It’s All Political is a conversation between the main author of this blog, Jaime, and a frequent contributor, Ashley. It is a commentary on the most important news, events, and ideas of the moment. Ashley’s blog can be found at Coffee Late at Night.
Jaime: Hi, Ashley. I think the important news this week needs to be addressed. It’s on everyone’s mind, and, I believe, it has brought Americans to a standstill: What was Tiger Woods’ pre-nup?
Ashley: Well at this point it seems like the pre-nup is changing based on the number of women he’s slept with outside his marriage.
Jaime: I see. So by Saturday it might be his wife who has the Nike endorsement. Well, in all seriousness, there couldn’t be a better time for President Obama to reveal–if you can even call it that by now–his plan for Afghanistan. Not only is the number one athlete in the world taking most of the headlines and water-cooler chatter, but his plan is hardly a surprise by now.
Ashley: Turns out the leaks were not quite as accurate as predicted, I thought for sure he would focus on a counterinsurgency strategy like McChrystal outlined in his August memo. But first, what did you think of the tone of his speech in general?
Jaime: I have mixed feelings about it. I like it because it set realistic, narrower goals for Afghanistan, and a strategy that I was silently rooting for. It focuses on districts, tribes, and brings interaction with Afghanistan down to the micro-level. In a way, it makes a solid Karzai government a bonus–the tribal leaders will have a stronger relationship with the US than ever before.
I thought it came short when it addressed Americans. To this day, there is no call for sacrifice by any of our elected official, in particular the president, for these two wars. I think people need to know and feel what war really costs. I am not advocating he tell people that if they don’t carpool they ride with Hitler, like during WWII, but there needs to be something he asks from us to support the burden placed on our troops, their families, and innocent civilians abroad. I know you have qualms with the process that brought him to the speech, but what did you think?
Ashley: I think we are looking at it in a similar way. I thought the speech was unsatisfying. He was giving a speech trying to justify at least another 18 months at war and he didn’t incite much passion. I was looking for him to convince doubters, give them a reason to be outraged or upset. But instead he seemed to say, “well, we’ve got to do this even though we really don’t want to.” We should want to. These terrorists came over on our turf and took the lives of our people. Have we forgotten that? I know he mentioned 9/11 but it lacked the personal touch that, say, Reagan would have had.
Jaime: It was definitely a reserved speech. Some people even called it cold and calculated. I woudn’t go that far. I think Obama was not trying to rile up the troops or stir up patriotic fervor, but calm nerves. I think he did that with a fairly comprehensive and pragmatic plan.
As for the terrorists, this new plan addresses that. There are many reasons why I am thankful Bush is no longer in office, but one is that his foreign policy was so manipulated by the neo-conservative agenda of nation-building. This is what has led to one empire after another to fall. This new plan tells people, “Yeah, that whole nation-building bit? Not so hot right now.” It is much more modest: destabilize al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, avoid a Taliban takeover of the country, and prepare the Afghan forces to keep themselves afloat. That is very different to the Bush model: build a free and democratic Muslim nation.
Ashley: I support his plan. I think he set things on the right track so that we can hopefully make progress. I’m also pleased with his decision to focus on Taliban forces. While the number of troops is important, it’s what we do with those troops that will make the difference. So, I can support the strategy, but can you guess what I don’t support?
Jaime: Does it rhyme with limeline?
Ashley: You’re good. Why on earth would he announce a timeline for the war? How can you convince people that this is a war we should be fighting when you give them an 18 month deadline?
First off, we don’t have enough troops over there even with the surge to get this done in 18 months. Second, is there any reason why he couldn’t have waited out the withdrawal announcement? I feel like Obama is trying to please both sides..”yes we’ll give you more troops but we’re also getting the troops out of there.” It doesn’t make sense to me. He should have let the troop surge sink in before sharing the “possible” withdrawal date with everyone, including al Qaeda and the Taliban, who he pretty much invited to just wait out the war. I have a feeling this will come back to bite him in his re-election campaign.
Jaime: It sounds like you are looking out for him. I didn’t know you had a hidden Obamamaniac in you, Ashley. I think the deadline makes sense in any war where there is an occupying force that does not intend to colonize the land but is waiting to hand it over to the local government. Americans are barely getting over their Iraq war fatigue. An open-ended war would not only be a drain on the American spirit, but on any politician looking to make progress on other issues in spite of it.
It also makes sense geopolitically: the US needs the Afghan government to understand we will leave them once the burden is too much. If the plan focused more on the macro-level, and relied on Karzai becoming the Superman he is incapable of being–being a fraud does not help–I’d think a deadline would be a dangerous thing. But this plan relies on cooperation from districts, provinces, and tribes. The Karzai government is almost an afterthought. There is greater power in Afghanistan at the local level than at the federal level.
As for al-Qaeda and the Taliban, if there seems to be insufficient progress in closing off their access to power in Afghanistan, Secretary Gates and Clinton, along with the Joints Chief of Staff, have testified that the deadline is “flexible” and based on “a review of the conditions” in late 2010. Even if it weren’t, Obama would not want to be the president that left Afghanistan an anarchic power vacuum.
Ashley: Don’t get too excited! I was merely stating that I’ll be the first to point this out come re-election. Sure, we’re tired from Iraq, but do the American people really want another war that turns out to be a failure? I think saying that we will be there until the job is done would be more uplifting than plotting an escape route.
We need to acknowledge that annoucing a withdrawal date is going to encourage members of the Pakistan Army to hedge their bets with the Taliban to protect themselves after we pull out. I think Rep Mike Pence said it best when he said,”It never makes sense to tell the enemy when you’re going to quit fighting in a war.” I understand that the President was trying to convey to the people of Afghanistan that we will allow them to build up their nation and stand on their own two feet, but in this case I believe that the President made the wrong decision. He is putting the security of Afghanistan at risk, especially for an arbitrary cut off date.
Jaime: 2010 is shaping up to be a very interesting year. Not only are there very important, and potentially crippling elections for both parties, but Obama will have essentially owned the economy, the war, healthcare, and global warming. It will be interesting to see what Democrats and Republicans use as turning points in the war, and how they will use them against each other. I think the first thing to look out is how many base-level members of the Taliban turn in their allegiance and become a part of the counter-insurgency. On top of the secretaries and the Joints Chief of Staff, Former Centcom commander Anthony Zinni has been a strong advocate of this strategy. Back in October, 2009, he said the US should “absolutely” be “negotiating with Taliban elements.” Do you think this may the first sign of success or failure for this plan?
Ashley: I place a lot of value on what Zinni says, considering he foresaw problems arising from Afghanistan before 9/11 happened. I think that the strategy will be effective as long as we keep our focus on the Taliban as well as al Qaeda, who while smaller in numbers, pose a huge threat on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We also need to continue to build up Karzai’s regime,as difficult as that may be, with Clinton leading the way. I’m just relieved that Obama finally made a decision. I’m interested in seeing how things pan out in the next few months, with the President being heavily critized from both parties. I think that a successful end to the war in Afghanistan could single-handedly get him re-elected, but I don’t see that happening in 18 months.
Jaime: If we don’t see a resolution to the Afghanistan war within 18 months I guess we can just keep tallying the mistresses that played “18 holes” with Mr. Woods. What is your count so far?
Ashley: I believe we are up to three at this moment, but tomorrow is another day.
Tags: afghanistan · hamid karzai · mcchrystal
