A blog about politics.

Pearl Harbor Day

I've just emerged after a week in Afghanistan, traveling through the country--especially in the volatile south--with a military delegation from NATO. I'll have a lot more to say about that in the print edition of the magazine this week. But it's hard not to be both impressed and depressed by the effort. Impressed by the serious new thinking about the struggle and the sacrifices being made by U.S. troops and some of our allies--during my two days in Regional Command-South, three Canadians and two Danish soldiers were killed in action, and two British soldiers were severely wounded. It is also difficult not to be infuriated, once again, by the lethal strategic carelessness of the Bush Administration's Afghanistan policy, its lack of attention to detail, its coddling of an "ally"--Pakistan--that harbors the terrorists killing our troops and of another "ally," President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, whose corrupt administration seems as concerned about reaping the profits of the poppy harvest as it does about protecting and providing services for its people. But don't get me started...as I said, more to come. 

For the moment, though, I'm hopeful that the Obama Administration will prove far more responsible--and attentive--to the difficult situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other places where our troops will be serving dusty, dangerous holidays this month. Another excellent sign--a moment of high symbolism and justice--comes today with the announcement of retired General Eric Shinseki as the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Shinseki, you will recall, was the Army Chief of Staff who warned that Donald Rumsfeld was underestimating the troops needed and the difficulty of the struggle to come in Iraq. For that, he was humiliated by Rumsfeld and, especially, by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and forced to retire from the military.

It should give none of us great pleasure that Shinseki has now been called back into service to administer the system that is too full of the casualties of Bush and Rumsfeld's folly. It is hard not to be infuriated by the loss of life and limb that the Bush Administration caused with its arrogance. But it is good to know that General Shinseki--a man whose past service honors the wounded he will now serve--will be part of the new Administration, and especially good to know that Barack Obama has the wisdom and sensitivity to understand how important this appointment is, symbolically and practically, to those who wear the uniform on this anniversary of the second most deadly attack on our nation.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (105)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Few have gotten such bad treatment, or rather no treatment, than the vets. Used and discarded. Shameful and hopefully General Shinseki can make a difference.

  • 2

    Looking forward to reading more about your trip to Afghanistan, Joe. You've confirmed my growing pessimism about the situation over there. What exactly *is* the mission? To hang on until democracy "takes root"? I don't see any sort of real effort to accomplish that in political terms.
    .
    The vets I know are ecstatic about Shinseki's nomination. Couldn't be happier.
    .
    Have a safe remainder of your trip, Joe.

  • 3

    Shinseki spoke truth to power. In public.
    .
    Now if he'll put Taguba in charge of a task force in charge of interrogation policy, I'll be pretty much convinced that Obama recognizes the deep, corrosive damage done by Bush.

  • 5

    I find it difficult to give credence to critics of Karzai's corrupt administration when they supported the unilateral invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the first place. Those of us who saw Bush for what he was from Day One actually opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and warned specifically about the dangers of allying ourselves with the drug-funded warlords that the media romanticised as The Northern Alliance.

    And lets not forget that well before the morally "questionable" use of "detention" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" we saw one of the greatest acts of immorality in warfare since WWII -- the use of "daisy cutters" against human targets. Any questions regarding the character of the people running the country should have been answered by that atrocity, but finding anyone in the American media who cared is a nearly impossible task.

  • 6

    Gen Shinseki's nomination is very good news - and a telling rejoinder to the Bush-Dumbsfeld nonsense. One can only wish Gen Shinseki the best as he does his duty. Take care, Joe. One question: Does Afghanistan fit a standard definition of a nation state?

  • 7

    Joe - I'm especially interested in your take on Karzai's corruption. Was this necessary for him to stay in power and maintain stability? Or would it have been possible for him to stay in power without corruption. I guess I'm wondering whether we've been better off with a corrupt Karzai than we would have been with any other realistic alternatives.
    .
    What everybody's said on Shinseki. Symbolism is important. This is Obama's version of in-your-face change, delivered after retaining Gates, which softens the blow. But the message is clear. Think of how different the response would have been if he'd announced this appointment first.

  • 8

    Each day I find myself more and more gratified at the smart, competent people Obama is nominating for various posts in his Cabinet and elsewhere. And then I find myself stunned that I'm so gratified. Isn't this what our presidents are supposed to do? How have we gotten to the point where we are shocked at well-thought-out decisions from our leaders? Let's hope this is the beginning of an era where we demand similar competence from future administrations.

  • 9

    jay ; Now if he'll put Taguba in charge of a task force in charge of interrogation policy, I'll be pretty much convinced that Obama recognizes the deep, corrosive damage done by Bush.
    .
    Similarly, I hope he puts David Iglesias in charge of a task force rooting out corruption in the DOJ. And David Swift in charge of a similar task force on abuses in the military justice program:
    .
    Assigned to defend a Guantánamo detainee, jag lawyer Charles Swift joined up with legal scholar Neal Katyal and sued the president and secretary of defense over the new military-tribunal system. With their 2006 Supreme Court victory overridden by the Republican Congress, and Swift's navy career at an end, they are fighting on.
    .
    Put the repubs who proved they put the Constitution and country first in charge of investigating those who did not.

  • 10

    Rich's column The Brightest Are Not Always the Best today is an important read.

  • 11

    WW2 trivia- The RAF found out that they had bombed not a German airstrip with a fleet of aircraft sitting around, but a bunch of "planes" made out of lumber. A bomb-wasting decoy.

