Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSenator John McCain, appearing on Meet the Press yesterday, made all of his usual noises about Afghanistan and Pakistan -- attacking "minimalists" who want to reduce the US mission in Afghanistan, predicting ever greater expenditure of American "blood and treasure," and so on. But he also said this:
"The best way to get out of Afghanistan fast is [for] people to think we're staying."
Now, McCain didn't mean it this way, but he put his finger on the notion that is current inside the Obama administration. As I reported at length in The Nation last December, after having interviewed many advisers on Obama's Afghan-Pakistan task force, the Obama team does believe that talking to the Taliban, coupled with regional diplomacy, is the way out. But, before this can be successful, they believe -- mistakenly, in my view -- that the Taliban won't negotiate as long as it thinks it is winning. So, Obama's people say, first we have to convince them that we're staying. In my Nation piece, I called this the "surge and negotiate" strategy.
Interesting today is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Graham Allison and John Deutch, suggesting that US interests in Afghanistan are next to nil. "What vital national interest does the U.S. have there?" they ask. And they write:
Mr. Obama declared that America has one and only one vital national interest in Afghanistan: to ensure that it "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States." ...For Afghanistan to become a unitary state ruled from Kabul, and to develop into a modern, prosperous, poppy-free and democratic country would be a worthy and desirable outcome. But it is not vital for American interests.
After the U.S. and NATO exit Afghanistan and reduce their presence and financial assistance to levels comparable to current efforts in the Sudan, Somalia or Bangladesh, one should expect Afghanistan to return to conditions similar to those regions. Such conditions are miserable. They are deserving of American and international development and security assistance. But, as in those countries, it is unrealistic to expect anything more than a slow, difficult evolution towards modernity.
Clearly, the administation is still divided on Afghanistan, with some officials pushing for exactly the "minimalist" path derided by McCain and supported by Allison and Deutch, and others who want a much more aggressive nation-building approach. The question is: Do the latter, at least inside the administration, really believe that the United States can stay in Afghanistan for a decade or longer, building a vast Afghan army whose budget will consume three times the entire Afghan government's income? Or is it a feint? Are they trying to show the Taliban, its allies, and others that -- as McCain suggests -- "we're staying," while planning an exit? I'd like to think it's the latter.
In any case, neither the Taliban nor Pakistan will be convinced. Like Iran, which is watching the United States exit Iraq right on schedule, our adversaries in Afghanistan know that we're leaving, too. We might as well make it public, and start talking.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
seems to kinda defeat the purpose of bluffing if you let it slip you are bluffing...
unfortunately your suggestion, mr. dreyfuss, is likely politically impossible right now.
lets see how the stock market and unemployment rate are doing in a month or two and then the impossible may well become the quite possible...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/30/2009 @ 08:36am
Mr Dreyfuss?
Obama's Afghan Plan Could Be Worse posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 03/27/2009 @ 1:52pm
Thought you already settled on a view on this plan?
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 09:09am
Give the Opium farmers in Afghanistan an exclusive contract to supply the world with legal Opium for use in the myriad of drugs that contain it. Make the contract contingent on the farmers being paid a fair profit for their labor, free of the "middle man". Local communites would thrive. Drug Lords would be put out of business by legitimate corporate customers.
The need to protect the industry for the benefit of all would tend to curb the abuses caused by corruption and limit extremism. as poverty and hopelessness would be replaced by sound economic policy. Terrorism would disappear as it would be bad for business.
Also much of the barren landscape would be replaced by thousands and thousands of acres of beautiful poppies. And tourism may even eventually flourish as millions of tourists flock to see and photograph this awesome landscape.
And American Troops representing an invading imperialistic occupying force could come home. As their presence would also be bad for business..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 10:28am
What you write makes a lot of sense, "chaoszen." As so often happens, I will leave aside the question of how likely it is that the industrialized nations will embrace such a rational plan as yours. The point is that they definitely SHOULD.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 10:49am
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 10:28am
You do know the chemical compound of the opium derivative is synthesize? The US and other countries don't rely on the poppy that much anymore.
