Those of us who love F. Scott Fitzgerald must acknowledge that he did get one big thing wrong. There are second acts in American lives. (Just ask Marion Barry, or William Shatner.) The real question is whether everyone deserves a second act. Perhaps the most surreal aspect of our great Afghanistan debate is the Beltway credence given to the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place. Let's be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 - when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq - bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess - even though the number of Qaeda insurgents there has dwindled to fewer than 100, according to the president's national security adviser, Gen. James Jones.
But why let facts get in the way? Just as these hawks insisted that Iraq was "the central front in the war on terror" when the central front was Afghanistan, so they insist that Afghanistan is the central front now that it has migrated to Pakistan. When the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Qaeda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen...
More at The New York Times.
All is Not Yet Lost - Dr. Nasim Ashraf, Washington Times opinion.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's report told us what we were afraid to hear. We are going to lose the war in Afghanistan! President Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan policy, launched just in March, whose main goal was to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, doesn't seem to be going well. Growing insurgency and a totally ineffective and discredited government in Afghanistan pose lethal threats that can result in America's total defeat unless something is done immediately.
I agree with Gen. McChrystal that more troops may be needed presently. However, before additional troops are sent to Afghanistan, there must be a clear operational strategy as well as a political surge. Military victory is not possible, and the path of extended military engagement is a recipe for disaster. But simply abandoning the region is also not an option. This would be the same mistake the United States made in 1989 after helping to expel the Soviet army from Afghanistan. The sooner Afghanistan is stabilized politically, the earlier the United States can disengage militarily. How does America do that? ...
More at The Washington Times.
Comments
Mike,
Didn't realize you responded here, too. Two issues with your critique:
1) The Simpsons are not a Hanna-Barbera production.
2) I am not suggesting that we <em>are</em> turning the Flintstones into the Jetsons, but rather that we seem to be <em>attempting</em> to. To that end, we're not trying to make them into Americans (the Simpsons), so much as we are trying to drag them back to the future (Jetsons). I stand by my cartoon analogy.
I don't know much, but I knows my cartoons.
In regard to Qutb, I don't think that's as relevant as many would lead us to believe. Yeah, he might be one of the intellectual forefathers - like Jefferson or Franklin are for the US - but I think the grievances of today have more to do with the 1990s US presence on Saudi soil, US support for Israel, and perceptions of US meddling in mideast affairs.
Schmedlap nailed it with his graphics.
My only critique (which I already suggested to him) is it's Flintstones to the Simpsons. This change inflames many of that community to resist (Sayyid Qutb at university in the US and 9/11 foot-soldiers living here as two examples).
For the record, I considered this days before Marge posed for Playboy. Her actions only fuel the fire :)
v/r
Mike
Rigs,<br/>
I agree with what you wrote. What I took issue with was a narrow contention that Rich made. He is pushing the "we took our eye of the ball" meme which is founded on the assertion that we could have succeeded in some unstated, more ambitious goal (nation-building?) if we had only focused more attention on Afghanistan. I don't buy it. I think everyone would agree that we now "have our eye on the ball" and the COA that we have apparently adopted is this...<br />
<center><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/4003637020_4a89c0991c.jpg" alt="Victory in Afghanistan" title="Victory in Afghanistan"></center><br />
Current state: cavemen.<br />Desired endstate: Modern democracy.<br />How to get there: rely on a "whole of government" approach that is <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/utility/printitem.aspx?print=http://www.defe… years away from happening</a> and conduct a COIN operation that demands an unreasonable amount of resources.<br />
A "whole of gov't" approach is arguably impossible because the resources do not exist. It amounts to a strategy of delaying a decision and hoping that troops in the field figure everything out while the smart guys back home hold more think tank events and write op-eds. Yeah if we had pushed ahead with this 5 years ago, all would be well. Thanks for the insight, Frank Rich.
<p>Perhaps we should stick with our current objective: <strong><u>continue</u></strong> to deny safe haven to AQ.</p>
![http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/4003637020_4a89c0991c.jpg"](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/4003637020_4a89c0991c.jpg"){kind=link}
I completely agree with both of you that billions have been wasted in misguided attempts at creating a little Ameri-stan in lieu of a rational strategic end-state.
