The Afghanistan policy review at the White House is getting more farcical — if that’s possible. It’s bizarre enough that every NSC meeting in this endless review is publicly announced and its contents are then leaked for public dissection in the next morning’s newspapers. Now we read in every major newspaper (see, e.g., in the Los Angeles Times, this) that Karl Eikenberry, the retired general who is the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, “has warned in classified cables against any further buildup of American forces in the country … saying that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government.”
One would think that the merits of this position would have been hashed out long ago (like, say, back in March, when the results of the last Afghan policy review were announced) and that President Obama would have concluded by now that we can’t simply write off Afghanistan because of the “corruption and ineffectiveness” of its government. But, no, Eikenberry’s cables seem to have landed with the impact of a mortar round in the White House and, if leaks are to believed, they have further reinforced the president’s tendency toward hesitation and doubt.
It does not exactly inspire confidence to read this account of the latest NSC meeting, from the New York Times:
A central focus of Mr. Obama’s questions, officials said, was how long it would take to see results and be able to withdraw.
“He wants to know where the off-ramps are,” one official said.
So the president is already looking to leave Afghanistan before he has even committed more forces? He’s more interested in an exit strategy than a strategy for success? What a terrible message to send to our troops and what a heartening message to send to our enemies.
It’s hard to know, of course, if this is an accurate reflection of what the man in the Oval Office is thinking — or simply a reflection of what the aides who are providing all these quotes for the media are thinking. Whatever the case, this bespeaks an extraordinarily chaotic and undisciplined White House decision-making process, with the president’s most senior advisers playing out their disagreements in public even after Gen. Stanley McChrystal had been chastised for making his own views known.
Whatever the president now decides, it will place one of our senior representatives in Kabul in a very difficult position. If the president decides to send a large number of additional troops, that will undermine the standing of Eikenberry. If he decides not to send those troops, he will undermine the standing of McChrystal. Either way, it will be harder for the two men to work together after their differences have been so publicly aired.
I don’t know what this guy is smoking, but he must be from another planet. His theory of supporting the present catastrophic strategy is infantile. His theory of looking like we are “patriotic’ while Americans needlessly give their lives in thois futile effort is politically biased. He obviously subscribes to the Bush theory of dragging this thing out long enough to make it someone elses problem. With the wavering that is going on in congress, it appears others are “drinking the kool ade also.” I assume after he wrote this article he went to the White House to polish the president’s shoes.
So we let the General do his job? What about ALL of the other generals that were fired by the president because he did not agree with their assessment? He filled those billets with YES men and now we are in the same position as before. But this time it’s dire right? How about some accountability. How about some humility as well? It’s so easy to say we need to save face, we need to show strength. I don’t know about you but it take just as much courage to walk away from a fight than it does to bloody each other to a pulp. The results speak for themselves, much like the rhetoric and intonation of this column and it’s writer.
I agree. Petraeus has made progress in Iraq. War is never perfect. It is difficult, but we are winning with his guidance and all our brave soldiers should have our complete support to continue the progress they have made. Anything less is both dangerous and nieve to contemplate.
When at last the Bush administration is demonstrating competence in something, the Democrats want to call it quits. I would hate to think there is a cause and effect there at play here.
> When at last the Bush administration is demonstrating competence in something,
> the Democrats want to call it quits.
First of all the Democrats have been wanting out of Iraq for many years, so your comparison is both false and dishonest. Secondly, you are giving the administration the benefit of the doubt despite how obviously concocted the whole situation is. As many times as they’ve lied about every aspect of this war from the onset, as many times as they’ve reported success where none existed, it’s quite generous of you to give them that benefit. Doesn’t it strike you odd that the only reports indicating progress in Iraq are from people and organizations that have a vested political interest in that outcome, while all independent observations and reports have indicated little or no improvement?
I suppose it’s less mentally challenging to declare “Democrats want us to lose” than it is to examine impartial, objective assessments that reveal there is no way to win.
If you think Peter Wehner was smoking consider this: Success could eventually mean that Iraq is democratic and free from Saddam’s torture, oil contributes to its prosperity, and as a model it attracts neighboring countries to their own forms of democracy, modernity, and peace.
O. Kaythen: kindly recite for us “ALL of the other generals that were fired by the president because he did not agree with their assessment?” Good luck on that one. The only case that comes close is the Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, whose term was up in 2003 and he was not reappointed. Let’s hear some other names, please.
