THE SPINE OCTOBER 22, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I do not think that many of us know a lot about Afghanistan. And what most of us know is from one book. It is by a young British officer-scholastic, Rory Stewart, who seized people's attention with what some might call a travelogue. If The Places in Between is a travelogue, so is Democracy in America. Still, if Rory is of a type, he compares with Wilfred Thesiger, three generations earlier, also a Brit with aristocratic bearing and blood and the luck to be there in command when a significant military event was about to happen. Both had pens, very sharp pens. Both had travelled among the marsh Arabs and outwards, east and south, in the world of Islam.
Stewart and Thesiger came to mind when I saw, this week, the long aquiline face of John Kerry on the front pages of four, maybe five American newspapers. The dateline was Kabul. And he, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was doing the work of the secretary of state. I don't mean to scratch up any dust between between. But Afghanistan requires the patience that cannot be nurtured nor indulged in the trips Mrs. Clinton seems to prefer. Seven African nations in eleven days, the not-forgotten pace of ego-boosting campaign stops.
Kerry, some observers say, is too cautious. Someone with less caution or who let his caution to the winds would have been out of there in a day or two...and without an achievement to his name. The pace of modern diplomacy, I suppose, would not permit the month-long Cairo-Jerusalem-Damascus shuttles of Dr. Kissinger. But, then, there would not have been such quiet--quiet interspersed by killings, too be sure--on the borders as there has been.
Kerry's Kabul's agenda was to explain why the U.S. could not commit unless the Pashtuns and Tajiks (and the rest, like the Baluch with their gorgeous asymmetrical carpets) would accept the minimal legitimacy of the government. And unless they acknowledged it it would not be acknowledged in America. But for this he had to listen and to learn their grievances against us, going way back into the Bush administration.
I certainly have no inkling as to what President Obama will decide. But if there is an opportunity for the U.S. and its allies to make a major and sustained commitment in Afghanistan, the opportunity was paved by Senator Kerry.
30 comments
John Kerry. One of the Good Guys. Check. Thanks Marty. Be sure to let us know though when he becomes one of the Bad Guys. As for democracy in Kabul, wouldn't it just be easier to let the Supreme Court decide Karzai's fate? Who knows more about democracy in a Third World country than them? gw
- iambiguous
October 22, 2009 at 11:48pm
A useless Walty comment. Walty will never be one of the good guys. Narcissists rarely are good guys.
- jacksondyer
October 22, 2009 at 11:52pm
Anyone calling John Kerry one of the "good guys" might want to look into his ties to Sudan lobbyists and whether he responds to calls to sever ties to one of his top fundraisers (see Washington Post). That doesn't make his work in Afghanistan any better or worse, but it's interesting how Marty is selective when he applies his "ties to going soft on Sudan" outrage. Were Kerry to turn on Israel, I have a feeling the Post stories would not have gone unmentioned.
- Lymon1
October 23, 2009 at 11:37am
Kerry is historically too feckless for my taste, but I hope you are right about this. jackson, you are dead on, that is about as banal and meaningless posting as one can make. The guy has diarrhea of the brain, whatever he thinks he writes and it is all shit. lymon, you scratch any and every politician in DC and they are only a few degrees of separation away from really shady people. DC is a pretty provincial and incestuous town. And I think it is a little bit in bad taste to criticize Marty for something he hasn't done and something that you would imagine he would do if certain conditions were met. I don't like Kerry, but I found Marty's post here to be reasonable and informative. I really have nothing negative to rebut about it. If you do, then stick to it and don't cast your net quite so wide.
- blackton
October 23, 2009 at 12:29pm
"jackson, you are dead on, that is about as banal and meaningless posting as one can make. The guy has diarrhea of the brain, whatever he thinks he writes and it is all shit." george: Darn, I'll just have to take Blackton's word about jackson. I recently embraced the Ludovico technique and everytime I make any attempt to read Jackson's posts I get violently ill. I never make it past his name. Aversion therapy. Try it. A behavioralist approach to ignoring the sub-mental amongst us. ; o ) GW
- iambiguous
October 23, 2009 at 4:50pm
George is a fraudulent coward.
