THE SPINE DECEMBER 3, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Places In Between was my introduction to Afghanistan. Published in 2006, it was written by Rory Stewart, who at age 36 has already lived a life at once so adventurous and so quirky to defy easy narrative. He will soon take a safe (Tory) seat in the British parliament and rise quickly in the ranks, so quickly that he will still be thought young when he ascends to 10 Downing Street. Why not? (Rory is the second of my friends who is thought to be the future prime minister of an American ally, the first being Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Party aspirant in Ottawa. I hired Michael for his first job at Harvard and brought him into the New Republic circle.)
In many ways, Places stands in contrast to our hopes of making a civilized polity out of Afghanistan. The modalities are just not there. One cannot overlook the country's essential primitivism and its people's backwardness. This does not mean that Afghanis lack wisdom and charm, humor and goodness, dignity and elegance, all of which there is plenty, as Stewart's book testifies convincingly. But he is not a romantic or a romanticizer. Yes, he was tutor to the royals, Prince Harry and Prince William. Still, I doubt that he thinks of them as versions of John Stuart Mill.
Soon after the Iraq war started, Stewart became what was roughly the British regent of two provinces in the battle. The Prince of the Marshes is a chronicle, detailed and diagnostic, of the situation, his and that of the Iraqis, of England's, of the alliance. War and disappointment--not to say dismay--come together. One can even foretell disappointment without it ceasing to be disappointing.
So it was with Iraq, and so it has been with Afghanistan ...and will be with Afghanistan. (Leave alone, for mercy's sake, Pakistan.)
Weeks ago (and long before The Speech) at a dinner party, some certified Afghanistan experts, whom I will not and really cannot name, and other knowledgeable folk discussed Obama's impending plans. And, course, their own. The range was great: This being Cambridge, some wanted total withdrawal NOW. Others believed that only an enormous increase in troops could help. The rest veered towards center: 30,000 of "ours," 10,000 from allies. Exactly what the president finally decided. It was middle ground. That's where the stars had pointed all along.
I am not giving out secrets. But Rory Stewart's face seemed etched in doubt. I will not presume to read the 4000 Cadet faces at West Point.
The president did what he had to do. The policy was the least he could do without actually giving up on Pakistan, which even Carl Levin and Russ Feingold don't want him to do and for the defense of which Obama was eloquent and clear. The prospect of the disintegration of Pakistan is horrendous. But that doesn't mean it is altogether unlikely. The ongoing existence of a Pakistani state is, I believe, the cornerstone of our Afghan policy. Ironically, the future of India also relies on a stable Pakistan--alas, a thing in the future.
Obama also built on America's bloody encounter in Iraq, for which there has finally been a real and ongoing consensus--a consensus built on success. The speech tried to have it both ways, reproaching George Bush while taking up his "surge" strategy as an inheritance in Afghanistan.
The essentials of the speech were historically rooted, politically realistic in laying out the dangers inherent in any American retreat, intellectually challenging in taking on the platitudes of some of his supporters, who took them on from him.
Robert Kagan, an intellectual star in the conservative firmament, has done a column about the president's address, "Obama's lonely decision," in this morning's Washington Post. It is finely argued and massively supported.
There is a new doctrine out there that seems to enjoy enormous cache among the smart foreign policy set: fight wars until they get hard, then quit. Vice President Biden seems to be a leading proponent of this approach. While a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden backed the Iraq War and spent the first few years after 2003 rightly calling on the Bush administration to send more troops. But when Bush finally wriggled himself free from the disastrous strategies of Donald Rumsfeld, Biden declared the situation hopeless and called instead for breaking up Iraq into three pieces. He then proceeded to oppose the very troop increase he had so long, and so courageously, fought for. And, of course, in opposing the surge, he had the whole foreign policy establishment on his side, epitomized by the wise people of the Baker-Hamilton commission.
Many Bush supporters like to point to that president’s enormous courage in turning against the prevailing winds, disregarding not only the advice of the foreign policy establishment but of many of his own top advisers and much of the Republican party, which in early 2007 was perfectly prepared to quit Iraq to save their political skins.
But now we see President Obama doing much the same thing, turning against a majority in his own party, resisting the counsel of Biden and the wise men to head for the exits from a war that they had long supported.
It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006. Obama has had to make this decision with most of his presidency still ahead of him. Bush had nothing to lose. Obama could lose everything.
So what explains two presidents who could not be more different making the same lonely decision? I suspect that it is because they, and they alone, have to bear responsibility for losing. Congress is brilliant at never taking responsibility. Its members always voted for the war before they voted against it -- in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The foreign policy establishment and intellectual world are much the same. They fully supported intervention in Vietnam, mostly supported intervention in Iraq and fully supported the war in Afghanistan -- until the wars got hard, or embarrassing and difficult to defend in polite company. Then they bailed, desperately trying to cover their tracks along the way, and offering reassuring images of what losing would look like. Somehow they never mention the helicopters taking off from the roofs of abandoned American embassies; the rout of Afghans, Iraqis or Vietnamese who made the mistake of trusting America’s word; or the collapse of America’s reputation as a serious world power.
