U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke: We're in Afghanistan because it really matters. We're in Afghanistan because if we fail in Afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us. It will increase al-Qaeda's worldwide reach. They will come back with the Taliban in all likelihood, and they will gain a worldwide success which will be very dangerous for our national security interests. So we have to be clear. The American public needs to be clear on why we're in Afghanistan. This is not Vietnam, a war which I participated in as a State Department civilian in the lower Mekong Delta when I entered the government. This is not the Balkans. It's not Iraq. This is quite different, and this one relates directly to our safety at home.
RM: But we tried to do counterinsurgency in Vietnam, too, pretty explicitly. ... When you look back at those efforts, all those years ago, do you really have confidence that a foreign country can help create a state somewhere else, that we really can stand up an Afghan government?
Holbrooke: I think we can if we do it right. . . . The fundamental difference is the one you and I just already mentioned. It matters to our homeland security. Vietnam did not, although at the time, the administrations in power did say it did, but they were wrong. ... It's a process which is not easy, and you only embark on it if you decide that it is absolutely critical for the U.S. national interests, which it is.
That's the argument. That's the case that the Obama Administration makes for the war in Afghanistan now, the case made to me this week by diplomat Richard Holbrooke, but shared across the administration. And the case is that we have to be in Afghanistan because it's critical to our national interests. They say the war was mishandled badly for years by the Bush Administration, and that's why we're dealing with the Taliban resurgence and that's why we had almost nothing to show for our years there when Obama took office.
But they say despite how bad it is, we can't just leave.
We can't leave, because we can make progress there, and failing to make that progress would be a disaster: the Afghan government collapses, the Taliban returns. And yes, that's awful for the Afghan people, but for us that would also mean a victory and sanctuary again for Al Qaeda, for the terrorists who attacked us nine years ago, and who would love to do so again.
To avert that, the argument goes, we need to do everything we can to ensure that there is an Afghan government: A big, competent national police force that isn't corrupt, that serves and protects its people. A well-trained, well-equipped army that can defend the government against attempts to overthrow it. Basic services, national ministries, governors and municipal offices, all linked to the central government in Kabul.
Even if the Afghan people hate the Taliban, a feeble, corrupt government there doesn't stand a chance against the Taliban coming back. And we need, and they need, for the Taliban not to come back. And if not the Taliban exactly, then other radicals who would happily make common cause with transnational terrorist groups.
That's the argument. And so we're still there, in increasingly huge numbers. President Obama has tripled the number of American troops there since he's been president. Those troops are there with a definite, clear mission: Set up that police force. Set up that Afghan army. Secure village after valley, after road, after town, after orchard, after city, after mountain, after mountain, after mountain. Secure them, to make room for the Afghan government to extend its reach. So the government, not the insurgents, controls the country and controls the people and serves the people.
That mission involves combat because the plan to set up and extend the reach of the Afghan government has enemies -- either people who don't like the government on its own terms, or people who don't like the idea of the U.S. essentially setting that government up. There are a lot of crazed religious death-cult radicals shooting at U.S. troops and Afghan soldiers and police right now, but that's not everybody. You don't have to be crazed or even religious to be against a foreign power fighting in your country. But we're there. We are there and we are talking about our Afghan partners. General David Petraeus' statement to the troops upon taking over command referenced the American military's compassion for the Afghan people. We're here to help, in other words, to protect you from bad guys, to build your government -- in our own interests, sure, but in yours, too.
The administration's argument for staying in Afghanistan and what to do there is logical. It's an argument I understand. As a liberal, I believe in the social contract -- that people can collectively, through government, protect themselves, address problems, and reach for greater things than they could achieve alone, or with only their families. I get it.
I also saw eye-to-eye with the incredibly impressive American troops who are trying to implement the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. They are earnest, capable, professional, and they understand the mission and its value. It makes sense. And it depends on a premise that is romantic, and unproven, and, I believe, unlikely.
The consequences of there not being a real Afghan government are probably dire. Our desire for there to be a real Afghan government is strong and rational. But us just wanting it to be so does not mean that we are capable of making it so. To me, it seems likely that nothing we can do -- nothing within our power as the United States of America -- will result in there being a real Afghan government. Our presence there may in fact make that outcome less likely.
What government can grow to full strength and legitimacy with a foreign military on its soil?
What hope is there for the government to supersede the warlords and drug lords and powerbrokers it competes with if the billions of dollars a month our military presence drags behind it like cans off newlyweds' car bumpers get funneled to those same thugs the government's competing with?
What better way for us to recruit for and romanticize the Taliban cause than to give them 10 years of armor-clad infidel foreigners on their land, to inveigh against and to attack? A real Afghan government is the outcome we want for us and for the Afghan people. It is practically inarguable as a desired outcome. But whether or not that outcome is achieved is not really up to us.
RM: I know this is a difficult question, but if over the next year, it doesn't essentially doesn't work to establish better governance in Kandahar, if the police efforts, the policing efforts, security efforts, don't combine to create enough space for the Afghan government to step up in a way that's working, I don't get a sense there's a plan B. Is there a plan B? Is plan B just more time?
Brigadier General Ben Hodges: There's no reason why this shouldn't be successful if the Afghans do their part. I mean, I've never met an officer that didn't want more capability, so I would never turn away more engineers or military police. But we have enough to do what we have got to do in Kandahar, assuming that the Afghans step up and do their part.
RM: If they don't?
Hodges: Well, then we will have -- we will have given them the best chance they've ever had.
That's what we're doing -- trying to give them the best chance they've ever had, and they may not take it. And our troops staying there may not make them more likely to take it. To recognize that is not to accept military defeat. Frankly, establishing a government in a foreign country isn't a military objective. It just isn't. Counterinsurgency theory be damned, it's a civilian, development objective, in this case with military support.
A military objective is winning a war. War is destructive, not constructive. We send men into war with guns, not with shields. It is not to accept military defeat to recognize that the 82nd Airborne can do many things but it can't make the governor of Nangarhar Province not corrupt. If we think there is a future in which the Afghan government is real and it runs and controls that country to the exclusion of the Taliban, and it's there because we have made that possible, then there is an American national security interest in us still being there.
But if that's not possible, no matter what we do -- if, no matter how much we hope for that to happen, we can't make that happen -- then, as Brigadier General Hodges says, we will have given them the best chance they've ever had. If we can't make the outcome we want come to fruition, then we should fund and train and support the Afghan government all we can. But each additional American life sacrificed to a goal we know we won't reach is a moral outrage -- a moral disaster -- that we have a responsibility, in this life during wartime, to stop.
Dollars, yes. Lives? Lives? No. Not for a romantic wish. Not for something we want but know we won't get. Dollars, OK. Lives, no.
