Why Is a Progressive Think Tank Telling Obama to Escalate the War in Afghanistan?

[laststeamtrain]

Why Is a Progressive Think Tank Telling Obama to Escalate the War in Afghanistan?
By Tom Hayden, Huffington Post
Posted on March 27, 2009, Printed on March 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/133612/

The Center for American Progress has positioned itself as a "progressive" Washington think tank, especially suited to channel new thinking and expertise into the Obama administration. It therefore is deeply disappointing that CAP has issued a call for a ten-year war in Afghanistan, including an immediate military escalation, just as President Obama prepares to unveil his Afghanistan/Pakistan policies to the American public and NATO this week.

<snip>

That means a long counter-insurgency war ahead, with everything from massive incarcerations and detention to Predator strikes that amass increasing civilian casualties. CAP begins by calling on the president to meet the request of his commander in Afghanistan for another 15,000 troops in addition to the 17,000 Obama already has committed, which would bring the near-term US total to 70,000. To pay for these additional troops, CAP proposes redirecting $25 billion annually from combat in Iraq to Afghanistan. In addition, CAP favors up to $5 billion annually for diplomatic and economic assistance, also from a redirection of Iraq spending.

Even assuming the economic assistance reaches villages instead of corrupt middlemen, CAP's primary emphasis is a military one, sending larger numbers of American troops on a counterinsurgency mission in southern and eastern Afghanistan, as well as the outskirts of Kabul. Make no mistake, the American mission will be to fight, kill and capture, and, is intended to leave NATO allies in secondary training roles. The CAP proposal seems to flesh out the Obama strategy already described in a New York Times January 28 headline, "Aides Say Obama's Afghan Aims Elevate War Over Development." The CAP report calculates that in FY 2009, "the ration of funding for military forces versus non-military international engagement is 18 to 1."

There is no exit strategy contemplated in the CAP proposal, although the president apparently is been asking for one behind the scenes. Nor is there any projected cap on future escalation The CAP timeline, front-loaded with military force, is as fanciful about Afghanistan/Pakistan as the neo-conservatives were towards Iraq in the Nineties:

<snip>

As to the threat from al Qaeda, it is understandable that the president would define himself as an aggressive commander-in-chief. But he must wonder if our killing so many civilians and stunting so many children won't result in yet another generation dying to hate us. He must wonder if he is squandering the good will of the world, including the Muslim world, by sending more Americans to kill and die in a quagmire. He must recognize that he is putting his eight-year presidency on the line.

He must wonder too, as he approaches his meetings in Europe, why NATO is occupying countries so far from its base in the mainly-white Western world. It is hard to avoid the hint that the white man's burden is falling on the shoulders of our first African-American president. The only solution to the Afghanistan/Pakistan quagmires has to be a regional one, as argued forcefully by Tariq Ali in his recent book, as well as by Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, but NATO is the stranger in the neighborhood. CAP recognizes this critical problem, as does Hillary Clinton who will meet the regional players at the Hague next week. The problem is that NATO, burdened with imperial assumptions, would like China, Russia, and the Central Asian Republics constituting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to be satellite parties to the Western occupation of Afghanistan/Pakistan. But the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, while having serious stakes in quelling instability in the region, calls on the US and NATO to go home.

<more>

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/133612/why_is_a_progressive_think_tank_telling_obama_to_escalate_the_war_in_afghanistan/

[MADem]

1. Obama isn't being told what to do--he has a vision for Afghanistan (and Pakistan)

that he outlined in a policy speech as a candidate, back in July of last year. He even rented TV time to give the speech.

The fact that this think tank is agreeing with him, and fleshing out his already-outlined plan, isn't terribly surprising.

The long term goal is to train the Afghan military to step up and be the "front men" for basic law and order in the outlying regions. That's going to take time. The problem with repairing (and creating, in some cases) an Afghan infrastructure is certainly daunting, and how they'll keep track of the cash is probably the biggest headache of all. We lost billions in Iraq--I hope the bookkeeping is a bit better under BHO's watch.

