More Lives, Money Down The Drain

Amazingly timed with the wikileaks data dump that confirmed what many of us had feared about our escalating war in Afganistan, there's this:

Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives held a heated debate Tuesday over whether to pass a nearly $59 billion emergency spending bill, the bulk of which would go toward the U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan.

It took months to pass an extension on unemployment benefits, yet the funding for a war that even the commie hippies at the Council on Foreign Relations are beginning to question seems to be right on schedule.

I really thought the wikileaks disclosure would have put more pressure on the media and our politicians to ask a bit more about just what we're doing there, but everyone seems to have already moved on.

Leaving once we kill everyone who doesn't like us isn't a strategy, but from what I can tell that seems to be the plan. The sooner the Administration realizes this the better, and we can move on to other things, like not spending all of our money on pointless wars.

10 Years Isn't Enough War

One the worst Senators in the world continues to live up to her reputation:

A senior Senate Democrat on foreign policy issues said on Sunday that the president's pledged July 2011 timeline for a troop drawdown in Afghanistan was malleable to the requests of military command.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.), whose hawkish grounding has angered progressive in the past, likely facilitated that anger again, when she told "Fox News Sunday" that if General David Petraeus asked for more troops next summer, he should be granted them.

"I would say give it to him, absolutely," said the California Democrat. "Now, let's talk about the deadline. This is a transition point toward the beginning of a withdrawal or a drawdown as Petraeus said in his transcript before the Armed Services [Committee]. And I think he has flexibility realistically. Ten years is a long time to fight a war, particularly with what happened before the 10 years. And so we need to understand that [we have] to get the military trained, get the government online, secure and stabilize, and I think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the Taliban."

. . .

It's a position that will only fuel suspicion that Congress lacks the political will to actually stick to the timeline for withdrawal (by, say, using the power of the purse to affect it). Indeed, Feinstein seemed to fully cede legislative influence over the course of the war when she granted during the Fox News interview that the United States should "put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket at this stage."

You gotta love firm, attainable goals like forming and training a military, creating a stable government, and doing away with the drug trade. And with Senators like Diane Feinstein deciding that they don't want to do their job in overseeing the operations, I can't imagine why anyone is worried that the 2011 timeline isn't going according to schedule.

Bombing Towards Peace

A reply to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech from peace scholar David Cortright. Chris Hayes:

Cortright is the Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame has been advocating peace since he was in the Army in Vietnam and organized his comrades against the war.

. . .

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Cortright helped lead Win Without War, conceived of as a"mainstream" alternative to ANSWER and other anti-war groups.
So Cortright's credentials as a pragmatic advocate of peace (whatever, in the final analysis, that means) are pretty impeccable: no starry-eyed, weak-kneed, incorrigible idealist, he! I emailed to ask him for his reaction, and he wrote back right away. "I found the Nobel speech disappointing." He continued: "To use the Nobel dais to justify the use of military force is unseemly. The president's characterization of the historic role of US military power was distorted, and his interpretation of just war theory was incomplete."
His full response follows:

The president asserted that US military policy has helped to "underwrite global security." More accurate would be an admission that many of our adventures have created global insecurity. Vietnam, the wars in Central America in the 1980s, the invasion of Iraq, countless interventions by the CIA--these and other actions have sown suffering and insecurity. The US has supported democracy in some settings but very often we have subverted democracy and overthrown legitimately elected democratic regimes, in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973), etc.

The president invoked just war principles but showed a shallow understanding of the criteria. The most important principle of just war theory is a presumption against the use of force, a belief that war is almost always unjust and can be justified only under the most dire circumstances and only if strict ethical criteria are satisfied. He mentioned a few of the criteria, without probing them in depth, but did mention the standard of ‘probability of success.' Under that criterion, the war in Afghanistan cannot be judged just, since there is very little probability that the war can be pursued to achieve military victory, however that is defined.

The president's assertions about Afghanistan did not acknowledge the fact that war is an inappropriate means of combating terrorism. The Rand Corporation study of 2008 on how terrorist groups end found that military force was responsible for ending terrorist groups in only 7 per cent of the cases. Political bargaining (43 per cent) and effective law enforcement (40 per cent) were the primary factors accounting for the end of terrorist groups. The military's own counterinsurgency doctrine calls for a campaign that is 80 per cent nonmilitary. The US effort in Afghanistan is the reverse, more than 80 per cent military.

Peace demands responsibility and sacrifice, yes, but it is built primarily through nonmilitary means. The president mentioned some of these, but he failed to mention that US foreign policy systematically undervalues these approaches. In Afghanistan the US is spending far more on military approaches than on development and humanitarian assistance.