If you believe our actions -- our American actions -- in 2010 can make it more likely that there's a real government in Afghanistan, then asking Americans to die in Afghanistan is asking them to die for something that is in the national security interests of the United States. Which is what American kids sign up for when they enlist. But if you believe that our actions -- our American actions -- in 2010 cannot make it more likely that there's a real government in Afghanistan, then asking Americans to die in Afghanistan is wrong. It's over.
Development, training, support, OK. But lives? No.
That's the choice. It's not partisan. It's not even passionate. It's rational.
Leave a Comment:
Rachel, I understand what you are saying about the loss of American lives if we stay in Afghanistan and Plan A does not work. All I can think about is what will happen to the women and girls in that country if we pull out. I remember the videos smuggled out showing the treatment of women and girls by the Taliban; the whippings, beatings, and executions of women when the Taliban imposed their view of Islam on the country. Even when we are there they throw acid at little girls going to school. Forget nation building; shouldn't we be there to protect the weal from such horrors that our departure will bring to them?
dslindsly - to respond to your post, I was in Iraq (as a volunteer DoD engineer), in the very beginning (2+ months after the invasion), and, I have to comment...women's issues were never the issue for the Bush Administration...or, Obama Administration now....for whatever reason or state of mind they held/hold. In fact, in the beginning, when it counted the most, our government made no attempt to quell the acts being levied against Iraqi women who were American sympathisers, and, I "witnessed" their demise from my diversified team of 'engineer's'...as they lessened in numbner to finally zero, told they were executed, unable to locate any more, etc. as time went on...(months into our being there).
I volunteered, specifically, because of the humanitarian issues being expounded upon by the WHO in late 2000 (without engineering intervention into water/electricity, colera, typhoid outbreaks...), international press, and, knowledge my President was an idiot leading us into a quagmire - what a crock (obviously, another story)...only to find the biggest loser's were my own kind (professional women), who raised their heads only to later find them chopped off (literally)...I lost 8 or more of the 10 female engineers on my team to outright executions (these women were Iraqi sub-contractors to Bechtel (the prime contractor, British Bechtel by the way)...Bechtel, who was told by the Administration to hire the locals, specifically as many minorities as possible - women in other words). I never knew what happened to the rest (they just disappeared).
That's the reality. These unimaginable women, never to know the confines of democracy and free expression, being summarily executed and silenced. That's what became of these women who saw the promise of what might be possible in front of them...how does someone possibly put this in perspective in a modern day stateside way...don't think so....
Afghanistan...the future in Afganastan.....how is that different than Iraq?...in fact, maybe worse - I think we forget Iraq had the more progressive of the two....
When people think of sacrifice, do they often think of putting their life on the chopping block for same...I have met women who did/have (hopefully), and, can't for the life of me imagine anything more deserving of democratic/American protection. Yet, I know, without any doubt, this is not where we, as Americans, should be...and it haunts and disturbs me in ways that hurts the very center...there must be a way to accomplish this without sacrificing a generation and class of Americans that does not deserve to bear, for the most part, this burden by itself. I don't know an answer - can anyone really offer one...
WBEng
Yes. Thank you.
...uuuuum...not sure...but, thank you. Seriously, it's something that people got? I'm not sure about that....
Please disregard immediately preseeding post...what I meant to say (a do over, I didn't get to in time, if you will):
Thanks Jilly. :)
The world is far too large for us to assume the mantle of universal protector of the weak. It's a noble impulse but it is impossible. We must do our best at home and only send our military in our own defense and only when the result is positive. I have felt for a while now that this will not end well for us.
There are terrible things that happen all over the world. What makes you think we have the ability, finances, or the mandate to try to fix them all?
We have more then enough serious problems to solve here at home before we waste trillions of dollars and untold lives in a stone age country on the other side of the world trying to solve their problems.
Barry Freed, and Charles Almon:
In most cases you are right, it is not our problem. However, in Afghanistan its more complicated. The USA interfered in that country when it was at war with Russia. We supplied weapons and had a hand in creating the fighters that we now fight against. As in Iran, we interfered and now are facing the consequences. If we leave now we will face even more negatives. I want out too, but are we too far in now?
Disclaimer: the following is intended as lightheartedly as my ability at humor will allow.
Charles, when you start talking to yourself dude, it's time to go see the Doc.
Barry, a persons station in life does not dictate their right, or lack thereof, to our caring about them - empathy for those suffering is a good thing - matter of fact, lack of empathy for another's suffering is also grounds for time to go see the Doc.
Boys, the fact that you are both boys and expounding so forcefully for tollerance of women's suffering in the world is just unseemly.
You think we should go all over the world wherever women -- and children, for that matter-- and how about men -- are horribly mistreated? We would be in so many wars we'd get nothing else done. Who are you to say American men and women should get killed because you're bothered by how they treat women in Afghanistan? Ever check out Africa and Asia?
I am so conflicted about Afghanistan. The women and girls really matter but so do the boys and men. A few weeks ago the Taliban hanged a 7 year old child for being a spy. This child who even if he did spy only did what he was told to do. I still have tears in my eyes when I picture him.
The difference between Afghanistan and China, Africa, and Korea is that when we went into Afghanistan we made it a point to sell safety from the tyranny imposed by the Taliban. We encouraged the women of that country to regain their freedom and obtain an education and more open way of life. Whether that was the correct thing to do can be open to debate; the fact that the women responded by doing so is not.
We don't need to be on a military mission to be somewhere. We wouldn't declare war on Haiti to help them would we?
I wonder if Barry and Charles do think helping Haiti was a waste. I'm pretty sure most Americans support humanitarian efforts.
I actually do remember receiving email petitions to help Afghanistan prior to 2001. It's just that not many people cared too much back then.
Why is the fate of women and children in Afghanistan necessarily our responsibility? At what cost? What if all we can accomplish is forestalling the inevitable victory of the Taliban; what if all we can accomplish is an amelioration of the horror of Taliban rule in select areas/patches of the country? and what if that small modicum of success is only achievable at continuing, perpetual cost of 100s of American lives and 100s of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR? Are you willing to literally plunge our nation into bankruptcy, mortgage the financial security and quality of life for generations of future Americans for that outcome? Because that is about where we are. And I for one, am NOT willing to shed that blood and squander those resources for that. Sometimes, just sometimes, the wretched souls in far flung pockets of the earth just have to freakin' figure it out on their own.
If you attempting to use feminist pov to support killing of our troops and Afghans,you have lost your argument. The whole time Bush INC was corrupting everything in Afghanistan and not attempting to build up a Legitimate force and or gov of Afghans to defeat the Taliban once US troops leave.
