FEINGOLD VS. KAGAN

Robert Kagan, who writes regularly on foreign af-
fairs for WPO is a prominent neo-con who suppor-
ted Geo. B. heartily and vocally before, during and
after the Iraq disaster. He was an avid advocate
for the Surge, and has kept crowing about its sup-
posed "success." That's even though nothing was
settled politically by said Surge, and its purpose
(national reconciliation) was not achieved. What did
happen that was positive (besides some violence re-
duction) would have happened anyhow, and in fact
did happen well before the Surge: we talked (and paid)
the Sunnis in Anbar into turning against al Qaida and
into joining us in fighting them. Granted, that's an
important achievement!

Of course we armed 90,000 Sunnis to do that, and they
remain armed and dangerous, awaiting our departure
so they can settle affairs with the Shia majority now
running the country. Not only are the Sunnis increa-
singly unhappy with their treatment by the Maliki
government, but the Kurds are likewise becoming res-
tive. And the Kurds have the best army of the bunch.

Joost Hiltermann wrote in the Christian Science Moni-
tor (3/30/09): " . . . there appears to be a disconcer-
ting focus on Iraq's upcoming parliamentary elections
as decisive proof of the country's successful recovery
and the main precondition for a withdrawal. In my dis-
cussions with administration officials earlier this month
for example, it was clear that many saw the elections
as a critical test of Iraq's ability to sustain itself beyond
a US departure. This singular focus on the parliamen-
tary elections is ill-conceived and dangerous."
(Ital. mine). . ."More important (Hiltermann continues),
the elections will probably prove very little. At most,
they will illustrate that as long as Washington insists on
them and provides a protective environment, they will
take place; there is no guarantee that an Iraq free of US
forces will resort to democratic exercises to decide who
rules. And while elections should be encouraged as an
indicator of political progress, they are not what will make
or break Iraq. As violence has abated, politics remains
highly dysfunctional. Fundamental conflicts over power
(how to divide it), territory (how to allocate disputed
areas, especially oil-rich Kirkuk) and resources (how to
manage them and share oil income) simmer without
prospect of early resolution and will determine what
happens to Iraq when the US leaves. Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki may have surprised friend and foe by
profiling himself as a national statesman seeking to
restore a national Iraq, rather than an ethnic or sec-
tarian identity, but in doing so he is alienating one of
his main governing allies, the Kurds. Thus as sectarian-
ism recedes, it is increasingly replaced by a struggle
between Kurdish and Arab nationalism, which could
turn violent." (Joost Hiltermann is the International
Crisis Group's deputy program director for the Middle
East and North Africa.)

Yes, Obama is getting out of the Iraq frying pan and into
the Afghanistan fire! Back to Robert Kagan, who is, of
course, just as hawkish there as he is and was on Iraq.
The neo-cons are always predictable, and usually wrong.
In the 3/30/09 WPO he has a cheer leading piece titled:
"Obama's Gutsy Decision on Afghanistan." It is gutsy
all right. I'll agree with him there. I did, in fact, in my
last blog. I explained that Obama's decision to "double
down" there is gutsy and probably doomed. Kagan
cheerfully assures us we can achieve our purposes there
by "rooting out government corruption, helping the elec-
ted government provide basic services, fighting the nar-
cotics trade and advancing security, opportunity, and
justice."

In other words, what we haven't been able to do in seven
years will now become doable, because now we are seri-
ous, as David Brooks wrote in a similar optimistic article
in the NYT. True, we are sending more troops, money,
and civilian development people. And this president is
determined. Kagan says "the president and his key ad-
visors, such as Richard Holbrooke, understand that better
and more efficient government in Afghanistan is the key
to the successful defence of American security." They are
pouring all these expensive resources into a mighty leaky
bucket!

What they don't seem to understand is the point of Sen.
Feingold's letter in the NYT (3/31/09). After granting
that we must be actively involved in both Afghanistan
and Pakistan, the Sen. writes: "But while the president
clearly understands that the greatest threat to our na-
tion resides in Pakistan, the strategy unveiled last week
has the potential to escalate rather than diminish the
threat." (May I insert here that this is also the strategy
that Kagan cheers.) Sen. Feingold continues: "While
the Obama administration's plan and rhetoric recognize
the vital need to confront this threat, the decision to
send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before
fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and insta-
bility in Pakistan could very well prove counterproduc-
tive."

Here is the Senator's reasoning: "Increased military en-
gagement against the Taliban in Afghanistan could push
it further into Pakistan while aggravating the militant
extremism that has spread to more and more parts of
that country. New Taliban safe havens could emerge
from which attacks in Afghanistan or Pakistan, like last
week's bombing in the Khyber Pass, could be planned.
More Pakistanis could fall under the control of those who
would violate basic human rights, particularly the rights
of women and girls."

Further, Sen. F. writes, "Already weak government in-
stitutions could deteriorate further, undermining the
legitimacy of the Pakistani state. And a country with
nuclear weapons could be dangerously destabilized."
And, "President Obama has stated clearly that we cannot
prevail in Afghanistan without addressing Pakistan -- but
that recognition alone is not enough. We need to address
the insecurity in Pakistan before any decision to send
significantly more troops to Afghanistan." In other words,
as Fareed Zakariah wrote in Newsweek: " If we cannot
solve the Pakistan problem, we cannot win in Afghani-
stan." I keep repeating that, because our leaders have
still not got it! (For further discussion of this, see my
last two blogs.)