[bananas]

3. July 15, 2008: "In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared..."

July 15, 2008:
"In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

[Lasher]

2. I'm getting skeptical of these 'progressive' think tanks.

Here is a DU thread about another of them, Third Way.

[Butch350]

4. It seems there are those who want to keep...

...Americas military machine a rolling. Pat Buchanon (sp) on morning Bloe show was blabbing about too many mexicans
in america and we need to take some serious action along the american/mexico borders. Are there powers to be trying to distract
us from health care reform by bogging down american money in other things???

[MADem]

5. Well, if helping the people of Afghanistan is your definition of

'keeping America's military machine rolling,' Barack Obama, overwhelmingly elected by the people of the US to the presidency, is one of those people of whom you speak.

In July of last year, well before the election, he talked in specific terms in a major address about what he wanted to do vis a vis Afghanistan. These latest actions are simply a delivery on a promise that he made almost nine months ago. There are no surprises here. He said it, he meant it. And he said it well before the election, so people who voted for him and are now claiming to be duped in some fashion only have themselves to blame.

As for legislative action, he, and Congress, have signaled that health care is "the" thing that will be concentrated upon this legislative cycle. Other issues may have to wait.

[laststeamtrain]

6. "helping the people of Afghanistan" !?!?

Are you kiddin'?

I don't think even Pollyanna buys that line anymore.

All politicians are liars. Sometimes they lie good.

I was hoping Obama was lying about Afghanistan.

Anything but reigning in the whole idea of 'American Empire' is a dumb move.

If asked, I'm sure that's what the people want.

The military-industrial-media-complex & their bought & paid for stooges in Washington stand in the way.

What else is new?

The problems of the US in the world is all blow back from imperial excess.

"Helping people?" Give me a break.

[MADem]

7. Ah, you're of the view that keeping women in beekeeper suits, beating them in the streets, not

allowing them to hold employment even as widows, and placing them somewhere below farm livestock and above street dogs in the hierarchy is just fine, is that it?

I am sometimes astounded at the people who call themselves "progressive" yet who can turn their back on this kind of shit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiTUuu6tnj0

7 January 2008
For most Afghan women, the promises made following the fall of the Taliban are not being fulfilled. Honour killings are on the increase and women face violence whenever they try to claim their rights.
"If you are a women in some areas of this country, you are not considered human", laments Latifa Popal. "All the legal systems are in favour of men". Theoretically, Afghanistan has one of the best constitutions in the region for women's rights. But "because the constitution is not implemented, we might be better off not having it at all". Female teachers are particularly vulnerable. Many have been murdered. As a result, even the parents who want to educate their daughters are too scared to. Without access to education and financial independence, women have little option but to stay with their abusive husbands and families.


I'm glad Obama can't turn his back.

[laststeamtrain]

8. Get real. More troops mean more dead people.

What's next? Are you going to tell me about 'development'? Spreading democracy? Some other imperial myth (cover story)?

I'm sure you're a nice person but get a clear eye.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

[MADem]

9. Fewer troops mean more dead and abused women.

But that's apparently all right with you, then, is that it? Not terribly "progressive" that attitude, now, is it?

FWIW, your link has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I suppose, when you can't argue the topic on the merits, the old "grab a big list of 'offenses' and slop it round with a broad brush" approach is the only one left to you.

The one who isn't "getting real" here isn't me. It's you.

My eye is quite clear, thanks, anyway. So's the President's. You might want to review his goals in the region before you make assumptions about his agenda there. He's made his intentions very clear--it only takes listening to him to comprehend his desires for that nation--and they don't include dramatic phrases like "imperial myth (cover story)."

The minute you start tossing dramatic phrases like that, I realize that discussion with you is pointless. You don't even know what Obama's objectives are, and you plainly are ready to excoriate him without knowledge, which isn't a point in your favor. You're one of those doom and gloomers who are cartoonish in your simplistic view of the US--always baaaaaaad, always evil, forever mendacious. Sorry, I find those kinds of arguments asinine and childish as well as untrue.