It is because history has shown that policy failed in Vietnam. The Vietnamese had a government in place that had a army and police...they just didn't have the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese as did the Viet Cong. Same is true in Afghanistan the Warlords hearts and minds are with their pocket books and who has been giving them money from day one for safe passage of all transports in and out of Kabul?
US policy in Afghanistan and Iraq are both total failures. You can never dictate political goals to another country or ppl by invading militarily. If you look at the historical of Afghanistan invaders 9 of 10 invasions have failed, because the warlords always made good deals that benefited them and not the invaders. They basically fooled every invading force but one. The foolish policy needs to end in Afghanistan as the best support of our troops is to bring them all home alive today. Peace Now!
I'm sorry, but I can't get the image of a young woman being executed in the stadium in Kabul out of my head. That's the Taliban problem. And bin Laden and Al Qaeda operating within THAT Islamist environment was toxic. That's why we are there. For human freedom and against the Medieval forces of radical Islamists. So, I really don't understand how Rachel Maddow's clear bias against militarism/US presence to attempt to ameliorate centuries of zero opportunity for the average Afghani is a bad thing. Yes, it's not easy, and may not succeed. But does Rachel have an intervention more likely to be effective in the long term?
Gary Franklin, Olympia, WA
Sadly, human rights violations are occurring all over the world. How I wish we could intervene in each and every one. But we lack the power and ability to do that - and in some cases, we make it worse, because the perptrators seek revenge on the nearest victim.
We cannot leave Afghanistan. We already left once -- after During Reagan (along with the ISI) -- making the Taliban & Al Quaeda into Our Proxy Warriors against the Soviet Union.
And it was our MORONIC leaving during a rucial moment (After the Soviets leveled the country, killed 1 Million and pushed 6 million into Pakistan) -- that gave them the Chutzpah to believe that they could destroy us the way they believed they had destroyed the Soviet Union.
In the Early 1970s, when you were a newly born, I was traversing
Afghanistan -- as part of an overland spiritual journey to the East. It was a few years before the Tail end of 40 years of peace there when women were still Doctors and Teachers, there were universities in cities like Harat and school houses in every village!
Kabul was completely paved, And the ancient Bazzar was as shady as the ones in Jerusalem & Istanbul.
There was no detectible corruption there. And in a province between Harat and Kandahar, when a friend left her passport and travelers checks in the middle of nowwhere that I had contact with the Governor of the Province, the Police Chief and the teacher in a small village where we stayed overnight and were
treated with respect, curiosity and great hospitality.
In 1989 I argued with Bush#1's Attorney General that we cannot abandon the Afghani People. But like an None Self Aware moronic
giant (looking like a jon dismounting a whore we used) we left.
And it was an outrage to see Bush2' failure to take advantage of the blank slate created by our Special Forces through benign neglect as he ran to Iraq taking key resources with him.
IT IS THIS INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT That is why we are there so long.
And as someone who was almost at every anti-Vietnam Ware event between NYC and DC and an organizer(Not against my fellow Baby Boomers -- most of whom had not choice due to the draft but against the POLICIES) Afganistan is Not Vietnam!!!
As for your trip...SO MUCH WAS MISSING! What about all the other many provinces! Kandahar was always dangerous EVEN BEFORE THE SOVIETS!!
What about the Women, How could any justice loving person abandon Once Again the Afghani women who were AFTER WE LEFT killed in the Stadium by the Taliban for such infractions as
exposed ankles.
How could you not meet with civillians? What's going in Harat?
And how come no knowledge, on your part, that On Mother's Day Pelosi and a group of other women from the House of Representatives VISITED THE WOMEN OF KANDAHAR!
Who were so happy to see them very worried that we would abandon them AGAIN!
How come not Storries about the Clinics for Farm animals by our Veternary Soldiers or Millitary Agricultural Experts from Kansas. 8 years after Karazi was so excited that the US would
be helping the country regain its historic agricultural
strengths. Grow Safron instead of poppies.
How come no stories ABOUT THE 180 DEGREE DIFFERENCE between how Bush2 and Obama have been conducting this was to avoid civillian deaths. And while it is so difficult for our troops not to shoot first...but even to avoid killing scoundrals if it means killing civillians...Even though it is hard for our troops The Afghanies know it and feel it!
And despite your being so impressed by Engels I do not trust him.
Seems to me brainwashed by the Republicans and also to have a relationship with the guy he brought you to buy stones at.
I would love bought a Lapis Bowl immediately and screw the silly rug and stones!
Where are the moderate Arab countries? Why are they not helping their own people? The USA cannot be the cop for the entire world.
It is not the United States's duty to be the police of the world or to tell other countries how to conduct themselves. We cannot invade other countries because we don't like how they treat their citizens, otherwise, we would invade many other countries in the Middle East, we would invade India. In addition, your comment presupposes that life for women in the United States is so much better and more evolved when they still must deal with rampant sexism, with a media that tells them their appearance is their most important feature and glorifies the murder of women, and women and girls are subjected to sexual violence every day and demeaned by the language we use to indicate weakness.
And how many years and lives do we give in Afghanistan.
The argument that we shouldn't help people because there are a lot of people in need of help is a really dumb argument.
Just sayin'.
women's future will not get better with bombs falling on their heads; "Nation building" is an euphemism. Real change is a radical action towards a change in their lifes
What will happen to our own country here if we do not pull out? While everyone's heart bleeds for the Afghan people, who don't seem able to step up and defend their own country, while our hearts bleed for them, what about our own country that is languishing without jobs, while running up ever more of a national-security-threatening deficit? Why should we build Afghanistan if we let our own country rot and decompose and eventually go down in flames with a bad debt we can't pay? I think the Afghan war is misguided, it won't work, and we, the American people, we be the real losers. Al Qaeda is always going to be there. Our kids future won't be if we don't stop wasting money and lives on an unwinnable cause. We can't afford the extra hundreds of billions spent while we wait to find out.
Abandoning the women and girls of Afghanistan to the Taliban (who will most certainly come back to power if there is no stable goverment to oppose them) is tantamount to allowing Pol Pot to continue building his new society in Cambodia because, ya know, there's lots of injustice in the world, after all....
opps; not weal, weak.
And again we do not have the resources to protect women in all the Arab world. The situation is complicated because of our history of helping to grow the Taliban and then the Bush interference, but our soldiers are killing themselves and the same young people are going back and back again year after year. There is nothing to gain by continuing this unwinnable war.