Tim B: kindly recite for us the lies “about every aspect of the war.” Give us some facts, not your MoveOn/Cindy Sheehan litany of generalities and baseless charges. Define for us progress as you’ve used the term, so we can debate whether progress has been made or not. “All independent observations and reports have indicated little or no improvement?” Tell that to the two Brookings authors (O’Hanlon and Pollack), for a start, who have written a number of pieces this summer discussing great strides forward on the military front. Come on, Tim: show us what you got.
Jon S: see, the reason why people use those generalities is because it’s pointless to list every single lie. Listing them only results in Bush apologists arguing that they weren’t lies. For instance, it’s been well established that the White House cherrypicked intelligence that suited their goals for Iraq and ignored the warnings and caveats attached to that intelligence. But then you or some other authoritarian apologist will say that’s a lie, even though it isn’t, and then the thread derails with arguments over things that have already been established.
So you see, Jon, I’m not going down that road with you. All the facts you need are at your fingertips. My point is further reinforced by your ill-conceived attempt to cast the Brookings authors as anything other than partisan hacks that have supported the invasion from the beginning. You people that get your information from FOX, Rush, etc. give yourselves away merely by opening your mouths or typing a sentence. You have no idea what the Brookings guys have written other than what you’ve been told, do you? The level of gullibility is astounding. I’m sure you’re of the opinion that the media is liberally biased, as most conservatives with an axe to grind believe, so try going outside of the US to find truly objective news reporting. Try the BBC for starters. Be careful though – you might stumble across some facts.
Senators and House members don’t actual care about how “Republicans” in the abstract will do, they care about how _they_ will do — and those in contested districts know that they have a good chance of losing if either scenario comes to pass.
Wehner wrote:
“Which situation do you think most hurts Republicans in 2008—the 130,000 troop scenario or the 80,000 troop scenario?”
Tim: don’t give me that well-established nonsense; it’s the last refuge of a scoundrel. Your analysis is fact-free, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. The left is enamored of projection. As for the Brookings authors, whose op-ed will only take you a minute to read, these are guys who have opposed the war (Pollack supported it initially but then turned against it) and are now citing real military progress. I’ve never tuned in to Rush;s show, nor any other radio host either left or right (unless you include Howard Stern as a leftie), and I cruise all the cable news networks and regular TV news, whose coverage is either bad or awful, again regardless of political bias. You really love to throw stones, don’t you? I ask you to give us some facts and all you can do is ad hominem attacks? You’re citing the BBC, for example, is perfect: they are far more left than Fox is right, but we can have that debate another time; I won’t let you change the subject here.
The intelligence Bush got was the exact same Congress got, and none of it was cooked: two separate bipartisan reports (the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Robb-Silberman Commission of 2005) said categorically that no analyst at any level in any intelligence agency was pressured by any administration officials to produce tainted reports. To really blow your mind, the 16 words in the Bush state of the union speech that got professional prevaricator Joe Wilson so exercised were entirely correct, and the UK Butler Commission demonstrated unambiguously that Saddam was indeed seeking enriched uranimum from Niger.
The congressional authorization to use force against Iraq listed WMD stockpiles among 16 different reasons, but also the clandestine operation of ongoing programs that, if unchecked, would lead to operational weapons, including nuclear weapons (the relevant clause of the congressional resolution makes it clear that nobody thought Saddam had nukes: it said he was “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability,” and not a single person in the administration ever said or implied otherwise).
Not only that, but the intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix–who headed the U.N. team of inspectors in late 2002/early 2003– said Saddam is not complying, that he’s hiding all sorts of relevant things.
Here’s just a few comments from your heroes from the last few years of the Clinton presidency through 2002:
• Secretary of State Madeline Albright, in 1998: “Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
• Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, in 1998: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
• Nancy Pelosi, then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in 1999: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
• Hillary Clinton, in October 2002: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.”
• Ted Kennedy in 2002: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Shall I go on? Tell me more about the Bush cherry-picking.
Jon S, that is well done. I’ve grown so very tired of people like you Tim B. You spout your shallow talking points, present them as fact and thus justify your opposition to Pres. Bush and this war. When asked for facts you tell us that they’re all there, but you’re not going to list any. Jon S then methodically and soberly presented his case, which debunked yours. The beauty of your hated news outlets like Fox, Rush and forums like this one is that thinking like yours doesn’t have to be swallowed by the rest of us unquestioned. In the old days of just ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS/NYTimes/WPost/etc…., not only was your type of frivilous argument not questioned by any news organization, it was spouted by them!! (and still is). I imagine Tim B that you will not respond to Jon S any more as he has thoroughly exposed you for the shallow and biased thinker that you are. Jon S, keep up the good work please. It’s refreshing to see people like you expose the Tim B’s of the world.