The New Republic

The Suez "mindset". Fortunately, if there is one thing we can count on here in The Spine it is the absense of mindsets. Well, aside from Marty's and The Disciples, of course. A mindset, apparently, only infects those...Them...who do not agree that every single facet of the Middle East going all the way back to the Garden of Eden has an inextricable place. And that the True Believers here know precisely where that place is. The mindset, for example, of the Jew hating Nazis and their mentors in the White House. In other words, it's not being doctrinaire that bothers the True Believers; it's embracing the wrong doctrine. All doctrines other than their own, for instance. Each new headline [the explosions in Baghdad, the clashes in Jerusalem] fit precisely into the grand scheme of things. The Whole Truth. God willing. Alas, apparently, when George Bush was president God was not. For 8 years they bungled things badly. Now Obama is expected to bungle things badly for 8 more. Admittedly, though, I don't have a clue as to what Marty's trail of non sequiturs above is supposed to mean---let alone where it is inexorably leading. I just know that when you are under the spell of a mindset you start at the end of the narrative and hammer all the facts into it as you go. In other words, the mindset of folks like Stephen Biddle and Peter Bergen. The word warriors. The soldiers of all things intellectual, theoretical, abstract. The best and the brightest apologists for The Cause. Or what Colin Powell recently ascribed as the "terrorist industrial complex". But he was another kind of soldier wasn't he? He actually wore the uniform and, well, fought. george walton

- iambiguous

October 25, 2009 at 8:00pm

"I doubt that America want to lead anyone anywhere." I'm reminded of John Mortimer's short story "Rumpole and the Honourable Member" in which Rumpole defends a Labour Member of Parliament accused of raping his political assistant. Aspen's defense is that the victim made the advances and that the sex was consensual. But it soon becomes very clear that Aspen is not interested in fighting for himself in court. He likes the solitude and quiet of his prison cell, and winces in anguish every time his ambitious wife loudly stands by him. Rumpole understands that his client is heartily sick of leadership, politics and public responsibility. All he wants is to withdraw from life for a few years, curl like fetus and let the system do with it as it will. I get the impression that America is suffering from the same sort of reluctance vis a vis the world's demands. It is a sort of depression, a malaise. I find it scary. With America's shrinking will to influence and lead, who will step in to fill the vacuum?

- noga1

October 25, 2009 at 8:50pm

Walty is back with another barrage of antisemitic nonsense: "The mindset, for example, of the Jew hating Nazis and their mentors in the White House." This is what the crazy man things is being ambiguous: Jews have the mindset of "Jews hating Nazis...." in other words no difference between nazis and Jews? Then the idiot goes on: "and their mentors in the White House." wonder if he knows what the word "mentor" means and if he does who he has in mind? This George's version of the "ZOG." " Colin Powell...."But he was another kind of soldier wasn't he? He actually wore the uniform and, well, fought." Some of us did, but not George he is too much of a coward to fight for any principle. Democracy is to him just another "cause" of the "true believer." About "true believers," and there is no more obsessed true believer than George walty, he says: " it's not being doctrinaire that bothers the True Believers; it's embracing the wrong doctrine. All doctrines other than their own, for instance." This describes Walty to a tee. He has only one doctrine, hating Jews, all true believers are obsessed with Joooos.