The best we can do is to offer asylum to as many of the Afghan people who allied themselves with us....to get them out. Our unilateral intervention for unclear reasons was and still is a win for the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
we are there for resources-money, not to help anyone. They are merely trying to persuad the US people. If you recall, 1 year before we invaded, there were stories in the NYT showing the taliban in all there hatred. It was designed to fuel our need to bomb them. They are at it again...it's hard to change a macho culture. Women must be strong and seek out their own way of justice. An eye for an eye might work. A macho dude beats a woman, then a group of women beat the hell out of him, over time it will work.
wow.....
that was incredible.....true.....so true.....so very true...
What you've said, very true, agreeably true. Thank you for finally saying this.
Rachel? Lives, whose lives? You say not one, I agree. I agree because I think we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But if we leave, and the people who we are trying to turn into a government and police force start dying in droves, don't we lose credibility? Do we not have some moral obligation to those people? While I am sure there are conceited people who do not value my life, as a lesbian. I value ALL life. Even that of my enemy.
If I lose that moral upperhand.......
I have often wondered if those members of my own family knew I was a lesbian, whether they would still say all gays and lesbians should be killed. If they only knew...
I think Ben Hodges thinks it can happen, and he should be given the chance until pull out date. All I'm saying is, give them that chance.
And like he says, "They will have been given the best chance they have ever had."
I also have a little different take on the military's purpose. I think the Swiss are very wise in considering their military a method of defense, a shield, and not a tool for invasion and war waging. I think this could prove to be more wise than naive, in the nuclear age. Nukes, I wish anyone luck in banning the suckers. Without our military presence we'd be ripe for invasion. It is a shield.
It depends on how willing you are to sit back and allow humanitarian crises go on. To be fair, standing back and letting cultures evolve and break free on their own is more fiscally sound and it certainly costs less of your own people's lives. On the other hand, do we not have a responsibility to our own species to help make things better instead of worse? We've allowed how many genocides to go on uninterrupted since WWII? How long did we let that genocide go on uninterrupted before we intervened? How many genocides are going on now that we aren't stopping? Isolationism means we won't interfere in these issues. Certainly you can make a logical argument as to why one country shouldn't impose it's will on another...even if that country is doing it for humanitarian reasons. But you can also make a logical argument for the counter and I personally would rather the wealthiest nation in the world utilize it's wealth and prowess to bring prosperity to all countries. It's about the survival of the species and frankly I think the idea of nationality is the antithesis of special survival. As for nukes...I guess maybe it's a generational thing but honestly nuclear war doesn't terrify me as much as it does people who grew up during the Cold War. I don't want a nuke to go off no but I really don't think it will happen unless something stupid like the documentary Rachel featured on her show. My generation didn't grow up fearing nuclear war so I don't think we're as ready to accept the idea that the world is on the edge and it's all going to fall apart. I think my generation looks at that stuff and remembers Columbine and how all of the adults the day after treated us like criminals and how from that day forward I never had a school year go without "Columbine" drills, even though we hadn't changed. I have always felt the people born in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's are the most spoiled and most overreacting generations in our history. I don't mean that to be rude since I know that applies to most people blogging here but seriously people at the age of 40 are SO willing to believe the world is ending whereas people at the age of 20 are not. To be fair, though, nuclear terrorism is a possibility because of nations selling their nukes off to rogue groups and nations and that certainly is a problem. I also don't think we as a species can be trusted with nukes until we get past our nationalistic phase and start worrying about one another as human beings instead of as countrymen. I just have a hard time believing the threat is as uber imminent and scary as the adults are telling me. Elementary school allll over again.
As one of those evil folks born in the 50s, let me resond. :)
First of all, I agree that the crowd that seems to see threats around every corner are just plain nuts. While we don't live in a totally safe world by any means, we are probably a lot safer from outside threats than we have been in years. WWII was the last existential threat the US faced, and to be honest, I think both Japan and Germany would have found it extraordinarily difficult to invade and occupy the US even if they had defeated us militarily in the European or Pacific theaters. Anyway, I digress. We still face dangers in this world, primarily from terrorists, but the military measures we have taken to battle them are out of all proportion to the threat they pose. By most accounts, we have spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars in the global war on terror, a sum that far exceeds what we have spent on all the wars in US history combined. That is nothing short of ludicrous.
However, you speak of the US stepping in to improve the lot of the entire world, and frankly, I just don't see how that is possible. Yes, we have a spotty record of stepping in to stop genocides, such as in Rwanda and Cambodia and Darfur, but on the other hand, it would seem that such problems are a global problem, and it should be more than just the US to step up. As for improving the lot of other countries, I will respectfully have to disagree. Even if we could afford it economically, it seems to smack of American Exceptionalism when we talk of going into countries to "improve" them. The French and British did this on a fairly frequent basis in the 18th-20th centuries, describing it as "the white man's burden". The countries they "assisted" had never asked for any kind of intervention or "improvement", but they got it anyway, and became vassal states of the occupiers, not to see their independence again until after WWII, when Britain and France had been bankrupted by WWII.
Can we help other nations? Sure, with foreign aid, building schools and infrastructure, giving them the tools to improve themselves. But we have to remember that not everyone wants to live like Americans, and they don't necessarily want our form of government, our economic system, or our culture. Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan should force us to relearn the lessons of Vietnam.
You are making the flawed assumption that there is a huge mass of Afgani's that are "trying to build a government". There is no central government in Afghanistan and the only people interested in maintaining the illusion of a government are those that are getting handful's of cash from the USA.
Conditions in that country were horrible before we arrived, and will be horrible after we leave, whether its now, or in 20 years when we are completely bankrupt.
I didn't say people from the 50's-70's were EVIL just said spoiled and cry chicken a lot :D (Glenn Beck no? ^ . ^). Sometimes military force has to be used before you can do the humanitarian thing, but I do agree that it's something that should be thought through. You and I can come to common ground on the idea that if you're going to commit troops you plan it out before hand and you only do it when other forms of aid either can't come in or have failed to fix the problem. Pens was implying that we should go complete isolationist like Switzerland when it comes to millitary prowess and that's where I'm disagreeing. I think we should be very, very conservative about how and when we deploy soldiers, but I don't think we can really look at ourselves and say we're ethical when we let genocides go on uninterrupted. War shouldn't be your first option for any decision, but it also shouldn't be taken off the table. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq these are missions that require a lot more humanitarian influx than military. Without the military though you can't get the economic and humanitarian aid there. I did not mean to imply that I was pro-imperialism or that I think we necessarily have the better choice 100% of the time. I'm not at all in favor of us expanding our governmental power to other countries nor am I in favor of us going to war so that a private contractor can expand it's power into another country. If economic growth happens in another nation or democracy that has to be at the will of the people; but I also believe there are circumstances where people can't ask for help and in those cases if you can't get that help through more civil means military force is the only option left. The people of Sudan don't like their situation and humanitarian aid alone is not going to fix their situation. Having said that, you're absolutely correct that the US should not operate independently and again I am sorry if that's the implication I made. In my mind part of avoiding war except where necessary is by having a fail safe system like a strong UN. The UN exists solely to stop useless military conflicts, resolve currently existing ones, and coordinate humanitarian aid. If other countries aren't willing to go in with us that's a good sign we either haven't made our case or our case isn't worth making. But it should also be noted that if the US doesn't lead no one else will. That's why the first UN failed (sorry the name has escaped me...the one set up by Wilson). And you're right that not every country wants to be like us and again I'm sorry if I gave that impression. They want prosperity and a government that works for them. I don't necessarily believe that this is always going to be a democratic government (I know I'm evil right?). Nor do I believe that our business model is the business model that's going to work for every nation. The point I was trying to make is that I think we have a responsibility to make sure people have every opportunity to put their own solutions forward. In the cases where we can do it through humanitarian aid then that's the model we should take. But I believe there are some instances where military force is a necessity and that's why I wouldn't want to write it off completely. The Swiss pretty much won't invade unless it's another World War and that's where I'm disagreeing. I think we should be in Sudan right now and for me personally that's the type of war I wish we'd stick to.
