities in Afghanistan -- to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. No one seems to care about that objective any longer. I wonder why? Would it be because if we continue to chase Osama Bin Laden we would have to open hostilities with Pakistan, using the same rationale we originally used for Afghanistan -- that they were aiding and abetting this monster?
My question: How did the chase after the mastermind of 9/11 turn into a war to turn most Mideast countries into democracies? Strange!

Me Again

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

Sorry, forgot to sign in again. It was I.

Re: Me Again

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think Bin Laden is dead. There are reports that he died very shortly after 911. Some of the videos released since then quite plainly feature lookalikes. The authorities know this- and that's why they're no longer going on about hunting him down.

Re: Me Again

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

So then the dead Bin Laden became an excuse for having a "lovely war"? Geez!

Re: Me Again

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

They don't want to acknowledge his demise because he's a useful bogeyman figure.

[happydog.livejournal.com]

pretty much.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Yes, Obama is effectively telling the 'enemy' to "hang in there". Since they're going to "hang in there" regardless of what he says, I hardly see that it matters, though.

As some of the comments here tend to reflect, Obama is in a tight spot, politically. On the one hand, there is a popular notion among more naive elements on the left that the US could pull out tomorrow, if we wanted to. On the other, the War Party - still largely in control of this country - would rather the war go on forever, if at all possible.

The truth, as I see it, is that Afghanistan is militarily both intractable and unsustainable, but the logistics of withdrawing 100,000 troops, and goddess only knows how many private defense contractors, would be formidable, even if there wasn't a war of insurgency going on. To begin such a withdrawal safely might easily require eighteen months and 30,000 extra personnel. I don't know and am not sure anyone else knows, either.

So we can't just pack up and leave immediately, even if we wanted to, and Obama faces another serious problem here at home. A while ago, Darth Cheney and Gen Stanley McChrystal, representing NATO and the rest of the international military-industrial complex, attempted a soft coup of sorts, openly telegraphing their intent to bring overwhelming political pressure on Obama, should he hesitate to meet their demands. The speech Tuesday was the president's intentionally delayed response to this threat.

Obama is giving McChrystal the men and materials he demanded on an accelerated schedule, thus undercutting criticism that Obama doesn't support our boys in their most excellent Afghan adventure. However, the catch is that McChrystal now has only 18 months to show progress in said most excellent adventure. If things improve, then the president takes credit for having faith in our glorious legions. If things continue to deteriorate, then Obama can point to McChrystal and say, I listened to the man and trusted him, but my faith was misplaced and it's time to come home.

Personally, I was opposed to getting caught on the ground in Afghanistan in the first place. Now, after stirring this crock of shit for eight years, I don't think there are any good solutions at this point. If the problem were just Afghanistan or AQ or the Taliban, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The immediate problem is actually Pakistan, on the one side, and to a somewhat lesser extent Iran, on the other. If that weren't enough, we have Russia, China, and India, too, who all have an interest in what happens with regard to Iran and Pakistan.

Apologies for the long-winded response.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

No need to apologise, that's a fascinating view of the situation. The time seems to have passed when a US President could simply sack an overwheening general- the way Truman sacked McArthur.

Afghanistan will almost certainly defeat the allies, as it has defeated every other foreign army- and US prestige will suffer accordingly. One view of the matter is that what we're seeing here is the decline and fall of the American Empire.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Eisenhower tried to warn us about the unholy alliance between industry and the military, a monster he helped create. If a MacArthur were fired today, the general would subsequently be found on every news and opinion show, day in and day out, braying about how the president hates America and we're all going to die. And such a general would enjoy unflinching support in the media and among "serious" punditry, too, and on both sides of the political aisle. Such are the consequences of unchecked militarism.

The American Empire is toast. The only remaining questions are how soon and whether we have a hard or a soft landing. I think - hope - Obama is smart enough to choose the latter. If I squint just right, his actions seem to support my hopes, but I've been fooled before.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm torn. I don't like empires- and if this one is coming to an end I can't be sorry. On the other hand I don't fancy the prospect of China becoming top nation.

The US has frittered away its power and prestige on a succession of unwinnable foreign wars. There's a certain irony about a great nation being brought down by its super-patriotic military types.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

There's a certain irony about a great nation being brought down by its super-patriotic military types.

It may always be thus.

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

"Who forgets to remember is doomed to repeat".
Back in the sixties, LBJ increased troop presence dramatically in Vietnam, in support of a corrupt regime. It proved to be the end of his political life.
Today, Obama is increasing troop presence dramatically in a country that is under a corrupt regime.
Here we go again!
I voted for "change" but got "more of the same". Many like me feel the same way. We are already saying we will not give Obama a second term, yet we do not want to vote for the other party, either. Once before in a presidential election I voted "none of the above". I hope it does not come to that again.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Obama is prettier, smarter and more gracious than George W Bush, but these things hardly matter if the policies remain the same.

I think the truth is that no one man- not even a president elected on a tidal wave of hope- can do much to turn the ship of state around once it's going full steam ahead. Obama inherited an unwinnable war. He has made what I think is a bad choice here, but I don't know what he could have done that would have been better.