- jacko
October 23, 2009 at 4:51pm
"...Kerry's Kabul's agenda was to explain why the U.S. could not commit unless the Pashtuns and Tajiks (and the rest, like the Baluch with their gorgeous asymmetrical carpets) would accept the minimal legitimacy of the government. And unless they acknowledged it it would not be acknowledged in America. But for this he had to listen and to learn their grievances against us, going way back into the Bush administration...." Isn't there a danger to framing US interests in Afghanistan to factional support for Karzai, and being seen to be pressuring ethnic factions as to its "minimal legitimacy"? That strikes me as running the risk of framing Afghanistan as another Vietnam. Isn't the compelling US and allied interest in Afghanistan rather to ensure that its government, Karzai or not, doesn't shelter or support terrorist groups who wish to launch attacks on the US and its allies?
- malahat
October 23, 2009 at 5:01pm
In other words, support for Karzai is only a means an end, not an end in itself.
- malahat
October 23, 2009 at 5:11pm
oops...that should be "only a means to an end, not an end in itself". Prepositions are important!
- malahat
October 23, 2009 at 5:12pm
Ugly George Walty: "Darn, I'll just have to take Blackton's word about jackson. I recently embraced the Ludovico technique and everytime I make any attempt to read Jackson's posts I get violently ill. I never make it past his name." The old dog lies. He knows every word I write by heart. He often answers my post by pretending to be writing to somebody else. In any case, If my name makes him sick, then I have succeeded and I am not wasting my time here. Aversion therapy is not therapy, it's a defense mechanism; it's also cowardice.
- jacksondyer
October 23, 2009 at 5:12pm
Isn't there a danger to framing US interests in Afghanistan to factional support for Karzai, and being seen to be pressuring ethnic factions as to its "minimal legitimacy"? That is a good question, but I am not sure what other choice we do have. I don't agree with this being another Vietnam, the situations are so different as to make the comparisons nearly useless. There is no North Afghanistan being armed and supplied by both the Soviets and Chinese. Vietnam has a much larger population, the fighting took place in dense jungles, our technology is on an order of magnitude far greater than 40 years ago, etc. Isn't the compelling US and allied interest in Afghanistan rather to ensure that its government, Karzai or not, doesn't shelter or support terrorist groups who wish to launch attacks on the US and its allies? I agree with this, I am not sure if additional troops are required for this aim, or troops being out in the desert, if we can do this by defending the cities I think this would be to the better.
- blackton
October 23, 2009 at 5:59pm
blackton, I didn't mean to suggest that the motivation for US involvement in Afghanistan is at all comparable to Vietnam - you're absolutely right - rather I meant that the current approach may risk having it perceived similarly.
- malahat
October 23, 2009 at 6:04pm
Re: other choices, I really don't know, either.
- malahat
October 23, 2009 at 6:37pm
I'm concerned about an increasingly fuzzy chain of command. Although it's pretty clear where Petreus and McChrystal are concerned, when you throw in Clinton, Holbrooke, Eikenberry, and now Kerry (who's next, Bill Richardson?), it gets a little confusing. Then when you consider the wholly inappropriate and potentially disastrous appointment of Christopher Hill to our most important ambassadorial position, it looks like tough sledding ahead for the Administration.
- Robert Powell
October 24, 2009 at 7:00am
Good point R.P. I knew a lawyer once who worked for Ontario's Law Society of Upper Canada--our quaint name for the body that regulates us. He at one point had some really tough legal decisions to make. That toughness granted, I was amazed by the number of lawyers he consulted with--oodles of them, no number any privately paid lawyer could justify or his client afford. After a point, whatever the issue, consultation becomes a pretext for indecision as does an ever expanding, insulating corpus of advisors and bureaucrats. My ex friend unfortunately got fired--maybe too much taking advice and not enough doing.
- basman
October 24, 2009 at 2:21pm
digression. If the comments back are a criterion, then this blog is the only place where anything is happening around here these days. The rest of the joint seems as barren as a desert. I wonder what's happened, if something has set in permanently; and I hope I'm wrong. But it used to be so crackling around here, everywhere you went.
