Fred Kaplan: Confessions of an Uncertain Columnist. My Mixed Feelings about the war in Afghanistan

[flpoljunkie]

Confessions of an Uncertain Columnist
My mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan.
By Fred Kaplan

Posted Monday, Nov. 30, 2009

Columnists are supposed to have firm views and express them with steadfast certainty. Since I write a column called "War Stories," the least a reader might expect from me is a clear opinion on whether the United States should escalate or pull out of the war in Afghanistan.

Recently, a friend told me that he couldn't quite figure out where I stood on the issue. I replied that I couldn't quite figure it out, either.

My columns, I confess, have hedged, hemmed, and hawed around the question. When I've proposed or endorsed a specific strategy, I've carefully noted that it's an approach the president should take if he decides to deepen U.S. involvement in the war. Sometimes, I've ended the piece with a caveat or a pointed question that suggests deeper involvement might not be such a good idea. Yet I've stopped short of taking a stance on whether he should or shouldn't send more troops or whether doing so is or isn't a good idea.

That's because, when it comes to this war, I am the one thing that a columnist probably shouldn't be—ambivalent. I've studied all the pros and cons. There are valid arguments to justify each side of the issue, and there are still more valid arguments to slap each side down. And if the basic decision were left up to me, I'm not sure what I would do.

more...

http://www.slate.com/id/2236148/pagenum/all/#p2

[flpoljunkie]

1. Time's Joe Klein's response to Kaplan: The League of Ambivalent Columnists

The League of Ambivalent Columnists

Posted by JOE KLEIN
Monday, November 30, 2009

Fred Kaplan is ambivalent about what to do in Afghanistan...and makes great arguments against all options, which I fully endorse. There is one argument for continuing the fight that I would add, however:

Pakistan. If the U.S. doesn't remain engaged in Afghanistan, the civilian government in Pakistan--already an incredibly shaky enterprise--will probably fall. Certainly, the Pakistani Army will be further empowered and will likely bolster its support for its Taliban allies in order to prevent India from establishing a foothold in Kabul. The possibility of a Pakistani Army coup scares the bejeezus out of expert like Bruce Riedel. It's not impossible that it would be an Islamist takeover. (Indeed, it's happened before: the coup that brought Zia al-Haq to power in the 1980s.)

The scariest national security problem we now face is the prospect of al-Qaeda-linked jihadis controlling the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Like Fred Kaplan, I'm not optimistic that the U.S. effort can succeed in Afghanistan. But the notion that a U.S. withdrawal might empower the religious extremists in the Pakistani military does give me pause.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/30/the-league-of-ambivalent-columnists/#more-18928

[optimator]

2. they aren't icbms

and protecting the nukes doesn't require an army.
And this pakistan bs would require a new authorization of force/declaration of war.
And fuck these fear mongering columnist idiots with this crap; "The scariest national security problem we now face is the prospect of al-Qaeda-linked jihadis....." STFU

[HughMoran]

3. "My guess is that President Obama held so many meetings with his national-security advisers..."

"My guess is that President Obama held so many meetings with his national-security advisers on this topic—nine, plus a 10th on Sunday night to get their orders and talking points straight—because he wanted to break through his own ambivalences; because he needed to come up with a reason (not just a rationalization) for doing whatever it is that he's decided to do, some assurance that it really does make sense, that it has a chance of working, so he can defend it to Congress, the nation, and the world with conviction. Let's hope he found something. A columnist can be ambivalent; a president can't be."

Tell me about it.