State Dept. Official: Prioritizing Wars Is Like Choosing ‘Which One Of Your Kids You Like Best’
State Dept. Official: Prioritizing Wars Is Like Choosing ‘Which One Of Your Kids You Like Best’
Last month, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said, “In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must.”
Today in a Senate hearing, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher about Mullen’s comment and “whether or not we’ve neglected Pakistan and Afghanistan because of our overemphasis on Iraq.”
Boucher, however, refused to prioritize Afghanistan or Iraq. He instead compared having to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan to Feingold having to choose between one of his children:
Boucher: Sir, I mean, which of your kids do you like best?
Feingold: I’m sorry.
Boucher: Sir, I mean which of your kids do you like best?
Feingold: I think it’s more, I think it’s really more, I don’t, I don’t, think it’s as simple as that. I think — this is the core question of whether we can get our priorities right in this country about this war.
Boucher: Here’s the way I would explain it.
Feingold: These are not identical.
Watch it:
Boucher’s equation comparing war with children underscores why this administration can’t pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan — it is so emotionally invested that it views the Iraq war as its baby.
Officials have clearly pushed aside Afghanistan for Iraq, although admitting so isn’t politically popular. “[P]riorities matter and in order to determine priorities one has to determine where is the greater concern,” said Feingold.
A report released this week by the Atlantic Council concluded, “Afghanistan remains a dangerously neglected conflict in a Washington transfixed by Iraq.” Two other reports also put out this week came to similar conclusions.
Transcript:
Feingold: The war in Afghanistan has been called by many experts the forgotten war. The report released yesterday which will be discussed in the next panel notes just now how close we are to failure in Afghanistan yet despite the clear threats emanating from Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen recently said, “In Afghanistan we do what we can. In Iraq we do what we must.” Is that the policy of the Bush Administration? That Afghanistan is of secondary importance to the national security of the United States? [...]
Which of those two situations do you regard as more important to our national security?
Boucher: Iraq or Afghanistan? I think they both are.
Feingold: No, I asked which one do you think is more important? Surely they’re not identical.
Boucher: I would hope we could do both. I don’t see any way of…
Feingold: I do too. I’m asking which one do you think is more important in terms of the threat?
Boucher: Sir, I spend much of my day working on Afghanistan so I’m very much focused on Afghanistan. I find it hard to weigh one against the other, because the problem is if you don’t stabilize both places you’ll never stabilize either one.
Feingold: I guess my comment is, of course you want to succeed in each and every place, but surely in any endeavor including military and war endeavors, priorities matter and in order to determine priorities one has to determine where is the greater concern. And so I’ve tried several times with different people to get an answer to this and I’ve never gotten one and I find it a little surprising in light of the global nature of the threat we face.
Boucher: Sir, I mean, which of your kids do you like best?
Feingold: I’m sorry.
Boucher: Sir, I mean which of your kids do you like best?
Feingold: I think it’s more, I think it’s really more, I don’t, I don’t, think it’s as simple as that. I think — this is the core question of whether we can get our priorities right in this country about this war.
Boucher: Here’s the way I would explain it.
Feingold: These are not identical
Boucher: If you look at the history of 9-11 and how that happened, ungoverned spaces are a threat to us, around the world. Wherever they are that’s where the terrorists are going to go and they are going to plot and plan and come out of there and kill us. You can’t neglect any portion of the planet.
Feingold: That’s absolutely right.
Boucher: And we have in the last several years taken away those ungoverned spaces — sometimes diplomatically, sometimes through our relations with governments, and sometimes with militarily force. If we don’t continue to do that in all the remaining ungoverned spaces there’s always going to be a threat to us.
Feingold: Yeah, and if the question here was neglect I would understand what you said, but the question here, in my view, is whether or not we’ve neglected Pakistan and Afghanistan because of our overemphasis on Iraq. So the question here is relative emphasis.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Slowly drowning in a sea of idiocy
January 31st, 2008 at 5:27 pmBoucher didn’t mention that Iraq wasn’t an “ungoverned space” until we got there. You would think that if he’s arguing we should go and secure all ungoverned spaces in the world (a mighty endeavor), why would we create additional ones?
Boucher’s arguments are just so much more political BS. It’s true that it isn’t politically popular to admit that Afghanistan has been pushed aside for Iraq. It’s also not politically popular to admit that we really have no interest in capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him to justice (although that didn’t stop Bush from essentially saying so when he admitted that OBL wasn’t a priority). And it’s especially not politically popular to admit that Iraq is all about oil. Even when everybody knows that to be true.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:31 pmBoucher:
“ungoverned spaces are a threat to us, around the world. Wherever they are that’s where the terrorists are going to go and they are going to plot and plan and come out of there and kill us”
Oh
January 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pmmy
God!
Boucher’s a regular King Solomon, eh? Onward Christian soldier, indeed.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:35 pmI sure wish someone would pick up Russ Feingold as their running mate. If not, definitely within the new president’s cabinet/administration. He’s got courage and conviction. Something which is sorely missing in this congress.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:36 pmThis is what is really sad. We truly did have an opportunity to do something constructive in Afghanistan, but unfortunately it was only a stepping stone to get to the real crown jewel of the imperialists dream, Iraq.