- basman
October 24, 2009 at 6:37pm
"I am not sure if additional troops are required for this aim, or troops being out in the desert, if we can do this by defending the cities I think this would be to the better." george: We? And how exactly are you folks contributing to the war on terror? By reading The Spine, perhaps? Ever been a "troop" yourself? If not, why not? It seems 9/11 should have prompted millions of "me" to become "we" in the fight against those who seek to destroy America. Pat Tillman: The one True Hero in my book. He sacrificed both the American Dream and a lucrative careeer in the NFL to defend his country. So, how many of you became heroes too? How many of you doffed your words and donned the swords in service of your country....in service of freedom and democracy around the globe? I mean, you all sound like tough guys. And chickenhawks truly do turn my stomach. george
- iambiguous
October 24, 2009 at 8:03pm
Hey basman, I've noticed the same thing. I wonder if it's because the discussions have often gotten derailed by a certain diarrheal (in every sense of the adjective) poster who, as Peter Griffin would say, "insists upon himself".
- malahat
October 24, 2009 at 8:22pm
I don't think it's entirely that, b, as george was around for months before the changeover. I have a feeling that (a) the Plank has become too unfocused in posting entries and (b) the turnover speed makes people feel that there's no point in engaging in a thread that will disappear onto p.2 inside 48 hours. Multiple posts on the same topic lead to posts disappearing even faster, as they get pushed back with each new one. The "most commented" menu is theoretically useful but doesn't seem to have helped much -- probably because it tells us what's popular but provides no way of keeping the interesting threads on p. 1. Another thing: I know I'm the voice in the wilderness here, but I can't understand why the post sequencing for the threads can't be the same as for the staff posts themselves: most recent at the top! You know it makes sense!
- ironyroad
October 24, 2009 at 9:07pm
irony"...I have a feeling that (a) the Plank has become too unfocused in posting entries and (b) the turnover speed makes people feel that there's no point in engaging in a thread that will disappear onto p.2 inside 48 hours." Quite true.
- malahat
October 24, 2009 at 9:10pm
irony, I also thought that you made a very good point on the problem with multiple posts on the same topic, too.. I think it results in "stranded threads" . Re: the most commented posts, as basman noted a couple of days ago, Marty has been 5/5 recently (which also empirically supports your point on multiple posts on the same topic); the Spine has only the one poster - Marty doesn't tend to have multiple posts on the same specific topic and tends to space new posts out long enough for the thread conversations to develop on the original topic, sometimes over days, and often for the thread to evolve in interesting directions off the original topic.
- malahat
October 24, 2009 at 9:51pm
...the monkey wrench maunderings of the diarrheal poster notwithstanding. I think he's still a factor in that his volume and frequency has increased, judging by my increasing finger fatigue on the scroll key.
- malahat
October 24, 2009 at 9:57pm
Yes, the Spine has become the cool place to be -- who'd a thunk it! Re the other issue, I now know with a kind of sinking feeling that if a new post shows only one comment, the statistical chances are that it'll be our ever-present friend. That phenomenon is, I believe, relatively new -- i.e. it came after the changeover. I wonder about that sometimes, if there's perhaps some meaning in that particular fact, but I can't think what it could be. No doubt some person with the right talents and analytic assets could work out the precise relationship between Plank editorial praxis, george's posting rhythm, and the decline in subscriber particiption.
- ironyroad
October 24, 2009 at 10:28pm
It is also somewhat cumbersome to have to log in every time I come back after wandering off to some other pastures. Does it happen to anyone else? To hazard a guess about Ironyroad's question, I think george haunts the comment threads and seems to lie in wait for any new post which he can say something about, no matter what. george is the phantom of TNR. It serves as some sort of self-affirmation for him, so chances are he will often be the first to comment. Poor george, he is so pitiful, he is.
- noga1
October 24, 2009 at 10:55pm
All the time -- there's no log-in "remember" function on this site. They do offer some option to get around that, but I haven't tried it.
