Blogs and Stories
Stop Talking About Leaving
Nikola Solic / Reuters
Tuesday night, Obama will call for a 30,000-troop surge, but also put limits on the U.S. stay in Afghanistan. Peter Beinart says that's exactly the wrong way to get Afghans to own the war.
Over the past several months, two different Afghanistan debates have unfolded side by side. Outside the White House, pundits have debated whether we should stay in Afghanistan or leave. But inside the White House, according to news reports, leaving has never been a serious option. Instead, the debate has been about how many more American forces to send. On the blogs and op-ed pages, being an Afghanistan dove has meant wanting to withdraw U.S. troops. Inside the Obama administration, however, being an Afghanistan dove has meant wanting to increase U.S. troop levels by “only” 20,000. No wonder Frank Rich is an angry man.
The best way for Obama to sustain domestic support for the Afghan War is to show progress on the ground. And telling Afghans that we’re about to leave is exactly the wrong way to bring that progress about.
Tomorrow night, when President Obama unveils his Afghanistan strategy to the nation, these parallel debates will collide. Obama, it appears, will announce that he’s deploying about 30,000 more U.S. troops. And yet in an effort to appease the doves in his party, he will reportedly veil this act of escalation in the language of de-escalation. “Our time there will be limited,” explained Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last week, in a preview of the administration talking points. “I think that’s important for people to understand.”
I don’t think they’re going to understand; it’s all too clever by half. At this point, telling the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan that “our time there will be limited” does little good. They already know that; in fact, they think we’re halfway out the door. Pakistani elites are obsessed with the memory of American abandonment after the Cold War. We pushed them into fighting a major war against Afghanistan’s Soviet occupiers, and then, when the Soviets left, we left too, leaving Pakistan to deal with the wreckage. Now, once again, we’ve pushed them into war: demanding that they send their army to fight the Pakistani Taliban in the badlands of South Waziristan. If Obama tells Pakistanis that—troop surge notwithstanding—we’re getting ready to leave, they’re less likely to continue the fight. Why provoke the Taliban if you’re going to have to face them alone?
The same holds true inside Afghanistan itself. After decades of anarchy and war, Afghans have learned that survival requires backing the side that’s likely to win, and right now, that doesn’t look like us. According to polls, America and its Afghan allies—although far less popular than we once were—are still considerably more popular than the Taliban. But that means little if Afghans believe we’re about to leave. As one Afghan parliamentarian recently told Yochi Dreazen and Anand Gopal of The Wall Street Journal, “At the beginning, everyone supported the Americans. But now a lot of locals don’t believe in a U.S. or government victory anymore. They expect the Americans to leave, so they are casting their support to the Taliban.” Eventually, to be sure, America will need to stress that it’s not going to establish a long-term colonial presence in Afghanistan. But the time for sending that message will be after Afghans believe their government can survive once we’ve gone. The Iraq experience is instructive in this regard. In 2006, the Bush administration doubled down militarily with the surge. Then, once America’s increased military commitment (along with other factors) had strengthened Iraq’s government, the Bushies appeased nationalist hostility by setting a timetable for withdrawal. In Afghanistan, there’s actually less nationalist hostility, which makes it all the more important that Obama signal not that America is about to leave, but that America is willing to stay.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
The Tea Partiers' Phony Populism
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
Obama Outsmarts the Terrorists
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
The Republicans' Reagan Amnesia
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
JayGetty
Obama can talk about the end game, but if he tries to walk from the "Long lasting War and sell lots of weapons" (C 1991 Getty) Obama will be shown the door! Obama will put the draft back in; that is why he is president.
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would lower speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red. That would lower carbon output to 2050 Kyoto level over night.
If they want to win the war, they do not, they would cut the electricity, phones, air traffic, and blockade imports and exports from Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria; no invading army is needed or relevant to winning.
If they wanted health care, they could just implement a national sales tax and abolish the IRS; Exclude grocery store items, every thing else: the higher the luxury, the higher the tax. Disclose the policy terms of the national insurance; allow supplemental policies to be bought by those who want insurance beyond the coverage limits of the universal coverage: that is a three page bill.
