Juan Cole: President Sounds Like He's Channeling Cheney or McCain

[Truth2Tell]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/30/afghanistan/index.html

Obama's domino theory

The president sounds like he's channeling Cheney or McCain -- or a Cold War hawk afraid of international communism -- when he talks about the war in Afghanistan.

By Juan Cole

March 30, 2009 | President Barack Obama may or may not be doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but the rationale he gave for it on Friday is almost certainly wrong. Obama has presented us with a 21st century version of the domino theory. The U.S. is not, contrary to what the president said, mainly fighting "al-Qaida" in Afghanistan. In blaming everything on al-Qaida, Obama broke with his pledge of straight talk to the public and fell back on Bush-style boogeymen and implausible conspiracy theories.

Obama realizes that after seven years, Afghanistan war fatigue has begun to set in with the American people. Some 51 percent of Americans now oppose the Afghanistan war, and 64 percent of Democrats do. The president is therefore escalating in the teeth of substantial domestic opposition, especially from his own party, as voters worry about spending billions more dollars abroad while the U.S. economy is in serious trouble.

He acknowledged that we deserve a "straightforward answer" as to why the U.S. and NATO are still fighting there. "So let me be clear," he said, "Al-Qaida and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan." But his characterization of what is going on now in Afghanistan, almost eight years after 9/11, was simply not true, and was, indeed, positively misleading. "And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban," he said, "or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

Obama described the same sort of domino effect that Washington elites used to ascribe to international communism. In the updated, al-Qaida version, the Taliban might take Kunar Province, and then all of Afghanistan, and might again host al-Qaida, and might then threaten the shores of the United States. He even managed to add an analog to Cambodia to the scenario, saying, "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan," and warned, "Make no mistake: Al-Qaida and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/30/afghanistan/index.html">Much more here...

[snot]

1. wow. and Juan Cole isn't exactly far left.

what the heck IS Obama doing -- i'm stumped, or don't want to know.

[anigbrowl]

2. I think he's full of it

Obama's positions is basically the same as the one he expressed back in 2007. I happen to agree with it (which is one big reason he became my preferred candidate). I know not everyone will agree, but that's my opinion based on many years' study of that troubled region. I think Cole's argument is self-contradictory and fatuous.

He gives the example of Pakistani Taliban recently undergoing a defeat at the hands of the Pakistani military in one province; who does he think is underwriting that effort, if not us? Pakistan is basically a democracy, but a poor and creaky one, with a long history of corruption and political infighting. We're basically propping it up at present, which requires substantial effort and cooperation from both us and the Pakistanis. It's not, unfortunately, a country of strong institutions or with a robust civic society. Cole's argument that "the Pakistani public just forced a military dictator out of office and forced the reinstatement of the Supreme Court, which oversees secular law" glosses over the fact of a high-level political assassination and the fact that we basically told Musharraf to hang up his hat.

[Truth2Tell]

3. He doesn't suggest we shouldn't support

Pakistan financially and militarily in their border region efforts, just not escalate our presence in Afghanistan. Please explain how Cole's argument is self-contradictory? He's pointing out that Obama is exaggerating the Taliban-Al Quida threat and he makes a series of points to that end. The substance of your response only addresses Pakistan and actually doesn't refute a single point Cole makes.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Al Qeada is why we went to Afghanistan,

and as far as I'm concerned, they are the boogey men.

We have been there 7 years, and have done not a goddamn thing.

It's time to train their forces, attempt to befriend moderate Taliban leaders by aiding in ways other than anything dealing with the military, and once AlQeada recruitment is minimized by finally showing some goodwill, we should get out of dodge.

Looks like Afghanistan's neighbors also agree.

