A progressive debate on how to get Afghanistan right.
A progressive debate on how to get Afghanistan right.
Last week, Center for American Progress senior fellow Lawrence Korb debated The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel about the military surge in Afghanistan. The debate, which was sponsored by Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Foundation and is part of the Rethink Afghanistan documentary campaign, will be posted in three parts this week. Vanden Heuvel, who urges withdrawal from Afghanistan, argued, “Military escalation will inflame and recruit more terrorists.” Korb countered that more troops are “necessary but not sufficient” to counter the security threats which emanate from the region. The extra troops, Korb said, will “enable the United States and its allies to secure particularly the south and the east part of the country where the Taliban is strongest.” Watch part one of the debate:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Debate? “Getting” something “right?” I’m starting to see why wingnuts say we make no sense. We keep using terms they are incapable of understanding by nature.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:45 pmGet out of Iraq and Afegahnistan now! otherwise, just sit back and watch the american treasury waist and burn, while killing innocent people in the illegaly occupyied countries for oil pipelines…
April 20th, 2009 at 5:52 pmEscalation will inflame and recruit more terrorists, but we need more troops?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:05 pmReading their starting talking points, is this a debate on how to get it right -OR- a platform to say that whatever Obama is doing, has to be wrong ?
For that matter, why weren’t the repubs debating this 8 years ago when they got us into this mess ?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:08 pmFrankly, I think it’s too late for efforts in Afghanistan because it appears that the real battle has already moved into Pakistan. A country which has nuclear weapons and materials. And the government, having ceded territory to the Taliban, have lit a fire under them to gain power within the entire country, not just the Swat Valley and increasingly in Punjab, only 100 miles from the capitol.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, April 19 — A potentially troubling era dawned Sunday in Pakistan’s Swat Valley, where a top Islamist militant leader, emboldened by a peace agreement with the federal government, laid out an ambitious plan to bring a “complete Islamic system” to the surrounding northwest region and the entire country.
Richard C. Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the region, said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CNN that the decision by insurgents to keep fighting in spite of the peace deal should be a “wake-up call to everybody in Pakistan that you can’t deal with these people by giving away territory as they creep closer and closer to the populated centers of the Punjab and Islamabad.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041901731.html
April 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pmGet the US out of Afghanistan now. End the illegal criminal endless stupid US occupation of Afghanistan. President Reagan’s CIA created, armed and trained the forerunners to the Taliban back in the early 1980s. Heck of a job, Ron…
April 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pmSo what should the US do about it? More troops? More money? Obviously we have unlimited supplies of both.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pmForget number three. I read it too fast. It was two different people.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:31 pmHow Progressive it is to support an occupation, either with 1 troop or 1 million?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:37 pm“The extra troops, Korb said, will ‘enable the United States and its allies to secure particularly the south and the east part of the country where the Taliban is strongest.’”
April 20th, 2009 at 7:03 pmSecure for how long? We had 500,000 troops in Vietnam and it changed nothing. As soon as the troops were withdrawn, the country went over to the VC. Didn’t we learn anything? Those who claim these a dissimilar circumstances base that opinion on what? 40 years? Geography? The United States military is hugely unpopular in Afghanistan. What’s so hard about understanding that? More troops will not change this. We you as the occupier do not have the popular support of the people, you are doomed. Stop pissing the lives of American troops down the drain of failed foreign policy.
I also oppose the Afghan War for its collateral consequences–i.e., destabilization of Pakistan. See Afghanistan War–Path To Anarchy In Nuclear Pakistan.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:09 pmWhy is it that threads on Afghanistan always garner a mere handfull of posts? Is it because Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan and he is doing just that? And there is little interest in criticizing him?
I am serious, that is not a slam, because people show up in droves to criticize O. for not prosecuting Bush officials, but the Afghanistan threads are consistently poorly commented on.
I wonder if perhaps the real reason is that most people know that if we were to “PULL OUT NOW!!” The result would be the Taliban coming back to power and Al Qaeda’s sphere of influence expanding? Honestly, if we left there tomorrow, what does anyone here think would happen? The Taliban never held elections, they just seized power and would do so again.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:50 pmOne HUGE Item argues Against Success in Afghanistan:
The History of Afghanistan.
I heard a story recently…perhaps told by Gore Vidal, I’m not sure…about the Way the Culture Works in the Villages of Afghanistan.
American Troops, searching for terrorists, enter an Afghan Villagers house…and search the rooms…some of which are occupied by the Women of the house.
This IS a cultural Taboo…and the Male Owner of the house loses Face and is Shamed for not Being Able to protect his family from this cultural Onslaught/Search.
He has Two choices. He can Leave the Village in Shame…or he Can go up in the mountains, hook up with the insurgents, and try to kill Americans to Avenge this perceived injustice.
If he succeeds, perhaps by planting a roadside bomb, then he regains Respect in his Village.
This is what we are Up against. In Afghanistan AND Pakistan.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:24 pmThe best strategy I can think of for Afghanistan is to identify the strongest, most influential warlords for each geo-political division, and shower them with cash and material like steel and concrete so they can rebuild their country.
