Latest Column

Joe Klein
.
Any chance of a post on this newly unclassified version of the report on terror from the Senate Armed Services Committee? Especially the part that holds Don Rumsfield accountable for the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan?
.
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf

I've never seen a good analysis of what we should be doing in Pakistan. I know it's complicated, but the 'solutions' that have been proposed all seem impotent and vague.

Not saying a LeMay approach is better, but it would be nice to develop a strategy that offered more than "put more diplomatic pressure on Pakistan."

Perhaps instead of thinking of the situation as "the War in Afghanistan" we should begin referring to it as "the bases in Afghanistan" As in Iraq, our battles aren't with the host governments but rather with elements of the population within these various countries. Currently the majority of enemy activity is based in Pakistan. This is why all the blather about 'victory' that decorated the recent Presidential campaign meant little but helped Americans differentiate which candidate was describing the situation honestly and which was lying.
.
Another situation that arises when our enemy doesn't consist of states, but of individuals with fluid loyalties is that there's more than one way to neutralize them. All I'll add to that thought is that being one of the few nations on earth that won't repuidiate torture is not helpful to the effort.

Joe, good article. But the issue of Pakistan and terrorism can not be constructively addressed without pressuring the Indians to actually do something about the rampant violence against Indian Muslims. The Bombay attacks were tragic and horrible, but given the Indian government's refusal to seriously prosecute the people who participated in the Gujarat killings of 2,000 Muslims, they were also inevitable. It's not an excuse, but it's just a fact that senseless violence ensures more senseless violence. The Pakistani government cannot do nothing while Muslims across the border are being treated brutally.

...and this from McClatchy (h/t Juan Cole):
.
"WASHINGTON — A United Nations Security Council committee put three Pakistani leaders of the group Lashkar-e-Taiba and a Saudi operative on a terrorist watch list Wednesday as new evidence surfaced that the group blamed for the Mumbai attacks has expanded its activities and its fundraising well beyond South Asia.
.
A U.N. document obtained by McClatchy said that LeT has sent operatives to attack U.S. troops in Iraq, established a branch in Saudi Arabia and been raising funds in Europe. The group may also have received money from al Qaida, suggesting that it has close ties with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network based along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, the document said."

Joe Klein:
_
Part of the problem is demonstrated in the article itself.
_
The headline asks the question "Why Are We in Afghanistan?", but I didn't see an answer to that anywhere in your piece.
_
You wrote "The war in Afghanistan — the war that President-elect Barack Obama pledged to fight and win — has become an aimless absurdity."
_
You also wrote "...that raises a long-term question crucial to the success of the Obama Administration: What are we doing in Afghanistan? What is the mission?"
_
You then wrote "We know what the mission used to be — to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy his al-Qaeda command. But once bin Laden slipped away, the mission morphed into a vast, messy nation — building effort to support the allegedly democratic Karzai government. There was a certain logic to that...But the mission was also historically implausible..."
_
You close with "Before he sends another U.S. soldier off to die or be maimed in Afghanistan, President-elect Obama needs to deliver the blunt message to the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan that we will no longer tolerate their complicity in the deaths of Americans and our allies, a slaughter that began on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and continues to this day. Obama will soon own this aimless war if he does not somehow change that dynamic."
_
_
Like most Democrats, I'm not a peacenik, which means I'm not ideologically committed to the end of state violence for its own sake. I'm not against this or that war because I'm against all wars or the concept of war. Like most Americans, I'm supportive of overwhelming force as a last resort in critical situations posing immediate or near immediate threats to my nation's security (note that I used the word "security" and not "interests").
_
I say this so that you will understand that my criticism of your piece is not some imagined "Well it's one, two, three --What are we fighting for?" hippie reflex. I'm not old enough for that. I'm capable of acknowledging that which is worth fighting for.
_
But Joe, you didn't answer the question. You gave an account of how difficult the situation is, and how we're not addressing the fundamental causes of instability in that country (and others, and the region itself). You claim that Obama needs to forthrightly address the Pakistan situation, otherwise he will be directing a war with no purpose. I don't see how that makes any sense. Either the war has a valid purpose, in which there are successful or failed strategies that may include a new relationship with Pakistan, or it does not.
_
Instead of Obama explaining to the nation (and the world) how we're now going to be dealing with Pakistan, he should be laying out to the American people what we all have recognized over the past eight years to be a fundamental a priori requirement of our foreign policy: a clear case for war.
_
If you can't clearly answer the question with which your piece is titled, then why should the American people support Obama's policies in this regard any more than Bush's?

Re Previous topic:

Can Obama Escape the Taint of Blagojevich?

By MASSIMO CALABRESI / WASHINGTON

Joe, can you please send Stengel a copy of your earlier post?

Obviously Joe, the question you posed in the headline was rhetorical since there's no sense of an answer anywhere in your piece. I'm not criticizing, but if you can't answer after spending as much time as you have there, then we have to accept that there is no tangible reason as to why we're in Afghanistan at this time. The only reason I can see, is to maintain the appearance of US military dominance in the world. Soft power won't work without the perception of continued US military power and that perception is taking a beating. Moreover, since we've spent such a huge percentage of our fiat currency on military spending, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that the US Dollar is backed by the military might of the United States, so there's that, but I doubt sincerely that we can maintain this facade much longer, not w/ a depression on.
.
Jayack you asked in another thread and I'll answer again...empires don't volunteer to stop being empires. Reality imposes itself, often brutally.