The drug Fentanyl is 30 to 100 times more powerful than morphine and shows less emetic activity than morphine or meperidine (Demerol)
Here's the chemical composition:
N-Phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl]propanamide 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 12:05pm
Self Determination means that Afghans must determine their own future. Every country has it's own traditions, and radical political change from the outside will not be accepted. The Obama Administration focus on economic aid and infrastructure are basic needs for every country and sound. I don't see a problem there. The basic problem is providing security for civilian aid workers so they can do their job. In principal, I see the supervision of aid programs as a State Department function, but, their instrument on the ground may have to be the young Captain with a gun who can provide for his own security.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/30/2009 @ 12:24pm
Rooting out Al Qaeda and their ilk can not be accomplished with convential warfare. It must be ideological warfare.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/30/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 12:05pm |
As usual what you post is mostly bullshit. Opium and all it's derviatives can be synthesized but it is not economically viable. The majority of legal opium production currently comes from India and Turkey and is conducted by Mallinckrodt, Naramco, Abbott Labs and Purdue Pharma. Afghanistan currently supplies the illicit drug trade. If Afghanistan could compete with the legal drug trade and were given guaranteed contracts or even exclusive contracts with these corporations I'm sure that the superior product they provide would guarantee a viable economic enterprise.
So, cut the crap. And quit trying to undermine a solution to Afghnistan's entry into the profitable world of international commerce.
To do so is just to further excuses for empire. Which makes you a neo-fascist pig.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 12:51pm
To do so is just to further excuses for empire. Which makes you a neo-fascist pig.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 12:51pm
this is what I love about the left...their dogma is that they are the ones who believe passionately about diversity and tolerance.....except when it comes to anyone who disagrees with them.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by Extraneous at 03/30/2009 @ 12:37pm
What better form of ideological warfare could be imagined than giving the Aghans the ability to determine their own economic and social destiny by doing what they do better than anyone else?
Opium production... Legally and with contracts ensuring that farmers and local communities benefit. Afghans also manufacture some high quality hemp products. I know, I have sampled them. And even helped harvest them.
Give them an economic platform that they can relate to and they can take care of themselves.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:56pm
If it looks like a neo-fascist, smells like a neo-fascist and acts like a neo-fascist. It is most likely a neo-fascist.
And Anti. you fit that profile..
It's tough to generalize and not often wise. But in your case I can make an exception.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 1:12pm
A surge and exit sounds much like the usual US response. Sounds unpleasantly like Nixon's strategy for exiting Vietnam. Vaguely remember Nixon massively bombing North Vietnam, expanding into Cambodia and increasing aid to the South Vietnamese military, and all to no effect at all. Except for the Khymer Rouge victory in a destroyed Cambodia which could have been avoided. Hope any increase doesn't destabilize Pakistan which is scarily unstable already.
Doubt also that "modernity" is anything more than a colonialist fantasy. So far western interventions o not seem to do anything but make everything worse. Societies still need to evolve organically on their own. What we think is a better outcome is irrelevant and can lead to greater misery.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 03/30/2009 @ 1:18pm
And just for the sake of ambience and flavor..
Obama pissed off a huge chunk of his base when he dissed the recent question about the legalization of pot. After more than doubling the federal tax on cigarettes to pay for an extension of health insurance for poor children, this genius has the audacity treat the question that was asked most frequently on his online town hall meeting with snide humor and rebuke.
If pot was legalized and taxed the resulting windfall in revenue would be enormous. Also, the jobs created would put a huge dent in the unemployment stats. Growing, Distribution, Packaging, Sales Representation and a host of other industries would be created.
Not to mention the reduction in the prison population and enforcement savings. 61% of the 60% of people in prison are there for marijuana convictions. This prohibition has destroyed the lives of so many, and this asshole laughs about it.
If taxing cigs can pay for a social program, then why can't the legalization of pot do the same and much more.
We have another moron as president..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 1:48pm
And Anti. you fit that profile..
It's tough to generalize and not often wise. But in your case I can make an exception.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 1:12pm
Humor me little man...name one doctrine of fascism that I support.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 1:51pm
61% of the 60% of people in prison are there for marijuana convictions.
That should read "61% of the 60% of people in prison on Drug convictions."
Wow! our prisons are just chock full of druggies. Shouldn't they be full of murderers, rapists, robbers, wallstreet ripoffs, bankers, war criminals and crooked politicians?
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 1:58pm
Humor me little man...name one doctrine of fascism that I support.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 1:51pm
I would say that the above statement is proof enough. Although I could cite others. "Humor me little man". A statement that expresses your disdain, and a definite feeling of being superior. You visualize everyone else as being less qualified than you to determine the current state of affairs. An elitist. Need I say more?
You expose yourself. There is no need for me to point it out. It is obvious there REV..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
Open the prison gates and release the 60% of the prison population that are incarcerated on drug charges.
We would no longer be a nation that has more people in prison than any other country in the world. Legalize all drugs and treat drug addiction as a public health problem, and not a criminal justice issue.