If anything could have salvaged Bush’s legacy focusing on Afghanistan, assuming he did so in a “good” way, and not invading Iraq would have done it.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:39 pmWhat a nice breed:
One kid has record in opium production and the other has killed one million people.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pm#6 that’s the crminal part of it all.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pm‘Which One Of Your Kids You Like Best’
What an asinine analogy. The upshot is that he LIKES both wars, just as he would his kids. It’s so hard to chose because their both such damn cute little wars.
At what point does it become permissible to to slap these dolts?
News Corpse, The Internet’s Chronicle Of Media Decay.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pmIf you look at the history of 9-11 and how that happened, ungoverned spaces are a threat to us, around the world. Wherever they are that’s where the terrorists are going to go and they are going to plot and plan and come out of there and kill us. You can’t neglect any portion of the planet.
Well it sure is a good thing that we overthrew the government of Iraq and turned it from a governed space into an ungoverned one, then!
January 31st, 2008 at 5:43 pmWherever they are that’s where the terrorists are going to go and they are going to plot and plan and come out of there and kill us. You can’t neglect any portion of the planet.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
January 31st, 2008 at 5:44 pmThe patent dishonesty of Boucher’s argument is stunning. The administration through the JCS has already told us they’ve prioritized Iraq over Afghanastan/Pakistan. So either the JCS was lying, Boucher is lying, or Boucher thinks the JCS and the administration are pursuing a flawed strategy. There’s no fourth alternative. I’m stunned that Feingold missed this or alternatively chose not to drill down on it sepecifically in further questioning. I really like Feingold and respect him greatly, but as long as Congress continues to allow this kind of doublespeak to be presented during oversight hearings nothing will ever change.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:46 pmBoucher:
“ungoverned spaces are a threat to us, around the world. Wherever they are that’s where the terrorists are going to go and they are going to plot and plan and come out of there and kill usâ€
And why are they going to kill us? Could it have something to do with the fact that we are killing them? Or how about the fact that we are invading their countries. Or how about the fact that we are trying to steal other people’s resources.
If we would just mind our own business and allow the other countries on this planet to manage their own business, there wouldn’t be so many people who want to kill us!
January 31st, 2008 at 5:48 pmI agree bhal123. Feingold responding to that ridiculous statement with, “That’s absolutely right.” doesn’t help either.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:49 pm#8 Couldn’t agree more!
January 31st, 2008 at 5:50 pmOT
January 31st, 2008 at 5:52 pmWill the two remaining Democratic candidates try to out-macho each other tonight by trying to show who’s tougher on security? If so, the channel will be switched!
When is Doucher going to Somalia??
January 31st, 2008 at 5:53 pmFeingold responding to that ridiculous statement with, “That’s absolutely right.†doesn’t help either.
Comment by mary — January 31, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Well, the bit about power vacuums breeding terrorism was right. It just begs the question of why we chose to create one in Iraq while ignoring actual power vacuums in Somalia, northern Pakistan, and most of the DRC.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:54 pmWhy shouldn’t it be equally important to get our military out of both countries?
Are we more morally justified in occupying Afghanistan because Ossama bin Laden was once there? I don’t think so.
Prof.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:54 pmBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Comment by Juan C. — January 31, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Hey, he’s including your back porch Juan! Get some governance on that swinging love seat!@!!
January 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pmMost of the world was in support of us, when we entered Afghanistan.
Most of the world was Against us, when we entered Iraq.
Bush should have listened to Nelson Mandella and the Pope.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pmGet some governance on that swinging love seat!@!!
Comment by RUCerious
Oh, he better not mean the love hut…
January 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pmBush should have listened to Nelson Mandella and the Pope.
Comment by Badger
What kind of music do they play?
January 31st, 2008 at 6:04 pmI really like Feingold and respect him greatly, but as long as Congress continues to allow this kind of doublespeak to be presented during oversight hearings nothing will ever change.
Comment by bhal123 — January 31, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
You REALLY don’t understand. He’s just doing his job, same as ever media hack on the shadow government’s payroll. Ask the tough question, but NEVER ask the probing followup.
Limited Hangout Works!
January 31st, 2008 at 6:04 pmGDumbya disagrees with this guy…he thinks choosing between wars is like a box of chocolates.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm23 comments listed, but only 22 visible to anyone other than Plunger.
Conceal all truth.
Your CIA at work.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:06 pmWhat kind of music do they play?
Comment by Juan C. — January 31, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Afro-Catholic ;)
January 31st, 2008 at 6:08 pmWhat kind of music do they play?