- jacksondyer

October 25, 2009 at 9:41pm

If Marty really has no fears about our allies' commitment and performance in Afghanistan, then he needs to add Afghanistan to Ireland on the list of Things About Which Marty Knows Less Than Nothing And Should Never, Ever Write About. Seriously, we now have eight years of experience with our NATO allies in Afghanistan, and aside from the Brits, the Turks, and some Dutch support units, we would generally have been better off without them. The Continental Europeans never deliver on their commitments of men and materiel, and what troops they do send are often governed by rules of engagement that prevent them from performing any useful work. Or they're French, and despite having robust rules of engagement, they buy off the enemy with secret bribes and neglect to tell their allies what they've done so that the situation explodes as soon as the French go elsewhere. If Marty wants to expand the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, that's a perfectly defensible strategic preference. One I share in the abstract. However, to advocate for such a policy without also offering his readers some facts about the availability and readiness of deployable brigades is irresponsible. The first and most important question is not, "How many men should we send?" but "How many men do we have?" Marty and the other most hawkish members of the TNR staff have a shameful record of advocating for increased deployments without ever addressing the question of unit availability, nor in any way acknowledging the costs associated with either sending additional men or raising and equipping new units. It's journalistic malpractice to talk about troop levels in a purely intellectual frame of "commitment" and "resolve" while avoiding the material frame of actual men, equipment, and logistics. So, TNR hawks, lay the factual cards on the table for us. How many brigades could be sent to Afghanistan before January, by April, and by September? How much will the deployment of these extra troops cost, and how do you propose to pay for them? Does your proposal require National Guard deployments in addition to regular Army and Marines? If so, which Guard units, and how long since their last deployment? And critically, how much of a deployable reserve does your plan leave the nation for any other crises that will surely arise? For example, what size and kind of a force do we need in readiness to deal with Iran's response to a bombing campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, which would also require a sustained campaign against Iranian air forces, ground aerial defenses, and military command-and-control. That's not an Osirak-like raid, that's a full-scale air war, and if the alarmists are right about the threat Iran would pose with a nuclear arsenal, then surely it would be insane to expect Iran to absorb a three-week air war without complaint. So anyone who advocates for more troops in Afghanistan and aggressive action against Iran needs to make clear what resources he feels will be required for each operation.

- rhubarbs

October 26, 2009 at 10:36am

Good comment, rhubs, but the guys who buy off the Taliban and forget to inform the force that relieves them in that area are the Italians.

- ironyroad

October 26, 2009 at 11:39am

I loved your post, rhubarbs, but I'm afraid I disagree with you about expanding our presence in Afghanistan. The majority of Americans now want out of Afghanistan. But once again, just like in Iraq, armchair warriors are going to hijack the conversation so that it's not about how to get out, but when. And that "when" never gets defined. How long are we stuck in a country in which the people don't want us out? Are we going to beat our Vietnam record? We've got about three more years to go before we can declare victory on that one. (That is, if you count 1965 as the year we officially became a military presence in Indochina.) Noga: "I get the impression that America is suffering from the same sort of reluctance vis a vis the world's demands. It is a sort of depression, a malaise." Who are you? Jimmy Carter? Has it occurred to you that maybe what we're tired of is war without end? Just out of curiosity, do you have a time frame? A deadline? Do any of you? Or are you of the mind that it'll take "as long as it takes." Because you know what? That could be decades. And if it's decades, and decades in which we need more troops, we're going to have to start a draft. And ain't no way my son will ever set foot in that country. In my family, we don't go where we're not wanted.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 26, 2009 at 12:43pm

"And ain't no way my son will ever set foot in that country. " "In a highly moving article the physicist Janusz Ostrowski describes (here in the German version) his experience of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as a fireman. The Polish fire brigade was hired by the Germans to ensure that the houses with people in them were razed to the ground, while those containing goods remained standing. One day the firement discovered some young girls crying for help in a burning house. "The sergeant ordered us to ascertain whether szkopy (German Soldaten) or szaulisy (a derogatory term for Lithuanian, Latvian, or Ukrainian guards) were nearby. Once we'd given the all clear, he said: 'Any one who wants to can head for the other truck, but if you're feeling brave, we going to them out of there.' Three men headed off. Jurek said: 'I'm not risking my life for a couple of Jewesses who the Germans are going to kill sooner or later, if not here then somewhere else. There's no point. And if you get them out the szaulisy will come along, rape the prettiest ones and shoot the rest! This is an idiotic risk of life.' And he left. Somewhat hesitantly, as if he was ashamed. I agreed with him in principle. But the sergeant caught my eye and then, looking up at the windows, he said: 'A fireman can't let people burn.'" http://www.signandsight.com/features/1903.html