Every study ever conducted by a reliable source indicates that only about 12% of the population exhibits addictive behaviour wheather drugs are legal or not. In fact in a society where drugs are legal produce less people that seem to indulge in abusive behaviour due to the elimination of "taboo". Anything that is prohibited tends to attract attention. This also includes pornography, prostitution, child abuse and other human anomalies.
Prohibition Does Not Work! It only entices...
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 12:51pm
If you had read my post correctly, I said "they don't rely on the poppy that much anymore", I didn't say the US and the West discontinued using the plant outright.
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
I read your post correctly and responded correctly. Synthesized drugs are expensive to produce. And the large majority, in fact the bulk of opiate related products are still produced from the poppy. The real deal is the best deal.
So your point can only be taken as an effort to discredit the industry with some sort of false argument.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 3:34pm
By the way, by a show of hands so to speak. Has anyone here ever been the lucky patron of a well run opium den?
It is an experience not to be missed. Some of my fondest memories include being totally catered to in the atmosphere of a well managed Opium Den.
For a very reasonable price I was allowed to experience this offbeat pleasure and ancient experience. The tradition of hospitality and quaint surroundings. Dancing Girls and Sweet Tea and tasty pastry served to me after my waking from an outstanding Opium Dream. Treated like a king for a few rupees. A reverie not matched by any other form of entertainment.
Sorry, I wax nostalgic..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 3:56pm
I would say that the above statement is proof enough. Although I could cite others. "Humor me little man". A statement that expresses your disdain, and a definite feeling of being superior. You visualize everyone else as being less qualified than you to determine the current state of affairs. An elitist. Need I say more?
You expose yourself. There is no need for me to point it out. It is obvious there REV..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
I used that slur because I often find you small minded towards others, and not out of some sense of elitism or superiority. Case in point, calling me, who is a libertarian and openly so on this website, a neo fascist. When I am adamantly for small govt. I do not endores any form of totalitarianism.
Groups identified as neo-fascist in the United States generally include neo-Nazi organizations such as the National Alliance and the American Nazi Party.
Neo-fascism is a post-World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. The term neo-fascist may apply to groups that express a specific admiration for Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism or any other fascist leader/state. Neo-fascism usually includes nationalism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism (see definition), anti-communism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism
And Wiki defines liberal democracy as being opposed to constitutional govt-which I ardently support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
Neo-Fascism the post-World War II rise of a movement whose principal aim is to incorporate the doctrines of fascism into existing political systems. -- Neo-Facist, n.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Neo-fascist
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 4:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 4:00pm
You should never deign to explain yourself or your motives. When you fall into that trap you only succeed in undermining your position.
I'm surprised that your think-speak talking point masters do not apprise you of that! I would think that someone like yourself would have more sense..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 4:17pm
The current philosophy seems to be working...if you are Taliban, you are toast. If you believe that girls should not go to school you deserve to die. We just need to kill all the Taliban folks and then we will have a peaceful country. After all it worked in Vietnam. So what if a few villagers get toasted too. Is there just a million Taliban? Thats a whole lot less that 2 million vietnamese. That worked right?
Posted by notsleepy at 03/30/2009 @ 8:47pm
So your point can only be taken as an effort to discredit the industry with some sort of false argument.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 3:34pm
No one was trying to discredit anything. I merely made a statement of fact.
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 9:35pm
I would rather fire up the secret torture prisons, patrol Baghdad for two years myself, further humiliate and alienate the leaders of our dearest allied nations like we did Tony Blair until they withdraw their diplomats, relive the Great Depression, and make Dick Cheney the King of America than negotiate with the Taliban for one single thing. Even total surrender is out of the question. The Taliban Afghanistan was/is among the most psychotic, murderous, and repressive criminal narco-mafia states to ever exist. They made Columbia look like an amusement park when compared to the depth of their depravity and corruption. Do your homework before making any assertions about the viability of negotiating with that lot. To do so would permanently damage our national identity and credibility and send a message to the coming generations that we are without any values. We will never again be able to take the moral high ground on any matter. It is a sickening prospect and should be totally rejected without any consideration.
Posted by Milhaus at 03/30/2009 @ 11:27pm
I'm seventy + years old and i remember that the first poor sob's into Vietnam were called advisers. Holy crap.
Posted by julien38 at 03/31/2009 @ 09:12am
No one was trying to discredit anything. I merely made a statement of fact.