Comment by Juan C. — January 31, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
**Desperately trying to not tell horrible pope joke, mmmmffff**
January 31st, 2008 at 6:10 pmThese people must love wars…to compare them to kids.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:16 pmPrioritizing Wars Is Like Choosing ‘Which One Of Your Kids You Like Best’
Meanwhile the neo-cons are still pining over the child they love most, the one we are not at war with, Iran.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:24 pmI think his analogy has more to do with the fact that we’re “breeding” so much hatred in both countries, it’s hard to tell which one is more likely to justify our invasion of another country. Georgejr has been talking about Pakistan needing our military “help”, lately.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pmwell .. you know how these guys love the ‘unborn’. Right to Life .. ? oh boy .. everything is upside down. Alice in Wonderland.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:33 pmwhat a juvenile analogy for this man to be making.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:36 pmChoosing which neocon to send to prison will be like choosing which candy we like best. So many good choices. Bush/Cheney/ Rice/Rumsfeld. Which one are you in the mood for?
January 31st, 2008 at 6:37 pmFiengold should have replied: Well, you’re going to have to choose, ’cause we can’t afford both of these little bastards.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:38 pmBoucher should have been laughed right out of Congress for this remark.It’s so sad to see the degradation of our congressional hearings these days.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:42 pmWhich one are you in the mood for?
Comment by robertoroberto
Bush…no…Cheney….no…Rumsfeld…no wait…Rice…uh no….Bush….yes Bush….well maybe Cheney….no….Bush….cripes so hard to choice with so many choices.
Buck Fush
January 31st, 2008 at 6:51 pmI am still having problems associating our invasion/massacre to an already war torn completely innocent 3rd world country as war. Have these war mongers been able to twist the minds of others into believing this?
January 31st, 2008 at 6:57 pmIraq or Afghanistan. Which one makes no difference, because there is no difference. They are both part of the war for oil. Iraq has oil and Afghanistan has a pipeline.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:09 pmChimpCo and its minions are proud of their wars and view them like their children. Bush looks upon the death and destruction he brought about as his finest creations, his masterpieces. Like Julius Caesar, the Chimp proudly says: “I came, I saw, I f#cked it up.”
January 31st, 2008 at 7:11 pmComment by Proud American
January 31st, 2008 at 7:13 pmwhen we went after Afghanistan didn’t our bombs drop in line for that pipeline?
Oh yes, we love our wars just like we lover our children???!!!!!
This is the most asinine thing heard in a while.
But I guess if you are a Republican making money off of it, and are a sociopath to boot, it might be true?
January 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pmI wish myself a whole bunch of Feingold!!! I love this guy!!
January 31st, 2008 at 7:20 pmWhen two of your kids are hurt, you take care of the one in worst shape first. If you can’t prioritize, you can’t do the job. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!
January 31st, 2008 at 7:39 pmagreed, #38. you can nitpick his response, line-by-line, word-by-word, but we should be so lucky to have a leader of his caliber and intestinal fortitude.
are you listening, Pelosi-Reed?
January 31st, 2008 at 7:39 pmBoucher is the real meatspace name of Southern Man, by the looks of his stupidity.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:58 pmGood news out of Afghanistan/Pakistan Theater of the War:
Top Al-Qaeda Commander Killed in Pakistan
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 31, 2008; 4:21 PM
Abu Laith al-Libi, one of al-Qaeda’s most senior commanders, was killed in Pakistan on Monday, Western officials said today.
The officials declined to comment on whether Libi’s death was related to a reported U.S. missile strike, launched from an unmanned Predator aircraft, that killed at least a dozen people Monday in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region.
U.S. officials had offered a bounty of $200,000 for Libi, who used a nom de guerre and whose true name was not known. He had been identified by U.S. officials as having orchestrated the 2007 bombing of the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan, during a visit by Vice President Cheney. Cheney was not injured, but 23 people were killed in the attack.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pmBecause in real life I’m an academic and a veteran and a long-time student of military history, perhaps I find this bone-headed comment more troubling for its broader ramifications than for its apparent endorsement of what we all believe — that neocons love war.
“Can’t prioritize wars?” Apparently, our Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs isn’t aware that, during World War II — and let’s all keep in mind that WWII is THE analog-of-choice for neocons and the war on terror — we and the British, um, er, well the only easy way to say this is, “prioritized” wars.
Roosevelt and Churchill jointly decided at the Arcadia Conference on December 22, 1941, to concentrate on the Germans first and the Japanese second, much to the chagrin of Americans who wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor which had as much to do with Hitler as 9/11 had to do with Saddam.
Now this isn’t some piece of mil-geek arcana, like the specs of a receiver on a Garand rifle or something. This is basic, geopolitics-of-war stuff.
And I find the fact that an Assistant Secretary of State doesn’t seem to know this to be profoundly depressing.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:40 pm(being the kid and the daughter two different persons, of course).
February 1st, 2008 at 7:51 amnetlog
almanya chat
January 21st, 2009 at 4:23 pmJust like the cold war when everyone who didn’t agree with the U.S. was either a communist or a communist sympathizer. toki This poor crazy guy spent half a decade being tortured because a bunch
of stupid politicians araç sorgulama were sure the NVA
was in bed with the Russians (minimal help) and/or the Chinese (ancient enemy of the vietnamese). ssk sorgulama You would think he would have learned from others’
mistakes. Guess not. Republicans need an enemy. key ödemeleri This
century it apparently will be all Muslims, health all of whom must
be alQaeda operatives.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:54 pm