Domestically produced cellulose ethanol equals: full employment in the USA, balanced trade deficit, cut off of funding for terrorist; set the minimum price of fuel at the pump at $1.75/gal to keep monopoly OPEC from lowering the price long enough to rust out our stills. I was running my car on ethanol I produced by 1984; so please keep your ethanol canards/invalid moronic objections to your, uninformed, self.
case1234
Who would have every thought that after 8 years just the mention of leaving would STILL be a controversial and denounced position. When it was said back in 2001 that this would take 10 years, neo-cons laughed off the notion. Now we are entering year 9 and they STILL insist on NOT talking leaving. I am not for just packing up and leaving but we need to talk about how to get out, otherwise we never will.
Do you realize that 10 year olds at the start of this war are now being deployed to fight in it.
Warehouseone
You do know that all of your proposals are improbable.
I will write you a check for $500 Mexican pesos if Obama reinstates the draft.
If you think that Obama is a Communist now just wait until he tries to impose a nation wide speed limit! The IRS will never be abolished in our life times.These type of dramatic changes do not happen easily.
MaliciousDisorder
One of the biggest whiners about having an exit strategy during the Bush years is now advising NOT to provide an exit strategy. What a bunch of a-holes you dems are.
I suppose they should be now be looking for the hidden Afghanistan WMD's
Curiouser
I couldn't disagree with JayGetty more. Although Peter Beinart comes in a close second.
Obama isn't "appeasing doves". He's trying to find a way out of the mess. And staying would be mass suicide economically and strategically.
OldCrow
Either fight to win
or leave.
Binary decision.
Don't waste time, lives, or treasure---if you are not in it to win it.
Obama needs to define what winning is, not when or how our troops will leave.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--misterdonJayGetty
Curiouser, I stated the actual market conditions; if you can not refute them..best keep quiet. About which you know nothing: say nothing. Obama cares only about Obama. Res ipsa loquitur
Obama is the biggest patsy since Oswald!
sophia5
Sorry for beating a dead horse,
but if it did NOT work for the British or Soviets,
how is this THIRD TIME going to be the " Charm ? "
Seems the " Way Out " is to JUST GET OUT . . . NOW !!!
neverlate
Like entering a marriage with a pre-nup.
Nuld001
By Mr. Beinart's reckoning, it's not how long but if we can win. So how is that going to be determined? Surely we could be there 3 years, 5 years, 10 years - we don't really know? Militarily, we need to go in there and get the job done - as quickly as possible, train the Afghan defense forces and withdraw. From what I've heard estimates indicate this could take 10 years. We must at all costs avoid being sucked into their civil war. There are no good solutions to this, just less bad ones. The President and his staff are aware of this.
neverlate
You don't go to war and put americans in harms way without clear resolve. We should just get out. Right now we are fighting so the Chinese can mine copper in Afghanistan and use it in goods exported to the US. This will do to OBama what Vietnam did to LBJ, which is the only upside to this whole mess.
kabindra
Says the wise genius who cheer led us into Iraq. Keep it up buddy. How does one know that you have spouted inanities? You wrote something.
DavidCohenWashingtonDC
The test for Obama is how to navigate a difficult situation. In spite of what Beinart writes, it can't be done without an exit strategy.
It also requires stepping up and asking the American people to pay for the war's costs. That's why the efforts of Congressman Obey (D-Wis), Murtha (D-Pa), Senator Levin (D-Mich) and others boosting a sur tax on higher income people has intrinsic merit.
Other harmful economic practices should also be taxed--practices that emanate from privlege and an absence of creating wealth except person acquisitiveness.. Knowledgable people about Wall St--for the most part not crusaders--talk of the neeed for a windfall profits tax especially on the bonuses and a stock transaction tax.
If we're serious about Afghanistan who pays for its costs are the most important indicator.
David Cohen
Washington DC
melpol
Making a good stew requires keeping the temperature right. A good war is one that does not get too hot or cold. Wars are needed to keep defense workers employed. Sending in more troops will create a good war that will last for decades.
nailbunny
I completely agree with Beinart. I think that Obama and his generals have a much better idea of what is required to win in Afghanistan. I also think that the liberal cries like that of Michael Moore of 'you said you'd pull out' are bizarre. Obama said that Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the right war. The idea that we should be looking at Pakistan, now, is also ridiculous, because the enemy - the very real one - moves between the two countries and neither country wants them. We should stay focussed on both countries, give the troops whatever they need - be it more men on the ground, helicopters, more people to train the Afghanis to prevent the enemy from coming back by military training and just education for everyone including women. We should be taking advantage of the fact that they don't hate us like the Iraqis.
I'm a liberal and I don't think other liberals couldn't get their heads around the possibility - even probability - that if we pull out now, then we will be back to 2000 and the loss of troops' lives really will be for nothing. Maybe Obama should trust in the intelligence of the populace or am I being hopelessly naive?