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 9:35pm
We have a complaint over here called "Small Man's Disease". Perhaps you also are plagued by it and thus Liberty after all was very astute.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/31/2009 @ 8:40pm
"Fascists promote the unification and expansion of influence, power, and/or territory of and for their nation." - Wikipedia
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 2:29pm
Noticed this question somewhere and in our contemporary global village in which "their nation" cannot have the same meaning as in the past it does seem to be a relevant one:
"...is the progressive voice of today merely cloaked fascism in its drive to 'save' the planet by any means necessary?"
Then of course those of us who do not believe Obama is yet quite economically socialistic (wait til he nationalises the means of production and appropriates, to the state, your home) but is looking more and more like producing a corporatist state, the big F word seems more appropriate to apply to America of the future.
Noticed when and why Mussolini introduced his economic reforms.
"Yet during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond.
It was hailed as a "third way" between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded. This was necessary because the Great Depression was defined as a crisis "of the system," not just a glitch "in the system." And so Mussolini created the "Corporate State," in which, in theory at least, the big national enterprises were entrusted to state ownership (or substantial state ownership) and of course state management."
Obama a fascist leader? The new il Duce? Does that make him and all his followers just fascists or should they be called neo-con, socialist cum fascists?
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/31/2009 @ 9:33pm
Are negotiations even possible? what concessions would the US request? Ask them to not have terrorist training camps?
I know, I've seen the footage of the terrorists running through an obstacle course with their AK-47s; and honestly, I always though they looked sort of pathetic, not frightening.
How could the US expect to hold them to any promises. Couldn't they have one of those training camps anywhere? They look primitive and transient.
Posted by koroviev at 04/01/2009 @ 12:24am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 09:12am
Well you seem very adept at confusing yourself.
Fascism was not only about militarism but also economics and the approach of world leaders to the present financial crisis, which Obama and his international echo chamber refer to as the greatest crisis since the great depression, in some ways mirrors the corporatist policies of Mussolini.
Does that make Obama and other present leaders fascists? On the inadequate basis that you and others seek to smear Liberty, Obama would have to be a raving fascist which of course shows your naivety and failure to understand that fascism is only properly defined if and only if a list of its defining characteristics are met.
Relevantly had Mussolini stuck to his economic vision, without the mystical concept of the organic unity of the nation and where that tends to lead fanatics, his corporatism would probably be seen as one of the acceptable solutions to the economics of the great depression.
Your little screaming "fascist.. fascist your pants are on fire" game is a technique borrowed from the fascists. Does that make you fascists? No but it does indicate that you are childishly foolish name calling people who wouldn't know what a reasoned argument was if it bit you on the bum.
For your education you will find that the word fascist has been used by Communists like Stalin as a swear word against Western socialists and the favour returned.
I mean what's wrong with expressions like " a real bastard" or "a dirty bugger" etc......apart from the probability that you literalists would want to check out birth certificates and sexuality, we would get the general drift and you ignoramuses wouldn't get yourselves bogged down with things you are only dimly aware of.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/01/2009 @ 2:21pm
If that makes me confused...I prefer to remain so.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 8:46pm
That's your choice triple 6. I wasn't really accusing you directly but rather by implication, as a supporter of the name calling gang.
We don't have quite the same proportion per population of incarcerations as you do but we do put "confused" people behind bars for consorting with crims. If you get my drift.
More generally my suggestion is that you degrade and rob our language of meaning by claiming, what is obvious hyperbole, as an accurate and exhaustive characterisation.
Soviet Communism has been described, with the same careless use of language as "Authoritarian Capitalism". That slick trick was accomplished by looking at things about capitalism and Communism that, on the surface appear, to be similar.
Using that approach to language is sure to lead to the sort of "confusion" you wear as a badge of honour.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/01/2009 @ 9:32pm
I'll be sure to scrub my syntax well before the thought police descend again to falsely convict me of 'confusion' with naught but an off-handed piece of glib fluff as their evidence.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 9:59pm
No need to run up the white flag. If it really mattered you had the chance and ability to show that you were not confused but seemed, to this sparring partner, more than willing to embrace confusion than reject it.
I don't think any one of us will have much effect on the things we so passionately argue about but unless we are very stupid we cannot help but get a better understanding of own and contrary opinions through this sort of interaction.
There are not too many stupid people on this forum and quite a few very bright contributors representing various viewpoints on a particular topic. Interacting with such, and I think you are up there somewhere (I don't like jousting with fools) is about the best way, I can think of, to improve one's understanding of the dimensions or parameters of the subject.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/02/2009 @ 01:47am