- noga1

October 26, 2009 at 1:32pm

rhubarbs, Liked your post, but please add the Canadians to your list of worthy allies in Afghanistan. Canadian forces in Afghanistan have been deployed in the most dangerous zones of Afghanistan, have fought hard, and have losses to show for it - 130 dead, the most since the Korean war. molly, I think that perhaps the US and its allies have been in Afghanistan so long that the public have largely forgotten the purpose of their presence. As others have pointed out, the rationale for US presence in Afghanistan is completely different than for its presence in Vietnam. There are two missions: The first is Operation Enduring Freedom, which was launched by the US with UK help after the 9-11 attacks with the stated aim to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The second mission is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001 after the 9-11 attacks. Its initial mission was to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas, later expanded to the entire country. The security goal of the foreign military presence is to ensure that the government of Afghanistan does not again allow its territory to be used as a safe haven and staging ground for attacks on the US and its allies. Fatigue or no fatigue, if the mission ends without that goal accomplished in whatever way it is accomplished, military or political, presumably the strategic threat against the US and its allies will remain and grow.

- malahat

October 26, 2009 at 1:59pm

rhubarbs, "...For example, what size and kind of a force do we need in readiness to deal with Iran's response to a bombing campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, which would also require a sustained campaign against Iranian air forces, ground aerial defenses, and military command-and-control. That's not an Osirak-like raid, that's a full-scale air war, and if the alarmists are right about the threat Iran would pose with a nuclear arsenal, then surely it would be insane to expect Iran to absorb a three-week air war without complaint. So anyone who advocates for more troops in Afghanistan and aggressive action against Iran needs to make clear what resources he feels will be required for each operation..." Personally, given that there's no prospect of UN sanctions, or, given the lack of support by the Obama administration for multilateral sanctions by the US and its allies, or US unilateral sanctions, I think the idea that the Obama administration would do something far stronger and attack Iran is a bit of a red herring in the debate over Afghanistan. There's no sabre rattling, and evidently no sabre to rattle.

- malahat

October 26, 2009 at 2:09pm

Noga: Tawdry. That best sums up your post. Are you so desperate for a comeback you have to invoke the Holocaust? Even when there's no comparison? And does that mean others who feel victimized can use the Shoah for their purposes? Or are you (and those who share your beliefs) the only ones allowed to play the Nazi card? And by the way, answer my question: When can the US get out of Afghanistan? When would you, oh wise one, suggest?

- MOLLYSIMON

October 26, 2009 at 7:01pm

Yes. I am allowed to illustrate my point from a period in which the right and wrong were very clear and unavoidable. Withdrawal from Afghanistan means that women will be burnt alive, little girls will be subject to acid attacks, at best, before they are married off and raped repeatedly for the rest of their life. There must be a point at which the obligation to protect transcends your levels of comfort. So, "When can the US get out of Afghanistan?" the US should stay as long as it takes to make sure that the women won't be burnt, murdered, starved, and raped. Anything less will be a stain upon America which not even Obama's eloquence can wash away. Let's see at least one a leader learning from history and keeping steadfastly to do what is right: "It's not what Charlie Wilson had in mind when he took up the cause of the Afghans. Nevertheless, in spite of 9/11 and all the horrors that have flowed from it, he steadfastly maintains that it was all worth it and that nothing can diminish what the Afghans accomplished for America and the world with their defeat of the Red Army: "I truly believe that this caused the Berlin Wall to come down a good five, maybe ten, years before it would have otherwise. Over a million Russian Jews got their freedom and left for Israel; God knows how many were freed from the gulags. At least a hundred million Eastern Europeans are breathing free today, to say nothing of the Russian people. It's the truth, and all those people who are enjoying those freedoms have no idea of the part played by a million Afghan ghosts. To this day no one has ever thanked them. "They removed the threat we all went to sleep with every night, of World War III breaking out. The countries that used to be in the Warsaw Pact are now in NATO. These were truly changes of biblical proportion, and the effect the jihad had in accelerating these events is nothing short of miraculous. "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And the people who deserved the credit are the ones who made the sacrifice. And then we fucked up the endgame." http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/endlessWar.html

