Afghanistan - David's reply to Brian

I will try my best to address each point that you make with my views because I feel that is the most productive way to proceed.

Just because it is a tough job with a periodic setbacks, likely miscalculations and no certainty of success, does not mean we should not try. That is a false choice you have inferred upon my argument ( the whole "you can't have it both ways" logic). It is a very difficult war we are in the middle of over there. All wars are messy and never go the way the war plan is drawn up.

I never said or meant to imply that “we should not try” with respect to Afghanistan. I think I was quite clear that it was the only proper choice we had and we did the right thing by going in.

You agree that we needed to remove the Taliban and the Al Queda network they allowed to thrive within the Afhani borders. Then you chide the attempt at "spreading freedom and democracy" as disingenuous hyperbole. Did I miss something in between? What form of government would you like to use as a model for success? Install a "strongman"?! Surely that was tongue in cheek, right? Even if the attempt at installing democracy in Afghanistan fails due to external forces like Iran and Syria destabilizing the process, maybe those seeds of democracy come to fruition at a later date. History is often funny that way. So I don't think we have much choice other than to try to instill democracy, do we?

You skipped a step in my argument. My only reason for being so pessimistic about “spreading freedom and democracy” is because I thought you and I agreed that this was an unrealistic hope for Afghanistan. My impression was based on comments like the following that you made (which I agree with):

I think it is going to be hard to keep the Taliban from ever coming back to some extent in Afghanistan, given that we can't stay forever and the area has always been a haven for heroine production with not much else as an economic base for the country to draw upon.

If anyone expects to just control Afghanistan with a huge troop level forever and have no setbacks, they are not assessing the long term situation properly.

We can't become a total police state force, so the balancing act between letting that government do for itself what it can while assuring things don't deteriorate will be a long term (5-10 years?) project for us.

I agree with all of these assessments you made and because I agree with them, I think the concept that we are going to turn Afghanistan into a democracy is removed from the facts on the ground. So, I thought we were in agreement on that.

But, if you agree with the Administration’s position that we can indeed spread freedom and democracy to a place like this without massive troop levels and without imposing those massive troop levels for years to come (with these bleak facts confronting us), then I ask how it is not indeed “empty” rhetoric. In other words, isn’t it wide-eyed, liberal optimism to say that it will just happen? Don’t we need a hard, cold, effective plan to make it happen? I wasn’t being tongue-in-cheek about installing a strong-man. I don’t generally approve of that strategy, but if it is necessary to stability in the region, it might be the only answer. My only point is that I believe our strategy must be rooted in probabilities and reality – not in idealism.

You ask:

Why do you characterize the President's speeches (in which he's clearly trying to inspire the masses in these middle eastern countries to have the courage to fight for there freedom from oppression) as rhetoric and imply it is empty hyperbole? I find it troubling that you are so cynical about such a noble endeavor. And I truly mean that, which is why I try so hard to understand it.

This is really related to my points above and I think are the roots of my problems with the Bush administration. I do agree that to the extent that the speeches are designed to “inspire the masses” (I must admit I never thought about it that way), I can applaud them and consider them noble. And I mean that. But (and this is a big but), what I find troubling is the policy. Let’s for a moment agree that Bush feels that he can accomplish his goals, what is the basis for that feeling? Good policy must be rooted in facts and data on the ground. Do you believe that it is enough to just want a great outcome in Afghanistan? Don’t you agree that when the US acts militarily, we must have a good plan that is informed by good policy? I am just asking for the sober basis of our policy in Afghanistan and for that policy to be based on some type of information. So, the bottom line is that I am not critical of Bush for his dreams – I am critical of him for his actions. As to your parallels with Churchill, I find them amusing. Churchill was NOT fighting to spread democracy to another part of the world – he was fighting for his country’s survival. I would very much welcome a discussion of your views of the parallels of the war in Afghanistan to WWII. I certainly don’t see them, but would like to hear your case.

I think we should allow the duly elected commander-in-chief to finish his term as he sees fit to command the troops. That is how our system works, right

Of course, Bush has the power to command the troops as he sees fit. That’s not up for debate. But isn’t he accountable to us in any way? Don’t you believe that the other branches of government should weigh in?

Of course, we didn't go there to do that for them at great cost to us out of shear nobility. Bush sees it as the greatest (and only?) long term chance at achieving stability in that region so terrorists aren't born and indoctrinated with Islamic extremist hate to then go out into the world and kill us. Their freedom and prosperity goes hand in hand with our fight against terrorism.

