Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George Will Calls For U.S. Ground Troops To Leave Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:11 PM
Original message
George Will Calls For U.S. Ground Troops To Leave Afghanistan
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 11:24 PM by democracy1st
George F. Will, the elite conservative commentator, is calling for U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan in his latest column.


“Forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters,” Will writes.

President Obama ordered a total of 21,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan in February and March, and casualties have mounted as the forces began confronting the Taliban more aggressively. August saw the highest monthly death toll for the U.S. since the invasion in 2001, the second record month in a row.


Will’s prescription – in which he recalls Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870 - seems certain to split Republicans. He is a favorite of fiscal conservatives. The more hawkish right can be expected to attack his conclusion as foolhardy, short-sighted and naïve, potentially making the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorist attack.


The columnist’s startling recommendation surfaced on the same day that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, sent an assessment up his chain of command recommending what he called “a revised implementation strategy.” In a statement, McChrystal also called for “commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort.”

In the column, Will warns that any nation-building strategy could be impossible to execute given the Taliban’s ability to seemingly disappear into the rugged mountain terrain and the lack of economic development in the war-plagued nation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26628.html#ixzz0PpCPeRUw
=====================================================================================================================================




Time to Get Out of Afghanistan
By George F. Will

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.



Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?



Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html?sub=AR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, if George Will says so................
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Sadly, he probably holds more sway with the President..
than anybody on the left.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Not very likely
Obama might not be as progressive as some might like and he may genuinely want to listen to "the other side" to see if they have any ideas that he thinks might work (not likely, but it's still good to at least hear everybody out, particularly since he IS President of everybody here in the US, not just us), but I'm pretty certain that George Will is NOT on President Obama's speed dial (if he is even on his Rolodex).

I simply don't get this mentality that Obama pays more attention to the Pubs than us or that he's frantically trying to appease them or that he is being "snowed" by them. It's true that he's expressed a willingness to hear what they have to say and I would imagine that he probably spends a lot of time meeting with them because they're a tougher audience than the rest of us but AFAIK I can't think of many (any?) decisions that he's made to "appease" the wingnuts or neocons or indicate that he has capitulated on anything so far as a result of his contact with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. I can't believe I find myself agreeing with Will
in principle at least--get out of Afghanistan! "Clear, hold and build"? That won't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I was thinking the same thing.......is there another George Will?
Sure doesn't sound the George Will I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. Education of women is the largest deterrent of Taliban operatives being able to recruit
young men to their organization. Why do you think they attack school girls with acid and enforce crazy rules about marriage and clothing? I didn't know this until recently, but when a young girl is educated, they often go home and teach their mother to read and write. With the ability to read and write, the mother's are more educated about the possibilities for their children outside of sending them to the Taliban for training. It is apparently a great dishonor for a boy to go become a trained fighting Taliban member unless they recieve the blessing from their mother. An educated mother is more likely NOT to give their son the blessing. For him to go to war without the blessing, would be a big time sin thingy.

Troops on the ground are building schools and supplying them with materials for learning. When the drones attack non-descriminate targets, the innocent are more likely to become fanatical and hate America. Building infrastructure, providing education, and changing the methods of financial gains with producing crops other than Poppy (which give the Taliban their money), are the ways in which to end the oppression in a region that has been abused for much too long.

I'm not sure how we are supposed to "fix" this without serious financial investments over many, many, many years. I personally believe the mission would be 10 times more successful if we used "Peace Corp" types of worker en masse (treat them like the military with pay and education, etc.) and have the Armed forces protect them. We have a lot of people out of work in America. Take all those people who are used to building homes and infrastructure, send them into the region, and have them protected by armed forces to build and teach. This version is cheaper than drones and bombs in the long run. An educated populace with opportunity and hope for the future is going to throw the extremists out... that's what the villages who have been given schools and opportunities tend to to do. Great way to put people to work in this country.. however, it would be a sacrifice that many Americans, other than our Armed services, haven't been asked to do in a while.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. George Will, the guy who loved war when dimson was in charge?
:puke:

I want out, but not because of George Will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. He Opposed The Iraq War Too
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
8. In the big picture is "death from above" ethical? No more
body counts of american dead but (conceivably) many more Afghani civilian deaths due to bombing techniques? Any thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. k& r! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. George, being completely unprincipled, has some tactical purpose here
In a 2001 essay that attempted to revive bitterness about the US Civil War, he was an eager advocate of the idea that "U.S. strategy should maximize fatalities among the enemy, rather than expedite the quickest possible cessation of hostilities"

He was excited back then about the prospect for a global war: "... the mission transcends al Qaeda. It transcends September 11. It will extend from Colombia to the Philippines ..." He hoped that war, particularly in Afghanistan, would produce "hundreds and even thousands" of prisoners to be tried by W's tribunals

Now, eight years later, he has noticed people get their legs blown off in wars. I suppose it is good that he has noticed, though eight years seems a rather long time for such an obvious observation -- and, of course, he has been around since before Vietnam and so cannot argue that the Afghan war was such a novelty to him that he did not know what to expect

Civil war should teach us lesson for Afghanistan
by George Will
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2001/12/27/civil_war_should_teach_us_lesson_for_afghanistan

CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With George Will, Interview With George Mitchell, Interview With Judith Miller, Interview With Bill Kurtis
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/21/lkl.00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
11. Hmm, George Will moving to the left of Obama. What does it mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakeXT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. Using "drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes " would make it worse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC