By Zack Beauchamp
In an otherwise informative post on (more) failed Drug War policy, Ted Galen Carpenter engages in some Annoying Commentator Behavior:
The festering security sore on our southern frontier has not healed, and it’s not likely to do so in the foreseeable future. Instead of pursuing the fool’s errand of nation building in Afghanistan or trying to keep a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq (despite previous promises to the contrary), the president and his national security team need to pay attention to a serious problem much closer to home.
I don't understand Carpenter, a skeptic about intervention, to be advocating a repeat of the Mexican War, nor do I think he believes that we'd be able to solve the Mexican drug crisis by taking our diplomats or aid experts out of Afghanistan/Iraq. So what on earth is the relationship between American policy in those states and Mexico?
A natural reading of Carptenter's argument is that it's presidential "attention" that's being sucked away: Iraq and Afghanistan take effort to manage, and that trades off with his, and his staff's, ability to conduct effective business in other areas. But that could be said equally of any policy area other than Mexico. Why shouldn't the President pay less attention to energy policy, domestic arms regulation, or diplomatic entreaties to Bhutan? One might say "because I/A take a lot of time and don't produce anything of value." And that's fine, as far as it goes, but that's not very far. The argument is parasitic on the judgment that I/A doesn't produce anything valuable, which is to say it assumes the central argument againt involvement in those countries rather than showing anything about it.
All the tradeoff argument does is signify that Carpenter doesn't like I/A involvement. And that's fine, but we shouldn't pretend that invoking time tradeoff is a real argument against involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq any more than it's a real argument against Obama working on debt ceiling negotiations.
The Dish 