UNNECESSARY TRAGEDY

"Relying on the use of force as a centerpiece of our global
strategy, as we have in recent years, is economically,
strategically and politically unsustainable and will result
in unnecessary tragedy -- especially for the men and
women, and their families, who serve our country"
---former Sen. Chuck Hagel

Since my last blog (Aug. 25) several prominent colum-
nists and political leaders have come out strongly against
escalating our military efforts in Afghanistan. Among
the most persuasive articles I have seen are those by Geo.
Will (in WaPo), Bob Herbert (NYT) and Malou Innocent
of the Cato Inst., writing in the Huffington Post. That, of
course includes the article quoted above from former
Sen. Hagel (in WaPo).along the same lines. Vice Pres.
Biden is known to be making similar arguments within
the inner councils of the administration.

All of the above reject the "war of necessity" argument
being put forward by the Obama administration. Mathew
Yglesias ( whom I'll always read, on any subject) quotes
Helene Cooper, who wrote: "Administration officials say
privately that they believe that they have 12 months to
show significant progress in Afghanistan before they totally
lose public support." Yglesias says of Cooper's report: "I
wish one of our crackerjack reporters here in D. C. would
try to get these 'administration officials' to explain how this
interacts with their recent embrace of 'war of necessity'
rhetoric. I can see a few possibilities:

---Since this is a war of necessity, they intend to keep
fighting it even if there's no progress after 12 months, so if
there isn't progress they'll try to mislead the public into
thinking there is." (That, of course, is just what happened
with other unnecessary wars in Iraq and Viet Nam.)

---(Still quoting Yglesias:) "If there's no progress after 12
months, they'll bow to public pressure to withdraw even
though that would mean 'losing' a 'war of necessity.'

---The same officials who privately say the war effort may
collapse in 12 months also 'privately' know that this talk
about a 'war of necessity' doesn't make sense, but they're
using the rhetoric anyway in order to bolster public support
right now.

---The relevant officials are supremely self-confident about
their own abilities, and just haven't bothered to think about
Plan B in case they're unable to deliver significant progress
over the next 12 months."

Bob Herbert (about increasing our troop numbers there:)
"These will be troops heading into the flames of a no-win
situation. We're fighting on behalf of an incompetent and
hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. If our ulti-
mate goal, as the administration tells us, is a government
that can effectively run the country, protect its population
and defeat the Taliban, our troops will be fighting and dying
in Afghanistan for many, many years to come."

Malour Innocent (in 9/4/09 Huffington Post regarding
nation building there): "First, Afghanistan has yet to de-
monstrate the capability to function as a cohesive, modern,
nation state, with or without us -- and perhaps never will
(that's my own belief). Many tribes living in rural, isolated
and sparsely populated provinces have little interest co-
operating with 'foreigners,' a relative term considering the
limited contact many have with their country's own central
government.

Second, arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment
of armed 'nation building' --the words of another civilian
advisor to the mission, Anthony Cordesman -- overlook
whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs
acceptable to the American public. Our attempt to trans-
form what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tri-
bal-based society -- while our own country faces
economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous,
especially since even the limited goal of creating a
self-sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democ-
racy would require a multi-decade commitment --
and even then there'd be no assurance of success."
(Emphasis mine.)

That pretty much covers it!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net