Afghanistan

Posted on 11/30/2009 at 9:53 am by Bob Cesca

You haven’t seen much Afghanistan blogging here because it’s an impossible situation and it’s difficult for me to see any upside to this thing. Whatsoever.

There’s obviously a case, though, for the fact that the previous administration screwed it up so badly that we have to stick around to “finish the job.” Also, this president has never promised to withdraw. In fact, just the opposite. But it looks like a timetable for getting out is going to be part of the president’s plan.

Personally, enough is enough. Let’s get out. However, the Charlie Wilson lesson dictates that if we’re going to leave, we absolutely have to rebuild — humanitarian aide, schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. I would also argue that we station some kind of military force to keep an eye on the Pakistani nuclear weapons.

But if the president decides to increase troop levels and if we stick around, I really hope we hear the president and the Democrats lean on the CBO button the way they’ve treated healthcare. In the interest of fairness, I want to know how much it’s going to cost and how we’re going to pay for it (and a timetable for withdrawal would be nice, too). Seems fair.

Again, we should rebuild and withdraw starting now. But if they decide to stay, there can’t be any more blank checks. Not when we’re being nickel-and-dimed on healthcare and everything else.

This entry was posted in Afghanistan and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    …if they decide to stay, there can’t be any more blank checks. Not when we’re being nickel-and-dimed on healthcare and everything else.

    And that is exactly what the Republicans, “fiscal” conservatives and wingnuts will use to argue that the Democrats are weak on national security. I’ve already heard the morons on the talking head shows wonder why in the world the question of how we’re going to pay for doubling down on Afghanistan is even an issue when they government is spending willy-nilly on bailouts and healthcare. Surely if we can spend money for that (which they fight tooth and nail against) we can spend money to spread ‘merrcun dee-mocracy.

  • -swift

    I basically agree. I think we’d be out of Afghanistan by now if the previous administration didn’t have a hard on for invading Iraq.But the Karzai administration is corrupt from top to bottom. I think his “re-election” will be the point we look back to when we say, “How did we lose?”So, yes. At this point, we might as well spend a few billion more and build roads, schools, and communications. If the children have schools, they are less likely to be the next generation of terrorists.

  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    Obama’s approach to Afghanistan is like his approach to health care reform: fluid, shapeless, and easily changed. I fully expect he’ll order more troops to Helmand province, but I seriously doubt there will be 100,000 American soldiers in-country come next fall.

  • Allonfla

    I don’t know the first thing about the war, war strategy, and what the president should do about Afghanistan.I do, however, believe very strongly that we cannot invade a country, kill its people, destroy it’s land and buildings and then leave because we don’t know what else to do. It’s just morally wrong. I don’t know what the solution is, but there isn’t going to be a total exit from that country as most on the Left would like.

  • Rogect8

    >>>I do, however, believe very strongly that we cannot invade a country, kill its people, destroy it’s land and buildings and then leave because we don’t know what else to do.Uhhh….actually yeah, that’s kinda how we run shit around here (see: Vietnam; Iraq part I). A precedent has been set for doing exactly that.I’m not a big fan of the strategy myself but as far as Afghanistan goes….well, sorry, but they’re the ones who allowed a government (the Taliban) to come into power that allowed for a closely-connected terrorist group (al-qaeda) to use their country as a base of operations. Then after 9/11 the Government of Afghanistan refused to hand over al-qaeda. Sooooo, sorry everybody – your government is implicit in an attack on our country, so it’s time that we utterly destroy that government. If you don’t want to be killed, then don’t take the Taliban’s side. If you don’t want your buildings destroyed, then don’t allow the motherfucking Taliban to govern your country. (as a side note, the Taliban themselves were actively involved in the destruction of buildings….i.e., blowing up Buddhist statues).They fucked up by allowing the Taliban to become their functional government. Now that the Taliban is eradicated……yeah, a total exit from that country seems just fine to me. We don’t them a new government just because their last one was terrible.

  • unkle smokey

    They fucked up by allowing the Taliban to become their functional government.

    Well, since The US supported the Mujahideen while it was in our “interest” and then essentially abandoned Afghans to the warlords we had helped put in place, it is a little unfair to blame the Afghans. But, that is also part of how we “run shit around here”.Adding, The Taliban is eradicated? Since when?

  • Rogect8

    @ unkle smokeyThat’s true – I shouldn’t place the blame (squarely) on the Afghans for allowing the Taliban to become their functioning government. My Afghanistan history is a little hazy, but I know we definitely played a part in allowing that to happen. And you’re right, that is indeed part of how we run shit. I think the CIA calls it “blowback.” Same way we sold weapons to Saddam to fight Iran, etc.You’re correct as well regarding the eradication of the Taliban – that was a misstatement on my part. The distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is a very thin one…one refers to (what used to be) the functional government of Afghanistan, whereas the other refers to a terrorist organization. But it’s very difficult to distinguish between the them in practice because the two are so closely linked. What I meant to say was that the Taliban has been ‘eradicated’ in the sense that they are no longer governing the state of Afghanistan. But to the extent that one thinks of the Taliban as a movement (as opposed to a government) or as an ally of Al-Qaeda, you’re right – the Taliban is certainly alive and well.

  • Rogect8

    …AddingBut my original point remains the same. I think we were perfectly justified in invading Afghanistan and removing their government.But that doesn’t mean we are obligated to stick around for decades while they try and set up a new one. The only business our Armed Forces have remaining in Afghanistan is in ensuring that the Taliban doesn’t take the country back over. I know we still have a ways to go in that respect. Complicated issue.

  • unkle smokey

    Yeah, my Afghanistan history is hazy as well, but blowback was exactly the term I was thinking of. And, I agree with your conclusion, a total exit is probably the best plan available. It is complicated.

  • brutlyhonest

    Funny story: There was a real plan for Afghanistan (including post-invasion), but it was shit-canned in order to allow the invasion of Iraq. See, the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms then we could go back and finish …

  • J

    Maybe “the way we run shit around here” is really fucked up and we should do something about it? In nearly all areas, domestic and foreign.

  • emsique

    Pay as you go. If we raised taxes to pay for this war and implemented a draft to staff it instead of hiring contractors, then everybody who is tooting their horns about staying there would reverse course and holler for us to get the fuck out. How about fixing our schools, infrastructure, and economy here at home?Afghanistan was a corrupt, savage hole when we went in there, and it still is. It is no better or worse for all our efforts except they grow poppies again.

  • Rogect8

    J – Yeah, agreed. Our foreign policy in particular is in desperate need of some tweaking (the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results).