Cincy--
.
The essence of this claim is that there is no chance that the US government will be responsive to their constituents. The decision to make the Great American Hegemony Project overt by invading and occupying Iraq has had a pretty profound impact on the popularity of the project.
.
If the US is still in these two countries in 2010, I think you can expect to see a number of primary campaigns.

Jesus, Massimo Calebresi....what a murderer's row of hacks you've assembled here at Time Inc. Way to go!
.
Jay, yeah...I get that. However, I still think ultimately that for many, it will simply be too hard to admit what is plainly obvious, that the US is no longer the baddest boy on the block. There's an awful lot of whistling past the graveyard in this country despite recent reality checks, it's especially hard for people of certain generations to let go of lifelong held beliefs. Is Reid up in 2010?

.
Nothing we're willing to do is gonna 'solve' Afghanistan or Pakistan; both places are bottomless pits that will suck up every dollar and pint of blood that we throw into them. Best case scenario is to lockdown Pakistan's nukes, buy the best intelligence we can afford, and keep the worst elements from having any influence outside of their own loosely-definded borders.
.
Maybe one day the two countries will decide to join civilization. We can't make that decision for them.

"Why Are We in Afghanistan?" At the outset I think the honest answer was simple. We were seeking revenge. Right or wrong, revenge is why we were there. However, as a nation we either forgot or no one bothered to remind us that revenge is not a solution. Its a problem. And now, the desire for revenge has trapped us. So now the answer to why we are in Afghnistan is "we are trapped by the desire for revenge." Simple.

.
cinci: ...what a murderer's row of hacks you've assembled here at Time...
.
I'm thinking that Scherer, Calabresi, and DFF* Halperin all sit in the same block of the cube farm, with the nice view of the monitor playing Spammity's** show.
.
*Drudge Friend Forever
**Fox talking head with gelatinous, molded meat product for brains.

crush: "Nothing we're willing to do is gonna 'solve' Afghanistan or Pakistan . . ." There was a time when Afghanistan could have worked, but bush blew it entirely. My brother was in the Peace Corps in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, so he knew the country well. He has also been back a number of times since the liberation - and it was a liberation. He has watched the country move from euphoria right after the liberation (and it was euphoria) where everything seemed possible to where it is now due to Bush's malign neglect and failed policies. It is beyond tragic.

The angry left. Fail!
.
Via TPM:
.
Despite a steady stream of stories about the supposed anger of "the left" at Obama, a new AP poll finds that fully 90% of Dems approve of the transition. And a new Pew Poll finds that Democrats approve of Obama's cabinet choices by a margin of 89-4.
.
Poll: 1% Of Dems Say Picks Too Far Right
Big News Orgs: 'The Left' Is Upset With Obama -- Even Though It Isn't
NYT: Liberals 'Deeply Frustrated'
.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/where_are_you_angry_left.php

cinci: ...what a murderer's row of hacks you've assembled here at Time... sgw and I have agreed not to encourage MS by ignoring his posts entirely. Really, responding to him is like responding to RedState, so why bother.
.
Others are welcome to join in this. If effective we'll get to see what happens when a blogger gets no attention at all?

Yes gunny (3:23), well said.
.
It perplexes me that Obama wants to up-the-ante. I ask myself why. Is it important to him to be able to say "I got bin Laden when my predecessors couldn't (wouldn't)"? Sure, I'd like to "get" him, but it's cold-comfort now.
.
Are there other motivating factors: Afghani oil? Military bases?
.
Or am I misreading it? Will we be safer if the US military can wipe-out all the bad guys? Doubt it- don't think it can be done. I believe you defeat terrorism by taking away the motivation. I.e. get the military the f* out and do what you can to give the local people hope (jobs, water, electricity).
.
Just as many of us at the time, and most of us in hindsight, criticized the Iraqi invasion as counter-productive in the fight against terrorism, I'm worried predator drones and troop escalation in Afghanistan/Pakistan will do the same.

gunny, I saw that TPM story too. I'm willing to bet that no one in the msm will notice, because the story is now CW after all.
.
btw, if you use Firefox there is a dandy "make link" plug-in that lets you do this -But it is Afghanistan that now looms as the potential quagmire. - with one click. h/t jamesinLA

At the outset I think the honest answer was simple. We were seeking revenge.
.
Little Tommy Friedman displayed this with his Suck. On. This. interview. Afghanistan wasn't enough.
.
But what the US did--demanded bin Laden, issued an ultimatum, got NATO support, acted on the ultimatum--and took pretty limited action was not unreasonable.
.
Why is the US still there? Dirks came pretty close,I think.

euphoria right after the liberation
.
I do remember that. People enjoy music, flying kites.
.
Would there were a hell. Bush would burn forever.

Yeah, but a base is an expression of imperial military might, one to let the natives know that the US is all powerful...agian, a facade.
.
wvng, I've made the same promise to not comment on Scherer's posts, even suggested everyone just treat his posts as open threads. He has a talent for pulling people back in with his hackery though doesn't he?

I still think that in my lifetime there is the possibility of seeing Bush behind the plexiglass at the Hague. Especially if he's stupid enough to travel abroad.

jay: I do remember that. People enjoy music, flying kites.
.
Jay, my brother was there to experience that rebirth. Over several visits he found close friends and extended families in both Herat and Kabul he hadn't heard from since the Soviet invasion. A number had been refugees in surrounding countries and had just returned. They were all profoundly hopeful for a return of the country and lives they had known.

cincy, regarding MS, might be best if his threads were simply empty. Nothing like the sounds of silence.

jay, remember what it felt like, even over here, when the East German wall came down? Imagine if someone had put it back up a few years later. That's Afghanistan today. And it's Bush's fault.
.
Heartbreaking.