ImNoPUNK
Hey nailbunny...
When focusing on the why in "why is Pakistan important", you must remember the instability of that country's government (especially now that the newly elected president will be indicted). Should the Paki brand of Taliban gain control of the country, the 150plus nukes there will fall in to their hands.... Make no mistake about it, that's exactly what those bastards have set their sights on.....
flyoverland
Kind of like a pitcher telling a batter what he's throwing.
billybob
kind of like making overly simplistic statements on a blog.
flyoverland
just trying to keep things simple for you BillyBob. Say hi to EllyMae
dannyboy547
I'm sure Peter Beinart was in on the months of White House discussions on this matter -- not. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I trust the New Republic editor so vociferously in favor of attacking the wrong country after 9/11 (that would be Iraq).
JohnConnughton
Mr. Beinart writes:
In 2006, the Bush administration doubled down militarily with the surge. Then, once America's increased military commitment (along with other factors) had strengthened Iraq's government, the Bushies appeased nationalist hostility by setting a timetable for withdrawal.
My question is, when did the 'Bushies' ever set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq? I Googled that question, and the news items that came up suggest strongly that Mr. Beinart either does not remember recent history or else he is one of those people who thinks if he puts a desire in print then it becomes true. Either way you should be wary of his thinking, because in fact as early as 2006 Bush said that decision would fall to a future President; in 2007 he threatened to veto military funding if it included any timetable; and it was only just before the election in 2008 that he finally caved to pressure from both Iraq and America and accepted the idea at all. And Beinart calls that appeasement?
Anyone interested in evidence on this should go to Google and do a search on
Bush's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
Or, here are the first couple results:
AFP: In reversal, Bush to accept Iraq withdrawal timetableAug 22, 2008 ... And Bush has come under pressure because of public statements by Iraq's leaders that they favored setting a withdrawal timetable. ...
afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5glz91oS2gfjNeEnc434cozHuQynA - Similar
Bush: Iraq withdrawal a decision for future - Politics- msnbc.comMar 21, 2006 ... WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday the decision about when to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq will fall to future presidents and ...
UncleSam
I don't know if Steve Coll would agree with your depiction of Pakistan as an unwilling partner the US abandoned after the Soviets left. In fact, after billions spent trying to get the Pak government to give up Taliban leaders, the administration still hasn't accepted the reality that the the Pak government could never be counted on. You also seem to forget the ISI's roll in maintaining chaos in two countries (if you count the Kashmir).
The Taliban have been in bed with Pakistan for quite some time and now it's time to pay the piper. If it wasn't for the nukes, we'd have been out of Afghanistan this year.
GW got us into two messes, neither with clear cut goals for the next ten years and with billions more spent that don't solve the problem originating in countries other than the ones were in. If Obama can say that foreign fighters and the Taliban are on the decline, then maybe his message has a reference for Americans to go by. Beyond that, we're still a quagmire that remains a neocon horse to beat regardless of what the president does.
tillkan
It was not the surge that cooled things down in Iraq. It was the Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda and seeing that the Shiites were winning the civil war. It was Iran making Sadr cool things out with his people. The surge did help to allow the Shiites to finish the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, so we can credit the surge for that if we want. But the real reason things cooled down is this is when it became clear that the US was on its way out. No credit to any Bush decision - it was just clear that the American people were Done with this war and its lying justifications.
Georealist
Where are you reading your history? Mad Magazine? Who made it clear when Bush was President that the US "was on its way out???" Bush NEVER set a time table. The surge made it clear to the Sunnis that we WERE NOT on the way out. That then made it easier to turn the Iraqi Sunnis against the Transnational Jihadist Sunnis. Get all that??
A surge in Iraq is one thing..a surge of 30,000 in Afghanistan is less than useless...it's not enough to accomplish a hearts and minds strategy...and far too many to avoid being helplessly picked off in the Spring of 2010.
Obama has made the worst possible decision...but then, what did anyone expect? Not a whit of creativity and months of procrastination. Ditto the Iranian situation..a country that just yesterday shoved it in the USs face..big time!
tillkan
I never said Bush set a timetable. After the 2006 elections it was clear to all the world that public opinion in the US was going to force this stupid war to end. And many reports have shown that the Sunnis turned against Al Qaeda before the surge.
byersl
My only question is this: what if it's not 30,000 troops?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.