The fact is not many NATO/US soldiers were getting killed compared to Iraq, so nobody friggin cared. The strategy was floundering, but the body count was deliciously low in 'the just war,' so nobody cared - little to no media coverage, no public scrutiny, nobody on fox/msnbc/cnn every night saying 'hey, in a few years the Taliban are going to get on their feet again and...ya know...try to blow our shit up because our strategy is misguided.'
I've been bitching and moaning over the last 5 years that everybody forgot about Afganistan the moment the Bush adminstration said 'go' to the thunder run. I'm not defending the media, I just want people to frame their misguided opinions the way they were meant to be read.
It's easy to tee-off on their op-eds, but it's more fun when you don't oversimplify their arguments. I believe the second fiasco he is alluding to is an all-in policy in support of the old-guard strategy of pursuing the pipe dream of a free, fair, transparent and accountable Afghanistan. With apple pie and baseball and a Starbucks across from every Mosque.(although I say let them keep Buzkashi, for old times sake and in support of a larger pool of awesome videos on youtube)
Schmedlap's right -- we throw away millions, probably billions, of dollars every year in misdirected projects and other schemes that do nothing to contribute to our strategic purpose in Afghanistan.
We could shovel billions more into that vast black hole, but without a proper strategy it will continue to be a waste.
In addition to the Bush administration, we could blame the media for not focusing enough on Afghanistan, and thereby not putting enough pressure on the administration and military to get it right there...
<blockquote><em>"... I believe the more fair context would be to say that Rich says we have faltered in Afghanistan because of a redirection of focus toward Iraq."</em></blockquote>
I don't care how many resources we throw at Afghanistan. If the strategy doesn't make any sense, then what good are the resources?
<blockquote><em>"I think it would be extremely difficult to say that the war in Iraq didn't draw resources and interest from Afghanistan, and by extension detrimentally affect the effort there."</em></blockquote>
You might have a point with the "interest" diversion, but I don't think that was his argument. He's pushing the meme of "we took our eye off the ball" as the reason for why Afghanistan is in worse shape than Iraq.
The real issue is that we had something that we could work with in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we're trying to turn the Flintstones into the Jetsons.
Schemdlap, I believe the more fair context would be to say that Rich says we have faltered in Afghanistan because of a redirection of focus toward Iraq. I believe that is fair to say - to a point. It certainly fails to capture the shortcomings in campaign strategy that have become evident that McCrystal is trying to remedy. I think it would be extremely difficult to say that the war in Iraq didn't draw resources and interest from Afghanistan, and by extension detrimentally affect the effort there.
Rich's writing is all over the place though, sometimes he's on the mark and somtimes he's waaay off. It's like he set his rifle to full auto and decided to shoot from the hip and post the article in the op-ed section.
<i>President Obama better make his decision by tomorrow, or Armageddon (if not mushroom clouds) will arrive. We must "win" in Afghanistan -- but victory is left vaguely defined. Thats because we will never build a functioning state in a country where there has never been one. Nor can we score a victory against the worlds dispersed, stateless terrorists by getting bogged down in a hellish landscape that contains few of them.</i>
That sentence is like a microcosm of the piece, he simultaneously uses outrageous hyperbole and an honest truth (that we need to pay attention to other parts of the world - especially Africa) in our fight against AQ and associated groups.
<blockquote><em>"Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 - when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq - bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued."</em></blockquote>
So, is the suggestion here that Afghanistan is in chaos because we did not send enough troops? Why do guys like this even have a voice? It makes about as much sense as me having a column where I comment on theatrical performances.
In the debate over AFG, one problem is that everyone wants to over-simplify the issues. Many discuss GEN McChrystal's speech w/o having read the report on which it was based.
It's not just about the troops. That report put great emphasis on the need to do the "everything else" of COIN or peacemaking that we continue to underfund and ignore. Want to avoid sending more troops? Then make the Civilian Surge a reality and free up the tens of thousand of troops doing their damndest to help reconstruction. Want to "de-militarize" aid and development? Then get the tens of thousands of workers into the field to do the work that, as of now, no one but the military seems to have been given the resources to do. Ask Former Rep. Charlie Wilson why AFG got into in the mess it is, and he'll tell you - because we abandoned AFG when the Soviets left and we saw our national interests as no longer at stake. Ask CJCS Mullen what the Afghans fear and he'll probably relate a question he's often asked "will you abandon us in 2009 like you did in 1989? Ask ADM Mullen who our model for success is, and he'll probably reply that it's Greg Mortenson, and that our job is to find ways to create more like him, and protect and facilitate those efforts.