    So the next night, the RAF dropped wooden bombs on the decoy.

    I read this in The Nightmare Years 1930- 1940 by William L Shirer (war correspondent extraordinaire). He told the story more compellingly than me so read the book. It's fascinating.

  • 12

    my how easily we're distracted by bright shiny objects -- and Shinseki at Veteran's Affairs is the quintessential "bright shiny object". Secretary of VA is not an important policy position, and Shinseki's appointment is practically irrelevant in terms of what we can expect from an Obama administration.... its all "symbolism" with almost no substance.

    Shinseki at Defense would be significant. Shinseki at Vet Affairs is merely a bauble.

  • 13

    Kathy, pluk: I have some doubts about Aghanistan as a country or nation. My own reading of 18th and 19thC Asia suggests that Afghanistan is a collection of tribal entities that have had to become a nation state simply to fill the space between Iran, Pakistan and the "north". It is about as artificial a nation state as one can find in parts of Africa post the Scramble (The Congo being a classic example). So, Karzai is a chieftan and not much more. His power lay in his ability to hand out cash and jobs. (See Bush/Cheney and no-bid). Trying to prop up Karzai is a complete waste of time.

  • 14

    Amendment: For Pakistan read India and the "uncontrollable" North West frontier provinces before 1947.

  • 15

    I'm afraid there are ever more regions of the world that could be considered "ungovernable", Afghanistan, being one. Robert S Kaplan wrote a lot about this in The Coming Anarchy. The Atlantic article (precursor to book) from 1994 is prescient on a lot of levels. Lots of shambles in the works, folks.

  • 16

    Our supply line to Afghanistan goes through Pakistan and one depot has been totalled yesterday. The loss of supplies and equipment is troubling. Just think about it: our supply line runs through Taliban-controlled territory; and we hope to win.

  • 17

    7oaks, my brother was in the Peace Corps during the three years before the Soviet invasion and he describes a country that "worked" well enough, with an "understanding" between tribal leaders and the "central gov't." The question is whether a similar arrangement can be restored after the post-invasion horrors.

  • 18

    wvng: you are spot on. The country tribal elders arrived at a modus-vivendi before the Russians took over. It was not ideal but it worked. Kabul maintained contact with other capitals. I remember those days: lots of hippies working their way through Iran, Afghanistan and down on to India via Pakistan. My brother actually drove all the way from Germany to Delhi to take up a job there at that time. How things have changed.

  • 19

    7oaks. Yeah, and now they have warlords instead of elders. Warlords the bushies further enabled post invasion. Complicates things a lot.

  • 20

    What does the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer know about the United States military or military operations? Answer: Nothing. Joe Klein? Ditto. The hair-plugged buffoon, serial plagiarist and Soviet useful idiot (aka Joe Biden)? Double ditto.

  • 21

    The biggest danger we face anywhere in the world is the difference between what we can physically accomplish and what we wish to accomplish. Even 'realists' like JK and the new administration who recognize that we need more tools than just weaponry to help make the world and ourselves safer, nevertheless seem to hold out this notion that the world is ours to form into our own image.
    While it may sound nice as a goal, as the saying goes "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy..."

  • 22

    wvng, thanks for the link to Rich's column. It's very persuasive. One of the (many) problems Obama faces is that by choosing "the best and the brightest" economists - which seems like the sensible thing to do - he's choosing from a weak profession. If immunologists working on a new vaccine made an error on the same scale as Rudin's they would lose their colleagues' respect. I was amazed by a Freakonomics blog post on the NY Times essentially saying we should listen to economists even though they have a poor record of predicting macroeconomic events. Can you imagine a biological scientist saying something similar? Honestly, how is that different from "scientists" who advocate intelligent design? If "the best and the brightest" economists keep making horrible mistakes, well then obviously they can only be sarcastically called "the best and the brightest."

  • 23

    Rose - wvng - haven't read Rich's column yet - will go do that. But this is a headline on MSNBC.com "Academic elites fill Obama's roster
    Critics worry about insularity as Ivy League graduates crowd cabinet posts." I'm not excited about our tearing these guys down because they went to elite schools. That's the direction this will take, with only a little nudge.

  • 24

    rose, but the Shinseki pick is pure brilliance (pluk notwithstanding). Best takes come from Fallows (and Joe as well, of course):
    .
    Karmic justice: Gen. Eric Shinseki
    .
    Bonus points for elegance in the Shinseki pick (updated)
    .
    kathy, lacking a better media with better self policing , I'm sure you are right.

  • 25

    Have now read Rich's column. There are significant differences, as well as similarities, between the two cabinets. Obama's brought a lot of people with governing experience on board. They know they're entering office with extraordinary difficulties ahead of them. Obama does not seem to have the personal hubris that Kennedy had. In fact, he really seems to be working to guard against the inevitable sycophantic bubble that surrounds presidents, by bringing in people who will not be averse to giving contrarian views. Kennedy was groomed to lead, and had, much as I loved him, a lot in common with GWB, in terms of the expectation that all the good things in life would come to him, and that he had a midas touch. Obama was born and raised in a very different world, and has a very different view of himself.
    .
    For all that Rich raises some cautionary flags, I think they could be raised about any new President. Surely, the fact that Obama's hired bright people should not be seen as a detriment. Heckuva job Frankie.

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Swampland Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Swampland in your inbox and never miss a day.