Since presidents and military commanders have to take responsibility for losing, they are less inclined than congressmen and pundits to paint losing in rosy hues.
Like most Democratic ideologues, most Republican ideologues are not content to have had the president move to an aggressively responsive policy in AfPak. It is clear why the liberal left is in spasm: Obama has dropped their pretenses that, if you do nothing, you can accomplish much. With the Republicans, it is a different matter. Partisanship does not permit them to recognize in the Democratic president, in this Democratic president, the patriotism of his predecessors.
So the New York Post, symptomatic of many on the right (and it is a symptom) has gone on a rampage because the Obama speech did not include the word "win" in it. Horrors! But he did say "our cause is just, our resolve unwavering." And he said it many times and in many ways, each appropriate to the specific point he was making.
And, yes, Obama did announce a time-frame from which almost all of his closest colleagues have dissented. No, I don't mean Joe Biden, who (good sources tell me) has been going around D.C. saying the president is "wrong, wrong, wrong." Well, no one ever accused him, either as senator or as vice president, of being discreet. Take the headline on the front page of this morning's Financial Times: "Gates says target date for withdrawal from Afghanistan might be revised." This is not an exit strategy. This is an exit wish. And I want Monopoly from Santa Claus. Judah Maccabee gives no presents.
"God bless you. May God bless the United States of America."
19 comments
"This is a war for civilization" Yes it is. Here is a view from Canada, or rather, a Canadian currently in Afghanistan: "I spoke by telephone with the CBC's Rex Murphy the other day about the vast gulf between the real world (which contains places like Afghanistan) and the surreal world Ottawa's politicians and press gallery typists appear to inhabit most of the time these days. Every time the word "Afghanistan" gets mumbled by someone up on the Hill, the distance between Ottawa and the real world seems to grow." http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/spirit-of-west-highlanders-westies.html Listen to the conversation he links to. It is very informative and flatly contradicts what some correspondents like CNN's Michael Ware likes to put out.
- noga1
December 3, 2009 at 4:33pm
"...(Rory is the second of my friends who is thought to be the future prime minister of an American ally, the first being Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Party aspirant in Ottawa. I hired Michael for his first job at Harvard and brought him into the New Republic circle..." While Iggy is very intelligent, he has shown no evidence to date of having any political brains. The polls are going very badly for aspiring Iggy, there is a barely concealed civil war going on in the perspiring Liberal Party, and he may be expiring as Liberal leader. Accordingly, he is a very long shot to ever become a future Canadian prime minister. Marty and Harvard may well be his future re-employers.
- malahat
December 3, 2009 at 5:51pm
I dunno about that noga, it is a war for civilization in Afghanistan, and to some smaller degree in Pakistan and the Muslim world, but we as sure in hell are in no danger of coming close to losing our civilization to a bunch of illiterate goat herders. Otherwise I thought this was a good post by Marty, could have done with a little less snark vis a vis Joe the Biden (like we all don't know this about him already). I support this decision completely, and think Obama's keeping Gates and bringing in Jones were great decisions. He does have a truly stellar cabinet (ok Geithner screwed up at the Fed. but no so much now, and yes Hillary can go off the rails once in a while but is otherwise solid). As to the target date for withdrawal of the surge troops, please no one anywhere believes that is writ in stone, and the notion that the Taliban would cool their jets until we withdraw ten thousand troops in 2011 before they surge is just nuts. To be honest, I hope and pray they do because a 2 year respite to develop and train Af. forces would do us nicely.
- blackton
December 3, 2009 at 6:28pm
Obama does not have to convince conservatives of his resolve to "finish the job" (whatever that means). He has to convince our enemies and allies. Carrying on about an exit strategy which will begin in July, 2011, even if it is a condtional time target (is it?), even if it is only a way of placating the Left (will it?), will certainly (and justifiably) be interpreted by friends and enemies as a sign of weakness. It may guarantnee our failure. It will certainly guarantee more casualties as it will reinforce the belief that killing Americans will force us to quit. As a conservative, I give Obama credit for making the decision he did, and he will have my support for the duration. But I do criticize the time line, and I cannot fail to observe his obvious distaste for the Commander in Chief duty he must fulfill. And if our troops are ordered into harm's way, "victory" or "win" is certainly a more appropriate goal for them then "finishing the job". Finally, I promise that the day that Obama (like you) stops trashing Bush, I will stop trashing Obama. The day that Obama starts giving Bush the credit and respect that he is due, I will do the same for Obama. I believe that most conservatives feel the same way.