I agree that we can't go the way of the Swiss. If you don't participate in the world, your voice isn't heard, and you don't get much say in how the world is shaped. I do think we should have gone in to Darfur, much more so than wasting our time in Iraq. We successfully ended the genocide in Yugoslavia, and Sudan is a far easier place to mount military operations than Yugoslavia ever was, or Afghanistan will ever be.
I think there is a very fine line between helping people have an opportunity to put their own solutions forward via military intervention, and trying to shape a nation to an image that we want. For example, Iran is a situation where people obviously want a change in government, and are being brutally repressed for expressing that. Do we go in there and help the opposition, perhaps with military force? Personally, I think that would be the most disastrous thing we could do, even worse than going into Iraq. Should we have intervened in China during the Tianamen Square riots? Should we go into North Korea to stop the brutality that has killed millions of its citizens over the past 60 years? I know I am not wise enough to decide which of these or other situations we should intervene in, as I don't think things are black and white on the issue.
I think probably that is why establishing a universal doctrine for invasion is so important. Only when certain elements are reached should it then be OK to invade. I think we actually DO have such treaties in existence, I just don't think we have listened to them. And that's where having a strong UN comes into play. We should feel as a country the same need to adhere to the rule of law as any other country out there. I am not an advocate of the idea that America always remain better than everyone else or that because we are currently better we somehow get authority to bend rules. I think when there are huge humanitarian catastrophes like genocide we have a mandate to act, but I also believe this is why something like the UN is so critical. Because if someone isn't checking our actions and our ego then we'll overreact or we'll act out of self-interest rather than world interest. Someone has to exist to hold the US accountable. It's a lesson we've forgotten to the point that people in my party advocate that the UN be dissimulated or that the US pulls out completely. But you're right it's a hard line to draw and this for me is a personal area of conflict. I support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but I'm really, really angry about Darfur. I don't know that I can forgive the Bush Administration for not moving on Darfur, yet I also feel proud of the work in Iraq. I remember the mass beheadings, the people with their hands and feet cut off, the gas chambers, the bodies stacked in railroad cars. It was like something the Nazi's did and I am not one to throw out Nazi references lightly. It was disgusting beyond disgusting. I can't say that I'd want any human to go through that. But at the same time....we supported the same acts in Uganda, the Congo, and other countries....So you're right it is a hard line to draw. And for the record I don't know that any one human is smart enough to make such a decision. That's part of why I believe in checks and balances and having some system where more than one opinion can be heard. I think it's crucial so we aren't invading countries frivolously.
FTR I just re-read my comments and I apologize I did not mean to come across as attacking you personally Pensword. That's not at all what I was thinking or trying to say.
I took nothing personally Navy. You have great points, I think made greater because you know the military better than most of us. I think you may not realize, I actually agree with most of what you said. I just didn't bother going into as much detail. What bothers me most about people not caring about the people who will be stuck when we leave with doing what may well be impossible, is that WE put them in that position. WE chose to invade, and now WE have a responsibility because of the choice we made. Whether you like the Swiss system or not, I do think there is a place for the military as shield, and serves as such, whether we think of it or not. Afghanistan is certainly a case ot that right now. If we don't have a military, we ARE ripe for invasion. Of course using the military entirely for humanitarian good is also certainly idealistic, and not always realistic. I confess, I am an idealist.
Do we have a moral obligation to the soldiers who return to Afghanistan year after year?
Yes, absolutely! I was saying above that I value ALL life! We should never have gone into Afghanistan as an invading force! Never. Not one! I agree completely with Rachel on that, not ONE life!
And, as I was saying to Navy. I am an idealist, in an ideal world we would be able to help the Afghans without losing lives. And if Rachel is right, and IF nothing we do is going to help, and no matter what we do the government will fall, for lack of infrastructure, financial or otherwise, then absolutely we should pull out, and our lost credibility will hopefully remind us not to do the same again. But it is a heavy shame for a moralist who values ALL life.
For Rachel's part she is not being a moralist, but a rationalist:
I respect Rachel's opinion greatly, she says she lost a lot of sleep over it. Sometimes government is left to the rationalists, sometimes the moralists step in, sometimes we find both within ourselves.
I am confused about your question Cynthia. I don't see how you're losing a moral obligation when it comes to another 3-4 years in this country...?
Thank you Navy, for your service to us, no matter where you are, and stay safe.
yep...just sos ya know this is my last day here I head to AL this afternoon and then from there I'll be in combat training until deployment...see ya'll in 2012 :D
Wow, that's heavy news. It'd be cool if you could still blog us from where you are going, to keep us updated. I have said I am agnostic, which means I don't know if there's a God or not, but sometimes I pray anyway. I will certainly say a prayer for you Navy. Good Luck!
One more thing, Navy, if you go where you need one, keep your helmet on.
Really excellent commentary tonight (7-15-10). Rachel articulated the issues about the complexities of the Afghan war very clearly and fairly. I hope others read or hear what she has to say.
Former President Bush will never be able to wash the blood off his hands. Obama is nearing the same condition. Bring our people home.