I agree with that and think it is as it should be. I don’t know what the answer is, but I don’t think we are achieving our goal. That is the point of the article that I sent that kicked this whole thing off. So, don’t we need to address it? Why is it relevant to say that it would be nice to bring democracy to them? Let’s not talk about what would be nice and noble – let’s talk about what we can do (back to my strongman argument… maybe).

It is way too easy to attack a war time president in real time for all the mistakes and setbacks anyone will have in war. Unfortunately, there is no parallel liberal universe where we only went to Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden is dead, so the terrorists decided to retire, and Kabul looks like Manhattan at Christmastime. Was that too sarcastic? :) It's just that I think that Kerry would have had a very similar military planning and execution of the war. Different civilian leadership, but the same overall plans would be put forth by the military men and carried out in roughly the same way. I find it hard to believe things would go so drastically differently, even assuming your analysis that it is a an aimless mess and complete failure, as you obviously believe. Time will tell on that score.

I think this is the heart of the issue. Can’t we hold Bush accountable for his decisions? I am sure you will agree that these are big decisions (lots of money, American lives) with massive stakes on the line. Why is it such a bad thing to evaluate the decisions, strategies, and tactics that are being employed? You are clearly right that hindsight is 20/20. But as you rightly point out, the decision to go to Iraq (topic for another post) does have at least a theoretical impact on our prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and it is worth evaluating.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is an easy task and I would bet that most leaders would screw it up. I don’t pretend to know the answers. I would guess, however, that we need more troops there and that we need an effective plan (I don’t really know what the plan is).

So don't confuse my analysis of why this will be a long difficult struggle in this region for a long time into any admission that it was or is a mistake to try and bring Democracy to the Middle East.

Again, back to bringing democracy to the Middle East. Is that truly our goal? My view of Afghanistan is that our goal was to attack back those who attacked us and to clear them out. Again, I believe that if our goal is to bring democracy to the Middle East it is noble, but unrealistic. I don’t understand what basis there is for this notion (other than a strong sense that it is the right thing – which, by the way I agree with).

You say you only want to hold the administration "accountable" and would do it with any president. Yet you already believe the current administration is dishonest and irresponsible or you wouldn't say
"So, if this administration is truly the honest-talking, straight-shooting group of responsible citizens they characterize themselves to be".
So I'd like to hear the evidence of that and I'll have to take your claim of neutrality with a grain of salt till then.

I will repeat that I do only want to hold the administration accountable and I would do it with any president – I promise that. You cut off my quote – the complete quote was: “So, if this administration is truly the honest-talking, straight-shooting group of responsible citizens they characterize themselves to be, one very reasonable response might be to recognize all of the limitations you point out and to get our boys out of there.” My only point was (and I do apologize if that got your back up – I was not trying to make an ad hominem attack) that the administration wants to render the impression that they are a common sense-driven enterprise – straight shooters. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. Why then don’t they recognize all of the problems that we are experiencing – all the ones that you raised in your post and the ones that were raised in that article. Because I hear the talk about spreading freedom and democracy in a vacuum, independent of all the realities we have been discussing, I become skeptical as to whether they are truly “straight-talking” and start to wonder if they are not feeding me spin (like all politicians).

As a final aside (maybe we should separate this, but I have to expound on it now) I find the daily criticism of the Bush's handling of everything in the NY Times rather predictable, so I freely admit that I discount a lot of it's reportage as politically motivated. And I'm willing to bet almost all the negative reporting that leads you to believe that Afghanistan is a hopeless mess already was within the NY Times, unless you hit the liberal blogs as well?

This is a critical topic and clearly one for a new post. I am fascinated by the criticism of the NY Times and would like to learn a bit more about this. Let’s go through some articles together and show me how biased they are – I truly want to understand this. Also, I would very much like to be pointed to some reliable sources of news (not opinion pieces but news). Please recommend some sources to me and I will try them out. By the way, I would be willing to rely entirely on the Wall Street Journal for all of these discussions. My Dad reads the Journal almost exclusively and he finds it extremely reliable. Can we agree that this is a reputable source of news that we can both rely upon? I am extremely open to hearing good news about Afghanistan as reported in the Journal. I would like to believe (and I mean this) that the situation is going well there and that the negative reports can be attributed to biased media.

You freely admit you are not a military expert, and yet you've decided that they are "failing miserably". I don't see that as a factual statement at this point in time.