They are giving Obama praises and being patient.....

http://pulsemedia.org/2009/03/30/syria-calling/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/28/pakistan-zardari-obama-alqaida-afghanistan

http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/03/27/Europe_lauds_Obamas_new_Afghanistan_strategy/UPI-34681238185220

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6234936/World-hails-Obamas-new-Afghan-strategy

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/69005/russia-ready-to-help-afghanistan.html

[anigbrowl]

9. I think you should read it more carefully

I could go into a long point-by-point about both afghanistan and Pakistan, but I just led with my primary objection because it's late and I'm tired. Recapitulating the whole political context of the two countries would take me pages. In brief (as in, without properly explaining my opinions, just stating them) I think Hamid Karzai is pretty hopeless and that Afghanistan is still very unstable; they're due to have an election in August but they're deadlocked over the constitutional issue of him retaining power until then (which technically, he isn't supposed to). Taliban, with Al Qaeda help, have a relatively comfortable base in the NW frontier territories of Pakistan from which to harass coalition forces in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is also more than happy to leverage the problem of Jammu and Kashmir to its own benefit, even if indirectly. While a majority of the general population are opposed to these groups, that only matters in a democratic society; NW Pakistan is basically beset by tribal warfare, and a few thousand people with guns who are firing them on a daily basis can make a lot more difference to the political situation than Cole is iwlling to admit.

Sorry for the bluntness, normally I would develop these arguments and give each their own paragraph with supporting context and so on. I know you were asking an honest question, so forgive the abbreviated reply.

[Truth2Tell]

15. I would still suggest that the core of Cole's criticism

is the over hyping of the Al Quida threat in particular. The difference our occupation of Afghanistan makes to that threat is being exaggerated.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Jon Soltz sees it differently......

Obama Got Afghanistan/Pakistan Right

For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new president get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.

There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this president not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.

Point One: The Military Can't Do It All

The president recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.

The president said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."

This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.

Point Two: Though it's the "War in Afghanistan," we need to treat it like a region

That the president made a point of including Pakistan in this strategy, offering greater aid to them if the Pakistani government makes more of an effort to work and coordinate with us, is as smart as it is practical.

Everyone - myself included - has not helped when we bind the efforts in the region under the name "The War in Afghanistan." This is a regional problem, that requires a regional solution.

President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that. His support for legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, along with another bill that creates opportunity zones in the border region will go a long way towards getting the cooperation we need to really focus in on al Qaeda, and close in on them from the Pakistani and Afghan sides of the border region.

Point Three: There is a tighter focus, open to reaching out to some of the enemy

Maybe most importantly, this president has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism.

We've finally left fantasy-land, where America can simply go somewhere, topple a government, and western-style democracies will pop up and thrive. Afghanistan is a very different beast. And, while the president committed to helping build out infrastructure for the Afghan people, and improve the lives of the Pakistani people, he's not letting dreams of a grand new western democracy get in the way of more practical and tighter goals - namely, fighting al Qaeda and taking the region away as a home base for the terror network, forever.

To do so, the president recognized something that I wrote about last week - there are elements throughout the region that are fighting us now, but could become our partners. This might have been the most striking parts of the President's speech:

"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans - including women and girls."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Now, will everything go exactly according to plan? Of course not. Nor is this going to be quick. But with the points above, and the rest that the President laid out, those of us who served finally have confidence that this President gets it, and will keep us on the right course - the reasonable and practical course. That's something we veterans have been waiting for.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/obama-got-afghanistanpaki_b_179982.html

[Truth2Tell]

5. Great, Obama is using smarter and more realistic tactics

to try and win a war based on fabricated rationales to begin with.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Fabricated is relative. The war is there.

The question now becomes how do we get out of it and do it right.

and no, Obama ain't gonna do it the way that you envisioned.

He's doing it the way that he envisioned.

It's not like nobody knew.

I hope people realize sooner than later that we didn't elect
a water walker.

[Truth2Tell]

11. Obama's course is not a surprise to me.

I paid attention during the campaign so I knew what he was going to do. I still disagree with it. I mostly hope it doesn't spiral (even more) out of control and consume (even more) energy that could be spent on domestic priorities. But hope and Dollar won't even buy a cup of coffee these days.

[FrenchieCat]

12. A little bit of time will tell a lot.

Patience is a virtue.

I really do mean that. :)

[Alamuti Lotus]

8. how long until he's attacked as a rightwing hack?

[FrenchieCat]

10. We are all conversating pretty intelligently on the issue put forth.....

So do You have something to add to the substance of this discussion,
or is this just a simple drive-by?

[SlingBlade]

13. Same goddamed shit, Same bunch of mutherfukers !

[Truth2Tell]

14. kick. nt