In exchange for the popular support and status the warlords would reap from their fellow countrymen, U.S. accountants (if you can find any honest ones left) would verify that 95% of the cash was being spent on projects the benefitted the People of Afghanistan. Those projects would include schools where the emphasis was placed on legitimate skill development, not religious indoctrination.
After 30 years of spending 30 billion dollars a year we would have educated a population capable of divesting themselves of the corruption imposed by the warlords, and same type of corruption we suffer from in this country today. During those 30 years, no American soldiers would have been killed or wounded, and we would have saved the American Taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars we will otherwise spend if we try to keep military forces in that place where empires go to die.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:31 pmFrankly, I don’t have the slightest idea what we could do about the Pakistan problem, now that we’ve traded nuclear technology for mangos with Pakistan’s enemy: India, in bush-2’s most salutory foreign policy victory.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:37 pmSorry, guys…I’ve been on record since, oh, about September, 2001, as being completely against an occupation of Afghanistan with any U.S. troops.
There’s no way to win, folks. Unless the U.S. decides to subsidize their entire economy, at the risk of our own.
Let’s see…how many empires have been ruined trying to contain Afghanistan under their rule? How many countries have withdraw, as if from a queasy dream, from ’subjugating’ Afghanistan? Great Britain, Russia, and now the good old U.S. of A…
It is remote. It is unsuitable for anything except a stop along the Silk Road and growing poppies. Its population is Old School Muslim. Its tribes are the ultimate authority.
There is simply no way to win. And George W. Bush, and Unocal executive Hamid Karzai have shat the bed, folks. The sooner Obama or anyone else with a brain realizes these simple truths, the sooner we can save billions and thousands of valuable GI lives.
Iraq, same thing. Let them pay for their OWN universal health care…
April 20th, 2009 at 8:37 pmSeems like Daddy-O and I are about 180 degrees apart on strategy, though we both understand there is no military solution of what to do in Afghanistan.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:40 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
Why is it that threads on Afghanistan always garner a mere handfull of posts? Is it because Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan and he is doing just that? And there is little interest in criticizing him?
It’s hard to criticize him for something he campaigned on. If we that was a deal-breaker, we wouldn’t have supported him in the first place. It’s also harder to criticize Afghanistan (as compared to Iraq) because that’s actually a perfectly justifiable war. Probably the first one we’ve seen since… WWII? The only real argument you could make against it would be to say that although we should have focused our efforts there after 9-11, since we didn’t conditions have changed to the point that fulfilling our original mission priorities is no longer feasible. But I hope that’s not the case.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:41 pmYou don’t counter terrorism with military troops. If you could, Iraq would be a success story, instead of the utter waste and failure that it is.
Alejandro, it is my firm belief that Americans (and others) mostly suffer from the mistaken conviction that they have to do something. But sometimes nothing is the best option.
The Taliban will never go away. They’ve roamed the countryside for eight long years. They remind me nothing so much than another guerrilla war leader, wandering the countryside for years at a time, winning by doing not much more than escaping capture:
George Washington.
Get out now. And fight terrorism the only way you can–by retaining the high moral ground first, and infiltration. I declare that we MUST have infiltrated al Qaeda by now, since I keep hearing about how invading Iraq helped recruitment. Then again, George W. Bush and his cronies have been in charge for the last eight years, so it would not surprise me if this was not a priority.
Feh!
April 20th, 2009 at 8:44 pmThe jiu-jitsu of al Qaeda was perfect. Bush’s overreaction is now historic. Our economy is bleeding; our military and intelligence torture; our reputation is shattered, even with the election of Obama; our military is stretched thin; we’ve never been more politicized in our history as far as foreign policy is concerned; we’ve murdered one country and are intensifying the action in the other.
Sometimes, restraint is the wisest act of all. Sun Tzu said it best: Only go to war when you have no other choice. There was no choice in fighting Japan and Germany. But invading Afghanistan and Iraq will go down in history as wars of choice, for all time.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:49 pmIt’s not hard to criticize anyone when what they’re doing is wrong, and just plain stupid, to boot. And especially when it comes to asking an American soldier to bleed or die when there is no just reason for him/her being there in the first place.
There was no justification for invading Afghanistan. The U.S. turned down legitimate offers from the Afghan government that would have settled the issue between our two countries.
The reason we went into Afghanistan was to secure the construction of an oil pipeline. And the presence of that pipeline is the reason you will be seeing American troops there for years and years to come. All the talk about fighting “terrorists” by terrorizing the civilian population is the smoke and mirrors to hide what’s going on from those who refuse to look behind the curtain.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pmJust ask the Russians how they got there asses kicked over there …………..Damn I keep forgetting that Ray Gun helped Osama Bin Hidin, in part that is why Russia got chased out of Afghanistan and the fact that the Afghanistan people fought like banshees to keep the Russians out, and the same can be said now with the Taliban.We need to get out now while we have the chance of leaving the country with some semblance of order, and save some lives of civilians and soldiers.This is not about winning!!!!!
