Worldview: Signs of hope in Obama's Afghan plan

[babylonsister]

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090329_Worldview__Signs_of_hope_in_Obama_s_Afghan_plan.html

Worldview: Signs of hope in Obama's Afghan plan

By Trudy Rubin

Inquirer Opinion Columnist


Now that President Obama has announced his new strategy for Afghanistan, you may be focused on the number of new troops that will deploy there: 17,000 on the way, with 4,000 more trainers and advisers to join them by fall.

Before you think "quagmire," consider what, to my mind, makes this plan so impressive: The troop increase is part of a much broader strategy encompassing the entire South Asia region. It emphasizes economic aid and diplomacy as much as guns.

As Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special representative for AfPak, put it: "The media is talking about a military surge. What Obama is talking about is a comprehensive surge." The word comprehensive is key.

This approach contrasts sharply with the Bush administration's narrow take on the Iraq war, which ignored Iraq's neighbors and permitted al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup on the AfPak border. After talking with key civilian and military contributors to Obama's new strategy, here are some points that I find especially hopeful in the plan.

Obama clarifies our purpose in Afghanistan. Many Americans wonder why we should invest more lives and treasure in this remote land. As the president spells out, were the Taliban to retake Afghanistan, that country would once again become a base for al-Qaeda and its allies. This would pose a threat not only to us, but to Europe, Asia, and Africa, which have all suffered from al-Qaeda attacks.

The increases in U.S. troop levels aim to counter Taliban gains in certain areas of the country, while we train more Afghan soldiers and deal with jihadis in neighboring Pakistan.

snip//

There is an exit strategy, although not an exit date. The U.S. mission will gradually shift to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces. Ultimately the Afghan army will take the lead in securing its country, even if the West must pay the costs. "In the long term, the ticket {to success} in Afghanistan is an Afghan army that is large enough," Riedel said. "It will be a lot cheaper to pay for an Afghan army than a U.S. expeditionary force."

In sum, the Obama strategy calls for simultaneously addressing an incredible number of moving parts. Many things will go wrong. But the administration's ability to grasp the full complexity of the challenge offers hope of long-term success.

[Political Heretic]

1. This and Rachel Maddows analysis of the plan are both highlighting things M$M isn't

It's why I'm on the fence about the plan.

Basically, I pretty much say, bring 'em home. My leftist roots say end our fucking imperialism by closing our foreign military bases and ending our attempt to run the planet - COME HOME.

But, if we're not going to do that, and we're going to be over there - then there are things about this plan that are much more likable than any we've seen before. For starters, is not so much a pentagon driven plan as it is a comprehensive plan including aid, diplomacy, training and support not just guns.

EDIT - okay, okay I realize that Rachel is now officially part of the M$M, but I've only heard this analysis on her show and nowhere else on cable news, that was my point.

[babylonsister]

2. I've read some of your posts, and you

voice how I feel. I am on the fence because I'm anti-war also. But, if the majority of people think we have no other recourse but to stay there and try our best to help this part of the world, and we do it this way without inciting and blowing people and countries up, I have had to rethink also.

I'm trying to figure it out, too.

As for Rachel, she's had many guests on presenting the truth, facts, and generally informing us. She is priceless and we are all better off for her efforts. Her approach is 'so' unlike the regular talking heads, I don't think you made a mistake.