Point taken. But I was only referring to my list of objectives for Afghanistan that I set forth. Here they are again:

• Take down the existing regime (the Taliban)
• Capture or kill (preferably kill) the leader of our attackers (Osama Bin Ladin)
• Keep the old regime (the Taliban) out of power in the future
• Make the country a civil and free society

Isn’t it reasonable to propose that we judge and evaluate the administration based upon an objective set of criteria like this? That seems to me to be consistent with conservative values (as it should be). Do you agree that this is a reasonable set of objectives? Do you think there is reliable evidence that we have achieved any but the first?

Many postulate if we had the embeds reporting the progress (or lack of) in WW2 we would never have stayed in it till the end. So I prefer to give the current administration the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise. If it turns out the war was prosecuted poorly, we will all pay a price, but It's simply too early to tell from where I sit.

We invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 (I believe). It is now nearly five years later. When will it not be too early? I am very willing to accept the view that it is still too early, but I am hard pressed to understand what the criteria are for when it will be acceptable to evaluate the situation. Now seems like a reasonable time to me. But perhaps we should wait.

As proof of my theory, I ask you to point out a whole lot of positive articles on the handling of our economy as we have rebounded from the recession Bush inherited and how he has now dropped the unemployment rate to all time lows in spite of the millions of illegal aliens who have come to work in this country in the last 6 years. Also all-time stock market highs.

I am willing to give Bush’s policies some credit for the economy. I believe the tactics are short-sighted, but that is an excellent topic for another post. As to the negative media reporting on the Administration and the failure to give Bush credit where credit is due, that goes to the points made above. I suppose that I agree that it is somewhat in vogue to criticize Bush and your point is well taken. I will think about that a bit.

But all we get on economic reportage is class warfare stuff on the widening divide of rich versus poor. Service oriented economies will create such a divide, you know, and I don't see any way to avoid this effect on the economy to some extent. But they don't address this aspect at all. Only the "greedy rich are getting richer" talk that's been their mantra forever.

I would like to hear more about this. Again, interesting topic for another series of posts. I am intrigued by this economic stuff and admit that I am generally sympathetic to the liberal arguments of the divide between rich and poor. But I can keep an open mind and would like to explore this in further detail with you. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Don't be afraid to voice your thoughts on Bush's motivations, because that gets to the heart of the liberal's hate for Bush. I really want to understand why people hate him so much, I really do. If you can give me concrete examples of Bush lying and decieving the American public, I want to hear it. Maybe I'll change my mind. :) But most liberals cite me innuendo and suppositions, but no hard facts or likely reasons for doing these dastardly things. We get vascillations between Bush the incompetent buffon, and the evil genius Karl Rove the master puppeteer. It's like a bad "B" movie!

Agreed, agreed, agreed. I am extremely sympathetic to this point and I can’t stand it when Corey chimes in with this sort of ad hominem attack. It has no place in the debate without facts to back it up. My big problem with the president has to do with the “empty rhetoric” examples I tried to provide above. I am of the firm opinion that his bloated use of phrases that sound extremely noble (“spreading freedom,” etc.) are not based in fact. They sound wonderful and people think that it is great to support the president in making these types of assertions. But if they are not grounded in fact or in possibility, they are disingenuous and they approach lies.

Another good example is Bush’s extremely emphatic statement that he would stand behind Rumsfeld two days before the election. It sounded great at the time and it was a noble and loyal gesture, but it wasn’t rooted in the facts. Maybe he completely changed his mind in the days (or a week) between the speech and his decision to fire Rummy, but I don’t think either of us believe that. It was a calculated and political decision. That’s fine, but then he is a regular politician like all the rest – not a high-minded straight-shooter from Texas like he paints himself.

Of course, the hearings to restore "accountability" that are as sure as rain starting in January will be furiously trying to link some no-bid contract to Halliburton ( the only company large enough to handle some of these projects) with a murky email from Rove directing such a contract. At least that's my best guess about how they will try to "get Bush". That's my prediction. There is a lot of payback anger within the Dems for losing 2 close elctions in a row and being forced to accept a secondary role the past 6 years. I think it will backfire at the elections unless they play it just right though. You heard it hear first!

Well, unfortunately, I agree with you. I don’t have a great deal of respect for the Democrats or for their ability to play effective politics. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they screw up their position and overplay their hand. It would truly be a shame because the country is in dire need of some good leadership!