I agree, Bren. When mostly Saudi terrorists (carrying box cutters and making their plans in Germany) managed to cause the 9-11 disaster, I believe that we should have used police tactics in cooperation with other nations to fight Al Qaida. I don't believe that we have a right to go into another country with an army and tell them what to do. We have caused more death and destruction than was caused by 9-11. We have built up resentment which has fomented the growth of more terrorist organizations. I'm tired of smooth-talking politicians and soldiers recounting the things we are doing for the Afghan people. Remember, we're over there killing people. Please see:http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/16-1
I watched with extreme interest your concluding piece on our Afghanistan policy. The explanation of US policy was quite effectively done. I have three questions for you. First, what evidence do you have to support your conclusion that that there is no hope of establishing an effective, working Afghan government? Why should I believe you who has spent - how much time? - studying the situation, rather than those whose careers have been dedicated to the study. Second, presuming your conclusion proves to be correct, what's YOUR plan B? What's the alternative that may produce an outcome we can deal with? Third, if your conclusion is correct, and if Holbrook's projection is also correct, that the Taliban and al quaeda are given a safe haven for terrorist training and plotting, how does a government leader respond when another attack is launched on the United States, or elsewhere, which is traced back to Afghanistan after we've pulled out?
Hubris is not limited to those in power. Media share equally in responsibility for the actions of governments.
One piece of pretty convincing evidence that Rachel provided was the footage of the huge mansions in Afghanistan, built by Afghan government officials who have greatly profited from the war. It's a pretty stark example of the corruption in the Afghan government, and how America's presence there may be increasing that corruption.
And I disagree - Rachel is not guilty of hubris. Hubris would be saying "There is absolutely no hope of establishing a stable government, and absolutely no good reason for us to stay." If you check the transcript, you'll notice that's not what she said - she said our ability to create a stable government in another country is unlikely, and her opinion is supported by history.
This is a legitimate and absolutely crucial question, and each side of the debate needs to address it as honestly and thoroughly as possible. Whether she's right or wrong, that's what she's doing.
What evidence is there that there is no hope of establishing an effective, working Afghan government? How about Afghan history and Afghan society? Afghanistan, like Iraq, is an artificial construct by the British Empire. What the British called Afghanistan was created out of a collection of territory held by tribal warlords, all to make it easier for British companies to make deals to access Afghan resources. I bet if Rachel had taken a poll among the Afghans she encountered on her trip, and asked them whether they considered themselves to be Afghans or some other tribal group, such as Pashtuns, the vast majority would have said they were of that tribal group first, and Afghan much further down the line. There is no "national identity" that we in the West have; if you ask people in any place in America what they are, they will say "American" first and foremost, with other designations, such as "New Yorker" or "Catholic" or "Democrat" farther down the list.
The Russians tried to impose a central government on Afghanistan, and how did that work out? The current central government under Karzai is no better off, as it is corrupt and weak and alternately despised and ignored by those it is supposed to rule. It was a horrendous mistake to go into Afghanistan and try to do exactly the same thing the Russians failed at so spectacularly. Eventually, we will figure that out, and we will leave too, and Afghanistan will return to whatever the Afghan people feel most comfortable with.
One BIG bit of evidence that the Aghans cannot create a government is the fact that the economy - $14B cannot sustain the cost of the army the US is building there. In the US we have taxes that pay for the government -- how can the Afgan government tax their people at a rate that would support this massive military? It is costing the US $10 billion a year. Where would the Afgans get that money? Sell more opium? As Maddow pointed out in a previous report, the Afgans are not even willing to tax themselves to pay for basic infrastructure repairs, such as roads and trash disposal.
Countries must grow organically, meaning they must grow from their own needs and experiences, just as the United States grew. Our country went through two civil wars (the Revolutionary War and the Civil War) before having a federal government that had the power to hold a country together. So too must the Afgan people. It would be wonderful in another country could bring a "government in a box" but that's not how it works.
Seems I can't spell "Afghan"
As I watched the reporting from Afghanistan as well as the follow up in Washington I kept waiting for the opinion. And it was fabulous reporting because it was clear, to the point, not leading but engaging.
So tonight I tip my invisible hat to you ( I am not actually wearing one). But if I was and I could see you, I would tip my hat, give you half a grin, blush ever-so-slightly and wink at you.
Rock on Rachel.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I've been teetering on the moral edge about this for a long time... Afghanistan needs us, and it's our in our best interest to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, yet there's only so much we can do. I think you've more or less convinced me. We have to leave soon and know we've done the best we could do. Hopefully NGOs will be able to keep things going for a while, but it's ultimately up to the Afghan people to turn the corner into the 21st Century.
That said, I, too, am worried about what dslindsly says above. I just don't know that it's a job for which our we and our military can take responsibility.
Wow. The most cogent, informed, intelligent and persuasive Afghan analysis I've seen yet. We're seeing the next 'Meet the Press' anchor (Like this Sunday, please)
RM's ending commentary from tonight needs to be published as an OpEd piece in every newspaper in America.
And her colleagues on MSNBC- Matthews & Obermann in particular- ought to replay the entire RM closing in its entirety. And learn from her. And try to live up to the high standards of civilized discourse she brings to this overly loud and nasty world of talking heads.
Thanks for your critique of Rachel's analysis of the Afghan war. I agree with you.
I would like to hear our president respond to Rachel's conclusion: "...If you believe that our actions...cannot make it more likely that there's a real government in Afghanistan, then asking Americans to die in Afghanistan is wrong."
Rachel's argument is irrefutable and America needs to get out of Afghanistan now without losing one more life.
I watched. I listened. I have an open mind. I did not arrive at the same conclusion that Rachel did.
I respect Rachel. A lot! But I came to the conclusion that we have no good options, and that what we're doing in Afghanistan is the best we can do. That giving up would be like waiting for the relief well in the gulf instead of continuing to try to cap or contain the spill.
Rachel, you can chose to report your opinions, or you can chose to report the facts and let your viewers formulate their own opinions. Your choice. But if you decide your job is to inform us with facts, and not attempt to manipulate our opinions, you will be a force of nature!
Sorry, but as I'm beginning to realize, Rachel already *is* a force of nature. One doesn't have to agree with her analysis to recognize her gift for combining passion and logic into a sane and cogent argument. Liberals and conservatives alike could learn from her paradoxically forceful civility, as well as her sense of humor.
I am old, and remember when our opinions were not delivered to us by journalists.
I do not want to see Rachel reduced to a liberal Rush. She has enormous power to formulate our opions by delivering the facts. I want her to consentrate on that.
She can certainly report on the results! (Polls show that after Maddow, the consensus on the war was x where before it was y)
BTW I have seen it first hand that if you inject important information into a discussion it will alter the dialog big time.
Come on, now. Rachel has reported the facts during her trip to Afghanistan, and she's injected a lot of important information into the discussion. Just because she then states her opinion - which she clearly indicates IS her opinion - doesn't mean that you aren't free to disagree with her. In fact, you are encouraged to take those same facts and counter her with a better argument, if you can.
That's the point of the whole thing. We think, we argue, we learn, we're more likely to make informed decisions, and everyone is better off.