Your mind is made up. Good thing you're not in charge.

Have a nice day.

[laststeamtrain]

10. Yeah, right. Send more troops to the far-flung outposts of empire...

that's 'progressive' (whatever that means anymore).

You're living in a dream world.

If nothing else, consider the premise of Chalmers Johnson's recent trilogy:

"Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy."

The books of the trilogy are:

* Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
* The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
* Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
*
Republic or empire:
A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States

By Chalmers A. Johnson
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/01/0081346
*

And quit telling me what I think. I know what I think.

If you enjoy mental masturbation where you take both sides of an argument & you always win, fine. It's a DU tradition.
I don't accept the shame you keep trying to cast upon me. I'm real sorry I'm not good on your 'pet' issues.

My issue is a big one: End The Empire before it ends us.

[MADem]

11. Love your dramatic post endings.

End The EMPIRE before it ends US!

Sorry.... :rofl:

Please. If what we're doing in Afghanistan is EMPIRE then Obama's Darth Vader.

We know how Chalmers Johnson feels about Afghanistan. His views aren't news to anyone who "keeps up." The guy's brand is "Empire." That's how he makes his money, you see. It would be "Empire" to him no matter what we did.

I know what you think, because you write it out so simply, like a grammar school memorization, the "Lord's Prayer" of the America Sux Brigade--it's the standard, knee-jerk one-size-fits-all crap that is completely devoid of situational context.

I'm not trying to "cast shame" on you. Think what you'd like, I really don't care. I just think your arguments are simplistic, childish, and they quite frankly suck. They come from a place of profoundly sloppy scholarship, they don't even pretend to have an appreciation or even a basic understanding of Obama's regional goals, which are quite focused, concise, and are aimed at providing a real framework for ultimate self-sufficiency to a nation that has been ravaged by war for over a quarter century. Obama wants the Afghans to take the lead in this effort, not multinational forces. However, they're starting from the bottom--there's no appreciable homegrown military of any consequence in that nation to DO any peacekeeping--yet. His purpose isn't "empire"--his goal is to help the people of a war-torn nation achieve self-sufficiency, and I believe he is sincere.

After a certain age, that sloganeering shit just isn't "cool" any more. It becomes a caricature, a joke. And it doesn't substitute for real discussion of this specific effort, which is fraught with difficulty and will likely be a tough, hard slog in the best of scenarios. When I see that sort of context-free stuff, it is, to me, a signal that there's no serious discussion to be had, just repetition of silly phrases that do not match the context of this situation.

I live in a world where violence against women and their opression and murder is completely and ALWAYS unacceptable. You live in a world of "Evil Empires" and slogans more suited to tee shirts than serious conversations.

Have a nice day, now!

:hi:

[laststeamtrain]

12. I bet you win every argument in which you make up both sides.

Your secret weapon: emoticons.

You're a very nasty person. I hope you have a really shitty day.

I bet you're having a really shitty day. That's the way that works sometimes.

[MADem]

14. Gee, you don't agree with me, so you call me a "nasty person" and hope I'm having a shitty day?

Sorry to disappoint you, I'm having a lovely day. The weather is finally starting to warm up, and we had some lovely sunshine today.

You might want to improve that little "attitude" of yours, though.

That was quite a telling post on your part, sport! Not terribly mature, really...!

[laststeamtrain]

15. No, I do agree with you.

Esteemed public intellectual/academic CJ is just a guy with a 'brand' pushing product.

How could I have missed that?

It's so obvious.

Thanks for taking the time to straighten me out.

[MADem]

21. Ahh, childish sarcasm--a slight stumble upward from outright name calling.

Gee, keep this up, and maybe you'll be able to discuss an issue on the merits without having a meltdown one day!