April 20th, 2009 at 9:13 pmAfegahnistan… Obama: The War President.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:14 pmGood debate! And as for what’s going on in Pakistan, did you all watch part two of Rethink Afghanistan?
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/videos.php
April 20th, 2009 at 9:21 pmBadger Says:
One HUGE Item argues Against Success in Afghanistan:
The History of Afghanistan.
Excellent point. And this worries me. We have been able, somehow, to bridge a social gap in Iraq, but I am uncertain of this possibility in Afhgan.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pmDaddy-O Says:
You don’t counter terrorism with military troops. If you could, Iraq would be a success story, instead of the utter waste and failure that it is.
Uhm…the Iraq that I just returned from is doing quite well, thank you very much, and quite different than portrayed in our media. While I would never suggest that the nation presents a gleaming beacon of hope, I would also never suggest that it has been a waste; there is 0 question that the country is in a better place than it was. We’re not talking justification here, only results. Progress to be made for sure, but much has already been made.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:29 pmElBruce Says:
since we didn’t conditions have changed to the point that fulfilling our original mission priorities is no longer feasible. But I hope that’s not the case.
I’ve heard a lot of talk about a scaled back end-state. Iraq and Afghan are very different, culturally, and I believe that Afghan will hard-pressed to even achieve some form of central government (in practicality and not just technicality).
April 20th, 2009 at 10:35 pmAlejandro Says:
Escalation will inflame and recruit more terrorists, but we need more troops?
From my experience, this is not the case (maybe you mean recruitment in other countries?). A successful strategy has been shown to be increasing the risks and costs of terrorism (increased presence and operational tempo, etc…) balanced with increased opportunity for employment and general quality of life through vocational schools, civil watch groups for neighborhood stability, even allowing the professing of past guilt and taking an oath to reform (I for some reason cannot think of the word for this, along the lines of atonement but not). Most of the insurgency that I encountered were young souls looking to earn a quick $50 by placing an IED. These same people are easily deterred through establishing secure neighborhoods and providing opportunites for them and their families.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:47 pmDaddy-O Says:
You don’t counter terrorism with military troops.
You’re right about this, but missed the mark with everything else. There are a million things that Dubya never even considered trying. From what it’s starting to sound like, Obama’s approach to Afghanistan will only include military presence as one of many equal components. If something’s never been tried before, then history can’t debunk it.
.
slip_left Says:
…I believe that Afghan will hard-pressed to even achieve some form of central government (in practicality and not just technicality).
From much of what I’ve read, most rural Afghans listen only to their tribal elders. I think the only really stable solution would be to find a way to co-opt the tribal/elder system, to make that a distributed but integral part of their governmental structure. When you give people a voice, you put them on the side of having something to lose.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:05 pmthey will bleed us slow and cause us to go further and further in bankruptcy.
ask russia how well they did.
oh but we are better than the russians. right.
imperialism has a price.
payback time on the price.
hey the surge is working like we were told the surge was working in vietnam.
we americans have not learned our lessons yet but we will. every country does. law of karma.
ask japan and germany what price they had to pay for their imperialism?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:04 amHow, after 7 years of neglect, do you get Afghanistan right. And, what exactly does “right” mean. As I see it, you don’t put the extra troops in Kandahar. You put them in the tribal regions and go directly after bin Laden. Once that is finally done then it is time to withdraw. It is sadly too late for anything else thanks to those 7 years of neglect.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:21 amKeltoi at Night Says:
I wonder if perhaps the real reason is that most people know that if we were to “PULL OUT NOW!!” The result would be the Taliban coming back to power and Al Qaeda’s sphere of influence expanding? Honestly, if we left there tomorrow, what does anyone here think would happen? The Taliban never held elections, they just seized power and would do so again.
*****
April 21st, 2009 at 12:55 amThe only reason we’re fighting the Taliban is b/c they’re trying to protect THEIR oil.
We Americans are hindered by a federal government and military that carefully manages the dissemination of information. It’s not a matter of having a poor news media, it’s more a problem of having a managed publicity machine IN PLACE OF a free press.
Even so, I guess you can report that the infrastructure that supplies the Iraqi people with electricity and water has been repaired, and that the reports that electricity is only available for about 6 hours per day are false.
And I guess the reports of suicide bombers are false as well. Because during Saddam Hussein’s regime they didn’t have terrorists blowing things up. Unlike the U.S., Hussein understood how to prevent such things from taking place.
And I guess Iraq is better off now that a million civilian deaths have thinned the population.
Glad to hear you didn’t get yourself electrocuted in one of those KBR electro-showers!
April 21st, 2009 at 1:38 amRobert M. and Dropdeadcharisma. One correction. Afghanistan has no oil and the issue was, and continues to be, pipelines through Afghanistan for both gas and oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
And then there’s Unicol’s involvement. Karzai, President of Afghanistan was an employee and consultant for Unicol back in the late 1990’s.
Check out this info on Unicol – got to Central Asia section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal_Corporation#Domestic_US_Criticism
April 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am