- dubrovnov
December 3, 2009 at 10:40pm
For what should President Bush be given credit and respect, dubrownov? Just refresh my memory. And if you think victory is a more appropriate goal in Afghanistan, you have a responsibility to let us know against whom the victory should be won, and how you would recognize its arrival. I don't want to pick on phrases, but if you don't know what "finish the job" means, then I haven't a clue what "victory" means in the specific context of Afghanistan.
- ironyroad
December 3, 2009 at 11:47pm
...While Iggy is very intelligent, he has shown no evidence to date of having any political brains. The polls are going very badly for aspiring Iggy, there is a barely concealed civil war going on in the perspiring Liberal Party, and he may be expiring as Liberal leader. Accordingly, he is a very long shot to ever become a future Canadian prime minister... True that!
- basman
December 4, 2009 at 12:33am
Very odd, but not atypical post by Peretz, btw. It reveals so very much about him in the sense of the tics of the man you have to put up with, as in (sort of fond exasperation) "Well, that's Peretz for you ".
- basman
December 4, 2009 at 12:49am
Blackton; regarding your comment; "As to the target date for withdrawal of the surge troops, please no one anywhere believes that is writ in stone," This today from a CBS White house reporter who asked a specific question on that subject: "After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel." My first impression was exactly the same as yours. But with this firm comment, it looks like Obama is setting himself up to piss off somebody, big time 18, months from now.
- nacnud1
December 4, 2009 at 5:11am
"...against whom the victory should be won, and how you would recognize its arrival." Against whom was the Cold war waged? Against Russians? Against an ideology which was pervasive and contagious? And how did you recognize its arrival? Did you even recognize its arrival before its reality banged you on the nose? Your rationale in these questions suggest an inability to part with conventions and recognizable patterns of confrontation which are increasingly rare in today's world. You cannot hope to circumvent the issues linguistically. This war is not war as history taught us. It is a war waged by different rules. You cannot keep playing traditional chess when your enemy is playing the game as if the pawns had no recognizable, pre-defined, mutually agreed upon movements or rules. The military recognizes these facts but for non-military people, they cannot keep up with so much unpheaval of received knowledge. Ask yourself this: Do you know who is your enemy in Afghanistan? I'll bet you do, but you will prevaricate about it. But if you at least recognize what or who the enemy is, then you cannot let it, or them, carry the day.
- noga1
December 4, 2009 at 7:17am
Do you know who is your enemy in Afghanistan? Of course we don't, beyond the fact that whoever is shooting at us on any given day is the enemy. These people don't come color coded for identification; (with the exception of the Arab speaking Al Qaeda) this guy enemy, this other guy friend. We are in a country where alliances can change overnight. The ideological enemy is radical based Islam, but we can't see into the souls of the people to know who is a radical or who is moderate (neverminding the fact that many whom we fight are just in it for the money or their tribe) With the Cold war we recognized victory when the wall came down, and when Gorby signed a decree getting rid of the Soviet Union. I do disagree with you on another area, this war is like thousands of other wars in history, it is nothing more than a guerrilla war, the only major difference is in years past the way to win against a guerrilla army was to kill everyone. Afganistan was conquered numerous times in history using those tactics. We simply won't do that anymore. So we won't kill enough people to break them, and we won't forcibly convert them from Islam to Christianity. So based on these two sure fire routes to victory, we have to rely on the slow process of modernizing enough of Afghanistan that will appeal to the people more.
- blackton
December 4, 2009 at 10:48am
nacnud. yeah, and read my lips no new taxes was chiseled in stone too. Now don't get me wrong, he might have a token withdrawal of thousands of troops (set as much by rotational needs and manpower shortages as anything else), but a clear signal to the Taliban? Please. As to pissing people off, well we have to wait to see the conditions on the ground. If it works, and things look better, Obama can take credit and it is hard to see how Republicans against some troops coming back, and if it fails then Obama can use that as an excuse to change tactics.
- blackton
December 4, 2009 at 10:56am
"You cannot keep playing traditional chess when your enemy is playing the game as if the pawns had no recognizable, pre-defined, mutually agreed upon movements or rules. The military recognizes these facts but for non-military people, they cannot keep up with so much unpheaval of received knowledge." I agree 100% with your first sentence, Noga, but your second is problematic. I think the experience of the U.S. forces in Iraq 2003-5 is a textbook example of institutions not recognizing how facts and realities are changing. It's a great achievement that Petraeus and others got the counter-insurgency concept back on the table, and I have a lot of respect of Gen. McChrystal and what he wants to do in Af/Pak, but the situation we have now took a lot of work to wrench the military away from the Cold War chessboard.