Republican Roadmap To Winning Afghanistan

After reading so much Republican fury directed towards the 18 month departure date, I tried to simulate their solution. It was pretty difficult because, like with the health care reform debate, the right has yet to offer any substantive ideas of its own. Still, the various talking heads and conservative thinkers have given me a lot to work with over the last few days. Behold the Republican Plan:


Continue this cycle until everyone in the Middle East is dead, or until the Taliban gets bored and takes up knitting as an alternative to fighting the great satan. Note that this isn't their appraisal of the current situation- this is what they see as the optimal decision. They're mad at Obama for not doing this.  There are plenty of godawful politicians in the Democratic party, but the right is still an entirely unreasonable entity right now.

30,000 More To Afghanistan...

Tuesday night:

Obama laid out his plan for the buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan Tuesday night in a speech at the United States Military Academy, saying that "our security is at stake." Obama used the speech to announce the ordering of an additional 30,000 troops to the region, as well as his intention to begin drawing down U.S forces within the next three years.

So like he promised during his campaign, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan much to the disappointment of the Obama-is-a-closet-progressive theorists. I can have a bit of sympathy for Michael Moore's argument about the scale of the escalation, but I still think Obama made it pretty clear during the campaign that he was planning this type of thing. I strongly disagreed with it then, I strongly disagree with it now, but I definitely don't feel "betrayed" or anything like that. He is who we though he was. And that's perfectly fine as long as you didn't make up progressive positions that he didn't take and convince yourself that he was somehow the second coming of FDR.

As for the plan itself, I oppose it for countless reasons starting with a basic belief that an increase in violence is not a way to achieve peace. This is not world powers duking it out, this is the worlds strongest military occupying a third world country where we're already fairly unpopular. An increase in troops will lead to an increase in killing not only for Taliban members but of civilians as well. I simply don't see how our presence there and the inevitable death and destruction of an occupation won't produce more enemies than we already have now.

One of the more common arguments in favor of the escalation came from Oliver Willis, who thinks we should finish the job that Bush fucked up:

We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.

Again, these things are clear. Not a single characterization of them by President Obama deviated from what we all saw.

I supported Obama for many reasons, but for me, personally, the primary reason was that George W. Bush failed to fight the war against terrorism – specifically the Al Qaeda network – in any competent manner. Al Qaeda’s stated desire to hurt and cripple the country – stated time and again by Bin Laden and his lieutenants – demands a strong and clear response from us. Basically from the standoff at Tora Bora until now, the response to this challenge has been mush.

Yes, Bush fucked up the war in Afganistan. Yes, Bush fucked up the fight against Al Qaeda.

But what does that have to do with Afghanistan in 2009? Because the Taliban once sheltered him, and they're still there? Cause if we want to go going after Al Qaeda, everyone basically agrees they're not in Afghanistan anymore.

Another point about the "because of 9/11" argument: It's not 2001 anymore.

Regardless of what Obama says, the world is NOT behind this effort. Sure they might say nice things and not actively oppose us, but they sure as hell aren't sending many of their own troops to help this cause. Even if you thought an invasion of Afghanistan with a broad coalition in 2001 was a good idea that doesn't mean you can turn back time and escalate the war 8 years later with positive results.

Ok, now that we're through dealing with sane arguments, let's look at what a large portion of what the dailykos community believes. The first diary that topped the Recommended list on Tuesday morning can be summarized as follows:

Title: I've got Barack's back today, who's with me?

Point 1: It's incredible that we elected a black man as President of the United States. (It's true)

Point 2: I mean, it's really absurd that we elected a black man president (Again no argument here, still pretty amazing)

Point 3: Obama cares a lot about this decision, and the cost will weigh on him (No doubt that it will)

Point 4: He really, really cares about this (Again, I'm sure he does, with his presidency riding on how it turns out and all)

Point 5: Based on these reasons, you should support Obama no matter what he does, whether you agree or not (Whaaaaa?)

Update: I'm not advocating blindly supporting Obama! I just think that he shouldn't be criticized and you should have his back no matter what! There's a difference!

So that's one. I thought it might have been the worst diary I'd seen on the kos rec list until this one took it's place at the top:

I say to all of you, right now.

STFU and listen.

Listen to the President, tonight at 8:00 Eastern. He is smart enough guy to make the right decisions.

I remember doing one of those "what type of government do you prefer" type quizzes in a poli-sci class once, and a yes answer to the "My country/leader, right or wrong" gave you about 1000 points towards Authoritarianism/Fascism. Not to say that those quizzes mean anything, but I think you get my point.

Look, Afghanistan is in terrible shape. The Taliban are terrible people. I just don't think increasing our military occupation of that country will do anything to make us safer or make life better for the people of Afghanistan.

It's possible to have worked for Obama and voted for Obama knowing he had plenty of policies I disagreed with. It's also possible to support Obama on issues where you agree and oppose him on issues where you disagree. Obama is not a yes or no question. I thought this is how most sane people approached politics but I'm increasingly not so sure.