Beam... what Rachel did here is an editorial. I don't think there is a time in the history of American press when no one did editorials.
And here's Walter Cronkite's editorial on the Vietnam War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite#Vietnam_War
Thanks for your reply... I was thinking the same exact article and news report by Walter Cronkite and you saved me the time it would have taken for me to look it up. Much like Cronkite, Rachel Maddow puts herself into the stories... she is a human not a robot or a tool.
But to turn this dialog back into the positive dialog that separates the men and women from the beasts, I can relate to the readers and listeners who are here and share their opinions and thoughts on what they see as flaws or faults with Rachel's work. I too TRY to do the same thing. I remind myself to keep my skeptical defenses up because we need to be as vigilant as we would expect our press to be. But, just this article and dialog alone make me feel that I am amongst decent people with a credible education level (I like to be one of the slackers!) I only say this because I was checking out some Tea Party sites to get my own perspective rather than what I am told on FOXNEWS or MSNBC and... I won't bore you with it here if you'd like I'll leave a link to my only 2 articles I read and posts I left to give myself my own informed opinion... and I just wanted to let all of you RM fans, skeptics, insomniacs, etc... know that I appreciate your participation and efforts at this site and in whatever INFORMED opinions you all come to.
The posts are after the articles, "Erik in California" posts:
POST 1: http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/Articles/Europe_Warns_Obama_Our_Relationship_Not_Working
POST 2: http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/Articles/Obama_Administration_Issues_New_Moratorium_on_Offshore_Oil_Drilling_to_Counter_Recent_Ruling
Rachel, you're smart. So where were you with this no-lives-for-an-unachievable-mission standard last fall? I personally think the mission is achievable.
I'd love to hear a debate, complete with lots of facts, between Rachel and Gen. Ben Hodges, about whether it is achievable. That would be interesting.
Then go enlist or be nominated into the chickenhawk hall of shame.
www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks "You and him go fight. I'll hold your coats."
Rachel,
I am a active due service member with multiple deployments to the Middle East, so I have had direct visibilty over the last 7 years on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though I am a conservative, I found your points on the conflict in Afghanistan and the counter-insurgency strategy necessary to win to be very insightful and, for the most part, accurate. But you missed the mark with the "Can we Win" piece. You ask the question,"Can we make a difference? Can we establish a national Afghan government?" These are the same arguments that were made from 2004 through 2006 in Iraq for why we should pull out and cede Iraq to the insurgents. It was seen by many (both liberal and conservative) as hopeless, a lost cause. We were throwing away troops there. The surge would not succeed, they said. Only more American lives will be lost. All of that was proved wrong. Yes, there is still violence there but there has been a radical reduction in enemy attacks on Iraqi Security Forces and the Government of Iraq from four years ago--approximatley 600% from four years ago. The war has been won there. We have reached the realistic endstate: The Iraqis can unilaterally maintain a sustainable relative peace. And it is time to shift the remaining 50,000 U.S. troops (total by next month) in Iraq to Afghanistan to do the same thing. For Afghanistan, we need to let go of the hopeless pipedream implemented by Bush-Cheney to establish a strong federal government there. A virtual little America. We must start attacking security at the local and district level. That is the key. Just as it was in Iraq, starting in Anbar Province. Only by providing security for the local populace--the first and most important tenant of Counter-insurgency doctrine--can we hope to succeed. The Afghan people are caught in the middle of this struggle and they will side with who they perceive to be the strongest side, the winner. That winner, since about 2005, has been without question the Taliban. Because the As Osama Bin Laden quoted in a Dec 2001 Video said, "People see a strong horse and a weak horse, and by nature, will like the strong horse." We are evaluated not by our strength of combat power and technology-- our F-15s, JDAMs, Tanks, night vision and MRAP vehicles--but on our will to persevere. If the President gives GEN Petraus the freedom to prosectute the War effectively (which requires precisely targeting and killing bad guys), 100,000 troops and 3-4 years to turn it around, security at the local and district level will be established. And subsequently, the local people will join the Afghani Police and the National Army. The local people will side with the government. We have already leanred these hard lessons in Iraq. The stakes of us being seen by the Muslim world as being defeated in Afghanistan are catostrophic. It will rally millions to the cause of the Jihad. Just as the Soviet pull out in 1989 did, from which Al Qaeda was born. We cannot let that happen. We must when there. And give our military the freedom to pursue a winning strategy and the support and means to achieve victory.
Jackson
I'm glad you brought up those points about Iraq...especially about how the media was on an "everybody freak out" rage in Iraq and now things are sooo much better (although I disagree that the war is won...in my mind nothing is won till everyone is home but you're right that those who are still stationed in Iraq have pretty much completed their mission). To be fair I don't know that Rachel actually concluded anything about the war. She did voice her concern that she doesn't see how the war can be completed but her ending statement was a pretty balanced statement. Everyone should go back and read her ending statement. She concludes that if the war can be won then it's worth fighting, but if it can't be won then it's not. She didn't state at any point "it can't be won let's quit while we're ahead" like so many of you are suggesting. Being critical of war policy is what a good journalist does...this is where I separate myself from many of my service members. If the valiance of your war effort can stand up to the harshest of criticism then it's worth doing- if it can't then you probably shouldn't be involved in that war effort to begin with. Even Rachel conceded she gets the point of this war she was just casting her personal doubts about how it will end. The way I see it- if things end well she owes our soldiers a metaphorical beer :D. But to act like she has said or donesomething wrong because she's pessimistic I think is completely unfair (directing this at other bloggers not Hammer). Without criticism you can't make your argument or policy stronger. The only other thing I'd like to add is that I'm in complete agreement with Hammer here that we need to realize that there's still going to be more time in Afghanistan. It drives me nuts that people are SO willing to commit troops to the ground and commit to a mission until one of them dies or until they see the bill and then NO NO WE MUST PULL OUT!!! Don't get involved in counterinsurgency if you're not prepared to pay the price for it. I"ll admit if our previous administration had handled the war better we'd be done by now. We could've finished Afghanistan if a few years, but because it was mishandled we're now starting back over. We're pretty much back in the equivalent of 2002 shortly after we invaded Afghanistan. Give us another couple of years and that country is going to make a full turnaround.
At what cost?
BTW we the people of planet Earth need a voice like Rachel's to dissemenate the fact the the world is about to end. Climate change is here, it is deadly and we currentlly have no will to stop it.
Brilliant Rachel Re: segment, and absolutely on point.
Just imagine if those billions of dollars, instead of going into a combat mission, had gone into the building of intelligence assets. This could have been something that really protected the US against terrorists.
Amen to that. Spot on.
Those billions should be spent on more predators and drones.