- ironyroad
October 24, 2009 at 11:27pm
bl462: I wonder if it's because the discussions have often gotten derailed by a certain diarrheal (in every sense of the adjective) poster who, as Peter Griffin would say, "insists upon himself". george: Wow. Could it really be me? Are my arguments such that the very existence of them here at TNR drives the truly genuine intellectuals away? Yeah, right. As for Irony's speculations, I don't buy them. With the "most viewed" option, Plank posts hang around for days on end. But they still don't draw more comments. And you rarely see Marty's posts at all in the most viewed column. The Spine still draws the most talkbacks, sure, but that's because Marty has The Disciples. They will follow him anywhere, under any format. Really, it's always the same posters in the Spine. My guess is that over the past 4 to 6 months there have been virtually no riviting news stories to draw people into a venue like this. Big stories always seem just over the horizon. Or the drama drips out over weeks and months [health care, afghanistan]. Last year was a huge election year. Then the economy went right to the edge of the abyss. But now for months on end the headlines are ho hum day after day after day after day. On the other hand, gee, maybe it really is me!!! ; o ) george
- iambiguous
October 25, 2009 at 2:27am
bl: ...the monkey wrench maunderings of the diarrheal poster notwithstanding. I think he's still a factor in that his volume and frequency has increased, judging by my increasing finger fatigue on the scroll key. gw: Gee, 462, what do you think ought to be done about that? The most "civilized" solution as it were. Maybe you and irony can pass around a petition and forward it to the proper authorities. You know, secretly, behind my back. There must be any number of ways to make someone "disappear" out into cyberspace. You whine about me because you don't have a clue as to how to rebut arguments that don't fit seamlessly into "the way these things are supposed to be done". Noga calls me "pitiful". But you don't let yourself get all flustered about someone you only have pity for, do you? DO you? In Randian terms, you don't even have the intellectual integrity to name what you despise. You have to call it something else entirely. No wonder the ruling class in America flourishes. Look what they're up against!! george walton d/a
- iambiguous
October 25, 2009 at 2:47am
I think this gives too much credit to Kerry. Certainly, he put in a lot of hours with Karzai and was there when Karzai ultimately waved the white flag, but Asia Times provides some useful context: “John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly sat in the presidential palace and pressured Karzai for a total of 72 hours not to insist he won the election. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a 40-minute phone conversation with Karzai on Friday; British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called from London three times; French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner came all the way to Kabul to participate in the arm-twisting (and to explore a future role for Abdullah, one of France's blue-eyed "Panjshiri boys"); and dutifully enough, United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon and North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, made their own contributions from New York and Brussels to the campaign to get Karzai to sign his political obituary.” This was a full-court press by the whole "team" and Kerry, by process of elimination, was the appropriate individual to accept Karzai's sword. Karzai’s relationship with the Obama Administration has been extremely tense, especially with Holbrooke, which explains the latter's lack of direct involvement. Clinton’s relationship with Karzai is probably, by extension, strained as well, and I imagine the sight of Karzai at a press conference effectively surrendurring his claim of election “victory” to a woman was probably going to be sufficiently damaging, not just to Karzai's image, but to our policy in general as well, that Kerry was pressed into service. So, I think the jibe at HRC is unjustified (at least in this case).
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 25, 2009 at 2:03pm
"As for Irony's speculations, I don't buy them." You're hardly an objective observer in that context, george. You don't get to buy them or not buy them, you only get to know -- assuming you have some minimal level of self-knowledge -- if they approach the truth or not.
- ironyroad
October 25, 2009 at 8:31pm
irony: You're hardly an objective observer in that context, george. george: On the other hand, over and over again I make it clear that such things cannot be assessed objectively. But in a world without God, what choice do we really have but to act otherwise? All you or I can do is react to the unknown with as much information as we can gather. Unless you know a less subjunctive route. Why don't you list for me all the variables one would need to know in order to determine what "the truth" is here? For starters, wouldn't we have to contact everyone who has posted in The Plank over the past couple of years and determine why they no longer choose to? Wouldn't we need to know precisesly how the new format might discourage some from posting? Wouldn't we have to have to have a reasonable assessment of how a drop in "dramatic news events" effects participation in a venue like this one? Oh, and what must we know about the nature of the human "self" in order to determine the optimal parameters of knowledge needed to determine the truth here? george
- iambiguous
October 27, 2009 at 3:40am