- ironyroad
December 4, 2009 at 12:48pm
For clarity, that last sentence should read: I have a lot of respect for Gen. McChrystal and what he wants to do in Af/Pak, but as regards the current situation, it took a lot of work to wrench the military away from the Cold War chessboard.
- ironyroad
December 4, 2009 at 1:47pm
Irony. I've replied to you on the common sense discussion.
- luispc
December 4, 2009 at 2:10pm
noga said: "'...against whom the victory should be won, and how you would recognize its arrival.'" (marty)
Ask yourself this: Do you know who is your enemy in Afghanistan? I'll bet you do, but you will prevaricate about it. But if you at least recognize what or who the enemy is, then you cannot let it, or them, carry the day.
Isn't it rather the question, "Do you know [what] is your enemy in Afghanistan?" And in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., and disseminated throughout the Muslim world (and beyond)?
It is Wahabism/Islamism/Revolutionary Islamism/....the menacing cohort of Pan-Islamist nations, groups, populations, their supporters and benefactors and allies. In Afghanistan, then, to put a finer point on it, the who that are in league with the Islamic "Ism-ists:" *they are the enemy* whenever, wherever they operate or developing in the world.
And, it's not so much even a matter of the individuals and organizations, as it is the dogma and practical programme Islamic Ism-ists promulgate. Everywhere Ism-ists are and act, their dogma and programme are what is evil to the core. Evil. To. The. Core. Whether you are secular, religious, or in between (including atheists!) Islamic Ism-ism is nothing but an abomination and a menace. It is aggressively anti-life therefore it is aggressively anti-human. It is not enough to oppose it, disagree with it (even violently), fight against it. There is no winning with or against it. It must be thwarted in its designs, disappointed in its aims, stopped in its operations and actions. Finally it must be totally discredited, shown to be false, agreed as to what it is. Then it will be destroyed - it must be destroyed, can only be destroyed, if civilization is ever to know and have peace again.
That's my credo. I will defend it to my death if need be. I will never surrender to it, acknowledge it, tolerate it in any way or form.
As I indicated, it is not really a question of who at all. When the what is defeated, there will be no longer be a who. There will remain those who determine to live in a sane, humane world.
- Tgossard
December 4, 2009 at 7:14pm
In case anybody thinks I'm finger-pointing or taking sides in a socio-political-religious conflict, I believe re: Islamic Islam-ism it isn't a partisan issue. Whether you are a Christian, Jew, Bahai, Hindu, Atheist, or Muslim, etc. it is the same question and the same answer. (Not seriously, but figuratively) To hell with anybody who denies it.
- Tgossard
December 4, 2009 at 7:21pm
When I read or hear someone who says, "We love death more than you love life" I have two thoughts and reactions: 1) "I beg your pardon, what did you just say, did I hear that correctly?" and 2) "Who the Hell do you think you are???" The idea is a monstrosity, expressing it is monstrous. Who says such a thing and expects to be entertained, listened to or taken seriously? "I'm sorry but what you just said is unacceptable, intolerable, I don't care who you are or why you are saying it. You say you are a faithful Muslim/Christian, Jew, etc.? I don't believe you!"
- Tgossard
December 4, 2009 at 7:46pm
irony asks a good question: "And if you think victory is a more appropriate goal in Afghanistan, you have a responsibility to let us know against whom the victory should be won, and how you would recognize its arrival." Though there have been some interesting responses, I don't think anyone has really answered the question. One might say the enemy is the Taliban, but they are fighting us only because we are fighting them. If not for the former presence of Al Qaeda, we would not be in Afghanistan at all, much less fighting the Taliban. Or one might say the enemy is Al Qaeda. That is true, except that Al Qaeda has no signficant presence in Afghanistan. So what can we do in Afghanistan that will signal victory over Al Qaeda? And how will we know when that has occurred?
- dhurtado
December 5, 2009 at 11:28am
Whatever this article is trying to say, and whatever Rory Stewart, Michael Ignatieff, Prince Harry, Prince William, and John Stuart Mill have to do with it, why is it so hard to understand or accept that going into Afghanistan right after 9/11 to hunt down Osama and Al Qaeda is substantively different from staying there eight years later despite the inability of anyone to articulate a reason for further killing and sacrifice? It is not a sign of cowardice or hypocrisy to acknowledge that it is now too late to accomplish what we (allegedly) set out to do, or anything else of importance. Many good people were lured into supporting, or not opposing, the Vietnam and Iraq adventures on the basis of false premises, and as it has turned out Afghanistan is no different. Obama's peroration about how great America is and how we will always intervene to fight for what is right, uttered in defense of his surrender to the generals, made me want to throw up.
- mlottman
December 5, 2009 at 10:36pm