"Nation building" became a political dirty word after Vietnam. But S. Vietnam was not really interested in becoming a western client nation and I don't think LBJ had a clue. However where the citizenry was willing the US was able to help build 2 robust nations; Japan and Germany. Our bases there pumped cash into their economies for decades. (Still do and that should change.) Do we regret that? Will we have that kind of success in Afghanistan - probably not. But if we have a fraction of that success it will be the best world they've ever had.
When we finally leave Iraq, that will build enormous credibility among Afghans that we are not another Soviet occupation. That one thing may give Afghans the impetus to step up to the plate.
We never belonged in Iraq. That war was a criminal action by our country. But we did belong in Afghanistan. I don't blame Obama for wanting to finish a botched job properly.
If we succeed, it will help to change the world's view of us from a predator nation to global partner, which smooths the way with Russia, Iran, Korea, China, OPEC and South America.
There are two premises to the argument for continuing the war in Afghanistan. One is that the counterinsurgency strategy can result in a stable, responsible government that can keep the Taliban from returning to power and welcoming Al Qaeda back. Rachel capably challenges this premise.
The second premise, which Rachel seems to swallow whole, is that if the goal of propping up Karzai's corrupt government is achieved, it will improve the security of the nations Al Qaeda wishes to attack. This I doubt. As has been frequently pointed out, even by U.S. military and civillian officials, Al Qaeda currently has very little presence in Afghanistan. They are supposed to be in Pakistan, where NATO is not permitted to pursue them. But even if we could drive them out of Pakistan, what is to prevent them from relocating to Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, Indonesia, Libya, or some other country?
Each time you cut off the Hydra's head, according to the Greek myth, it grows two more. If there is a way to finish Al Qaeda, I believe it is to remove the justifications it uses to recruit new fanatics, one of which is NATO's 9-year-old occupation of Afghanistan, plagued as it has been by civilian deaths and inhuman treatment of prisoners at Bagram. Withdraw, and we strike a blow at the Hydra's heart!
Rachel,
I had hoped that at some point in your Afghanistan coverage you would spend a little more time on the "mineral wealth" story. What I've seen around has mainly focused on its suspect timing but few seem inclined to venture much beyond that.
Jumping ahead, how long before a Taliban government would start cutting deals with some nasty African mining companies to rip up the countryside in search of the minerals? Five years? Ten? Cheap labor/slave labor/child labor? How much worldwide terrorism would the minerals fund if they were to succeed?
Indeed, it would be unacceptable to risk anybody's life in a known failed endeavor. Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball to tell us the eventual outcome. I suppose that means relying heavily on intelligence reports and analyses of the balance of strength to which the public and the media generally do not have access.
Keep up the good work!
WT
Thank you for speaking up.
I agree with Rachel that we can't possibly create a government in Afghanistan that can stand up for any length of time after we leave. That is one reason why our presence there makes no sense. But that's not the only one. The incredible part is Holbrooke telling us that - unlike Vietnam (!!!!) - we have to be there as a matter of immediate national security, because if we leave, the Taliban will come back and shortly thereafter, Al Qaeda would be back. Back in Vietnam days, it was the domino theory - that if we left, next it would be all of Southeast Asia and before you knew it, they would be landing in San Diego. But this is even more ridiculous. Al Qaeda is even less of a threat to us than South Vietnam. "Al Qaeda" is a CIA stable of agents provocateurs and patsies used by our clandestine services to stage terrorist incidents as a pretext for foreign wars and to destabilize our geopolitical adversaries. You want to stop "Al Qaeda", investigate 9/11.
Our real reasons for being in Afghanistan have nothing to do with legitimate national security, much less the welfare of the Afghan people. They concern the $5 billion a month we are spending there that is enriching all sorts of defense contractors, the hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money that is enriching everybody involved, from President Karzai and his whole family to Hekmatyar to Haqqani to our own gangster-ridden CIA and DEA, the geostrategic oil piplines we would like to build through the country, the exploitation of Afghanistans untapped mineral wealth, and the creation of destabilizing pressure on the borders of Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan. Our poor brave soldiers are nothing but cannon fodder for these puppet masters.
An excellent piece of commentary. Intelligent, articulate and persuasive. Best segment on the current Afghanistan situation I've seen in the US, in my country or in any other.
Yes.
Sensational.
Thank you.
Great commentary, Rachel. The problem is, "This probably isn't going to work" and "You think? Well - maybe it will" and "I think it's not going to happen" and "Well, why don't we give it a chance..." - it just goes on and on and on, with no concrete, in your face, reason to make big changes right now!
The solution has got to come from "Who is going to pay for this?" The Afghan government will never have $10 billion per year to spend on security. So then our choice is: Is the US willing to spend $10 billion per year, forever, to prop up the Afghan government?
Let politicians answer yes or no on that one! The day may come when $10 billion per year, forever, is a lot of money for a Congressman.
Also please keep pressing: How on Earth is Afghanistan vital to U.S. security interests, when terrorists can set up shop in any number of areas around the world (see "Pakistan").
Right now the whole thing is too wishy-washy. The reality of the cold hard cash situation is what will get us out of Afghanistan. Congressmens' kids are not the ones being killed over there. I'm sure they care about the combat deaths, but not enough to change a wishy-washy policy.
Amen Eric. That's why the topic of reinstating the draft should be given attention. All you see from the neocons and chickenhawks is ass and elbows.
Send more troops..(as long as it's not my kid or grandkids) "You and him go and fight. I'll hold your jackets." chickenhawk motto
I agree whole heartedly! Rachel, you are right on target! National building is NOT A MILITARY OBJECTIVE!!! I have e-mailed your comments to others and I hope and pray that the White House will consider your thoughtful words. Our brave men and women should not be put in harms way because of an idealisitic mission. My son is presently serving in the U. S. Army Reserves and has been in Afghanistan for almost a year. He previously served in the U. S. Navy for 4 years. I want to see him and all of the soldiers come home safely as expeditiously as possible! This war has gone on for almost a decade and has cost the American people billions of dollars annually. I pray that President Obama will speed up the timetable to withdraw our troops because the Afghan people must build their own country. I am so sick and tired of OLD FARTS LIKE JOHN MCCAIN who say that the U.S. must stay in this war until we win? What does winning look like to him? Perhaps we should send him and all those who agree that no timeline should be set to Afghanistan to fight.
Rachel, please continue to speak out against this war. Not only are we giving the Afghan people "the best chance they've ever had" but we are also putting the lives of the BEST AMERICAN SOLDIERS on the line for an unlikely outcome-an Afghan government that is free from corruption (yeah right!). I can agree that some U.S. dollars may be given to help build this country, but NO AMERICAN LIVES are worth this UNREASONABLE REQUEST!!!!