- noga1

October 26, 2009 at 7:50pm

These are the people who will be running the show once American troops are gone: "A Canadian Forces report cites 29 incidents in which the Taliban have used children to help commit atrocities in Afghanistan's southern provinces over the past few months, eight since the beginning of October. As many as a dozen children have been killed in three recent explosions during bomb-making classes in Kandahar. Says Major Robert Dunn: "There is one place west of Kandahar City where they shoot at us every day through a shield of children. They actually stack them up, with 8-year-olds at the front and 15-year-olds at the back." http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/10/childs-play.html

- noga1

October 26, 2009 at 8:10pm

If the U.S. armed forces are required to protect the rights of girls and women in Afghanistan, then they will be required to be there in large numbers for a very very long time. This will not be acceptable, stain or no stain. This is not Germany in 1945 where one can begin to reconnect a defeated nation with its democratic roots and civic past, and pretending that it is gets us nowhere. If the Afghan population in its varying ethnic and regional forms cannot -- doesn't want to -- do this themselves, then we cannot do it for them, and we particularly cannot do it if it requires a continual expenditure of lives and money. The problem is that the term "Afghanistan" is even fuzzy. If we patrolled right to the borders and secured education for every girl in every last village in the mountains, the old way of doing things can carry on merrily ten feet over the border in Pakistan. The national security argument makes some sense -- it's the only reasonable one -- but the international social work argument runs up against facts and reasoning.

- ironyroad

October 26, 2009 at 8:28pm

Of course, Noga, you're allowed to make any comparison you want. That doesn't mean you should. Basically, I agree with what Irony says above. Though from what I've read, we basically dismantled Al Qaeda, who've now fled to the Pakistan. Are you suggesting we go to war there? Oh, yeah, we are at war with them. Just don't call it a war. And shut up about all the civilians we've killed with our drones. I couldn't have said this better than Irony if I tried: "If we patrolled right to the borders and secured education for every girl in every last village in the mountains, the old way of doing things can carry on merrily ten feet over the border in Pakistan."

- MOLLYSIMON

October 26, 2009 at 10:44pm

Good points by rhubarbs (and thanks to bl462 on the Canadian contributions). But with all due respect, the answer to the question "how many men do we have" with respect to the Euros is "not many". Back in 2004 I saw an interview with then-NATO commander now National Security Adviser Gen. Jones in which he stated that continental European forces were "less than 10% usefully deployable." I don't think much has changed in the interim. bl462 lays out the mission very well. We don't have to, nor will we ever be able to, protect all the women and girls in Afghanistan. And we don't have to stay until the place is ready for entry into the EU. But we do need to stay long enough to accomplish the two missions we went there for, and it's likely to be a long time. Folks like Molly are entitled to the luxury of allowing other people's sons and daughters to do this because we have a superb all-volunteer force that is prepared to fight and sacrifice for the successful completion of the mission if they aren't prevented from doing so.

- Robert Powell

October 27, 2009 at 5:37am

"If the U.S. armed forces are required to protect the rights of girls and women in Afghanistan, then they will be required to be there in large numbers for a very very long time." Isn't it convenient to define the prevention of the practice of raping, mutilation and burning of women and girls as " the rights of girls and women in Afghanistan"? When an American reads about the "rights of women" what does he think of? The right for equal payment? The right not to be harassed at work? The right to wear whatever a woman wants? When making arguments like that, at the very least, Ironyroad, one should try to be honest about these things. One should have the courage to say: That women and girls are killed and raped as a matter of course is none of my business. I am not willing to extend more than my sympathy to these poor victims unless I can see something good coming out of it for me. I am not willing to see my son fighting for these women, risking his life. There may very well NOT be a solution to Afghani violence against women, given the culture. I don't know. But the moral dilemma about a fireman's first duty remains and your condescendingly patient tone of speaking about it doesn't diminish it even by one iota. Quite the contrary. Anyway, I recommend Charlie Rose's recent interview with CBS Lara Logan and last night with David Rohde of "The New York Times". You might maybe understand that America's national security interests and the "life quality" of these women might be just two sides of the same coin.

- noga1

October 27, 2009 at 9:45am

BTW, what does it mean when someone says "I couldn't have said this better than ... X"? Isn't it a roundabout compliment paid to oneself? And is the assumption underlying that compliment always merited? I always wonder about it.