[laststeamtrain]

30. Last tag. n/t

[MADem]

31. Apparently my optimism was misplaced! nt

[bottomtheweaver]

17. But how do predator drones mean fewer dead women?

Who do you imagine gets blown apart every time we bomb somebody's house or village? This kind of magical thinking is really, well, magical.

[Jim Sagle]

18. The term "Predator drones" was invented to push their funding through a hard-boiled Congress.

Actually they are fluffy bunny drones. ;)

[bottomtheweaver]

19. Ha.

Send in the drones. I'm all for empowering women but that has to be the lamest of excuses to stoke the war furnace yet. There was a German general late last year who publicly stated he'd never had any rationale for fighting there explained to him and frankly I don't think there is one beyond the fact that it's a hole to pour MIC contracts into forever, like Vietnam was until Nixon chopped down the money tree.

[MADem]

22. Oh please.

Find the videos of women getting beaten in the streets and beheaded in the stadium. The AFGHAN women, mind you. The ones who were not allowed to work, to be educated, and who were forced to wear beekeeeper suits because the Taleb couldn't handle seeing them.

You're confusing the Bush debacle in Iraq with the carefully vetted practices in the tribal areas. There isn't any "wedding bombing" stuff going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Obama administration is painstakingly careful before they send an armed drone forth. If people other than the targets are to be killed because the target is using them as human shields, it's not done casually.

But hey, wave that broad brush all you want. Convolute operations, that's always fun.

You're another one who doesn't think that half the population of Afghanistan is worth shit, apparently.

[bottomtheweaver]

25. Casually or carefully, they're just as dead and just as innocent.

The idea of sending in the marines to carry out some kind of media-hyped culture war is ridiculous. Do you really expect anyone to take that nonsense seriously after 62+ years of useless US wars sold on totally false advertising?

[MADem]

26. If you can't see the difference between the subjugation of an entire gender

throughout a nation, to include systematic murder, beating and mutilation and denial of basic human and civil rights on an ongoing and daily basis, and the unfortunate and UNINTENDED loss of a life while specifically prosecuting an oppressor of this entire gender, I can't help you.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

It's nothing to be proud of, you know.

[bottomtheweaver]

27. Here's the difference: one is a war crime and one is not.

Afghanistan has never been a threat to US security and did not attack the US. There is no legal basis for this invasion and prejudice is not a legal cause for war under international law. And if we keep it up you can add genocide to our list of accomplishments.

[MADem]

28. Ahh, so beating and beheading women is not a "war crime" so it's OK with you!!

You're sick.

[bottomtheweaver]

29. No, it's not a war crime unless we do it.

You're catching on.

[Skittles]

32. if you think our politicians give a fuck about Afghani women

you truly have your head up your ass

[mix]

24. progressives, liberals, leftists

have always been divided on the subject of empire...and historically, it has always been the anti-imperialist progressives who were right about empire's injustices, not those on the left who wanted to use coercion to civilize, or "help", the natives become modern.

If you want more war, poverty and suffering in the world, send in the US military.

[ColesCountyDem]

13. In a perfect world, perfect choices provide perfect outcomes...

Sadly, we live in an imperfect world, and the courses of action we take with regards to places like Afghanistan are likely to be, well, imperfect. With the Taliban resurgent, we are faced with two choices: 1.) let them become once again the de facto government of Afghanistan or 2.) prevent that from happening. Since #1 didn't work out very well for us the first time, I'm more than willing to give President Obama some wide latitude in seeing #2 come to pass.

[bottomtheweaver]

16. How did #1 not work out for us?

Did the Taliban cut the CIA out of the opium trade or is just the fact they live next to Iran?

[ColesCountyDem]

20. Neither one.

The fact that they permitted Al Qaeda to openly operate terrorist training camps and refused to do anything whatsoever about bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks both come to mind...

[mix]

23. Afghanistan will destroy his presidency.

Let's hope this is the first step towards a negotiated settlement, if not militarism and empire will have won the day.