Which is the greater folly: To fancy that war offers an easy solution to vexing problems, or, knowing otherwise, to opt for war anyway? In the wake of 9/11, American statecraft emphasized the first approach: President George W. Bush embarked on a "global war" to eliminate violent jihadism. President Obama now seems intent on pursuing the second approach: Through military escalation in Afghanistan, he seeks to "finish the job" that Bush began there, then all but abandoned.
Through war, Bush set out to transform the greater Middle East. Despite immense expenditures of blood and treasure, that effort failed. In choosing Obama rather than John McCain to succeed Bush, the American people acknowledged that failure as definitive. Obama's election was to mark a new beginning, an opportunity to "reset" America's approach to the world. The president's chosen course of action for Afghanistan suggests he may well squander that opportunity. Rather than renouncing Bush's legacy, Obama apparently aims to salvage something of value. In Afghanistan, he will expend yet more blood and more treasure hoping to attenuate or at least paper over the wreckage left over from the Bush era...
More at The Los Angeles Times.
Comments
Interesting article, especially this line,"In choosing Obama rather than John McCain to succeed Bush, the American people acknowledged that failure as definitive." Everything that I have read says that the economy was a much bigger factor in the election than the war and I even saw a number of polls that showed that a significant number of people thought that McCain was stronger on foreign policy but weaker on fiscal policy and with the crash, they felt that Obama was the better candidate. I am fairly certain Bacevich knows that. Statements like the one he made in the beginning of the article are just indicators on why it is getting harder and harder to have intelligent debate about any issue of substance in this country.
Bacevich is missing an elementary point. A "police-centric" approach can only work if the states involved are cooperating. What happens when they DON'T cooperate?
I absolutely agree that the Bush project (if it really was his project; one must keep in mind that some things may have more to do with the banana republic elements of corruption, cronyism and incompetence that have found their way into the US government as well; and I am sure some decision makers had other objectives in view, like Israel or Oil) of remaking nations that are not cooperative has failed.
But lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pakistan and Afghanistan really ARE the base of a jihadi network with transnational ambitions and that network cannot be stopped by police work when the state is protecting them. Certainly, one can argue that a much more cost-effective strategy would be to isolate said state and use other means to pressurize it and the military strategy being used is not the best option. But this does not seem to be the argument that Bacevich is making. How does he propose to go from the current situation to his approach? What would be the way in which the US withdraws from Afghanistan and gives up "nation building by force"? HOW the transition is made is as important or even more important than the final objective. What if Bacevich is put in charge of that project and ends up doing exactly what Obama is doing? I can easily imagine that happening....
Regarding the analogy at the end of the piece...
<blockquote><em>There's always a temptation when heading in the wrong direction on the wrong highway to press on a bit further...
When lost, take the first offramp that presents itself and turn around.</em></blockquote>
Here is a crazy thought: Maybe the President doesn't think we're on the wrong path. He just thinks we've dedicated inadequate resources. In fact, I think that came across very clearly in his speech. He made is abundantly clear that he thinks Afghanistan was deteriorated because we dedicated inadequate resources to it.
A better analogy would not be one of getting lost on the way to Grandma's, but of driving to Grandma's on a near-empty fuel tank and then pushing the car after you run out of fuel. The solution to that problem is not to turn around. The solution is to put more fuel in the tank.
<em><blockquote>That Obama... seems unable to grasp this basic rule is disturbing.</em></blockquote>
I'm concerned that someone who is supposed to be such an intellectual heavyweight as Bacevich seems unable to grasp the idea that the President is working on a different set of assumptions. Or is Bacevich just erecting a strawman?
Uboat 509 is absolutely correct. All the polling data before the 2008 election showed that Senator McCain was the preferred choice on issues of foreign and defense policy. We tend to forget that into September the race was narrowing with at least one major poll giving a slight edge to McCain. Then, the bottom fell out of the economy and the polls all showed a sharp turn toward Senator Obama. That advantage held up through the election and Mr Obama is our President. He was, however, elected to fix the economy not for his foreign and defense policy prowess nor for his policy toward Iraq. In a paraphrase of the 1992 Clinton campaign slogan, it was the economy, stupid!.
When an opion editorial starts out with a false premise, such a over-looking the economy as the probable deciding factor in Americans' selecting Obama over brother John. It begs further inquiry. I think the above responses pretty much cover it.
At the moment it's all too easy to be negative on the President's strategy. I will admit I'm skeptical of the time-line, and more troops wont be asked for later. However, Gen. McChrystal has issued orders to his subordinate commanders that they'll get the job done.
I would remind everyone, the General stated earlier last year, that if he didn't think the situation was salvageable, that he would say so - and McChrystal doesnt strike me as a man that minces words.