- noga1

October 27, 2009 at 10:36am

However you read my tone, Noga, including mistakenly, the point remains. I saw David Rohde last night and I've heard a number of people with considerable experience in Afghanistan interviewed, including NBC's Richard Engel on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks ago. They don't by any means all argue the same position, and Engel differs from Logan and Rohde. I don't dispute what a fireman's duty is, but it's not the job of firefighters to deal with the insurance company or rebuild the house. It's not a good analogy, at the very least. As it happens, I'm a lot more in favor of a substantial troop increase for Afghanistan than against it, but there are so many moving parts to this thing (Pakistan, civilian opinion, the Karzai govt, the possibility of Pashtun nationalism going one way or the other) that predictions seem to be shaky at best. I remain confident that there's a road through the impasse but I don't see the U.S. reshaping thousands of years of tribal society when even the "national" borders within which we want to do the reshaping have no great meaning on the ground.

- ironyroad

October 27, 2009 at 10:45am

Incidentally, I'd also dispute your assumption above. When an American (or any reasonably aware person) hears the phrase "rights of women and girls" specifically in connection with Afghanistan, I think they think of more basic ones than equal pay or workplace behavior. For me, I'd immediately think of going to school without threat of violence, freedom from forced marriages at a young age, and the like.

- ironyroad

October 27, 2009 at 10:50am

And someone who can't be accused of condescension: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

- ironyroad

October 27, 2009 at 11:32am

"It's not a good analogy, at the very least." It was not meant as an analogy but a metaphor. And I would have expected you to get that point. I actually think you did, even if you seem reluctant to admit it.

- noga1

October 27, 2009 at 1:05pm

Great link ironyroad. Honest people can disagree about this stuff.

- Robert Powell

October 27, 2009 at 1:27pm

Noga: I'm not sure if it's a metaphor, it sounds like an analogy drawn from the real historical incident you recounted, but ok. RP: It's only one guy's experience, but still . . . he's clearly thought about it a hell of a lot.

- ironyroad

October 27, 2009 at 1:47pm

fwiw, I thought the Polish fireman was an analogy, too. I think it is a wonderful historical incident of humanity and duty triumphing over expedience, but a poor analogy.

- malahat

October 27, 2009 at 2:13pm

I think Hoh's letter of resignation says it all. Maybe Noga can apply for his job.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 27, 2009 at 5:11pm

You still haven't answered my question, Noga: When can we get out? Or is America now a an empire? And does that mean we take over Pakistan because they commit honor-killings and throw acid in girls' faces? And what about Mexico, where hundreds of women have been slaughtered in Juarez? I'm certainly not denying just how horrific it is for women in Afghanistan (although you'd love to paint me that way) but America is not--nor should it be--a nation of nation-builders. Of course, to have any difference of opinion with Noga means you're outright wrong.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 27, 2009 at 5:21pm

Hoh's is a particularly significant voice. I look forward to hearing more from him. But at the end of the day, we really do have vital interests in Afghanistan that are somewhat distinct from interests we have in Nigeria, China, Indonesia, and Ukraine, etc. We need a foreign policy that can walk and chew gum at the same time.

- Robert Powell

October 27, 2009 at 5:31pm

"]America's national security interests and the "life quality" of these women might be just two sides of the same coin." Here is someone who agrees: "In contrast, a Western decision to wash its hands of Afghanistan would send a different message to friends and competitors alike. Islamic extremism, rather than continuing to lose ground to the universal promise of democratic modernity, would gain new legs. After all, Afghan Islamists would have defeated their second superpower in a generation. Rival states that contest Western leadership of the international order and reject the principles of open society would increase their influence. Just as most Afghans are not prepared to live under a new Taliban regime, surely most Americans and Europeans are not prepared to live in a world in which the West voluntarily cedes its influence, power, and moral example to others who do not share our commitment to human dignity and liberty." http://blog.gmfus.org/2009/10/22/the-future-of-the-west-and-the-world-it-made-is-at-stake-in-afghanistan/

- noga1

October 29, 2009 at 7:03am

RP: "We need a foreign policy that can walk and chew gum at the same time." I'll go with that.

- ironyroad

October 29, 2009 at 10:58pm