The Dish

A reader writes:

This is the most salient thing you've written in some time.

The way our politics of fear is now constructed, there is no limit to the costs involved in nation-building in every conceivable failed state that could be a safe harbor for Jihadists. We cannot have the adult conversation about how much terrorist damage the US should tolerate compared with the costs of trying to control this phenomenon at its source. We are not mature enough as a country to have that conversation. And Obama has decided it isn't worth confronting that question now.

This is indeed what this is all about. To avoid a potential terrorist attack we are willing to invade countries and conduct wars to the end of time, if necessary. We are a country of cowards. And we're not too bright, either.

Not a good combination of traits. And soon enough we'll be bankrupt.  But it all goes to the point that we'd rather ravage the armed forces and bankrupt the nation than risk a bomb going off in a rail station in Philadelphia. We no longer are in a state where we can guarantee 100% that we can't get hit by a terrorist. That world doesn't exist anymore. The sooner we wrap our tiny little heads and hearts around that notion the better off we'll all be. Instead, i had to forfeit my bottle of Wisconsin horseradish mustard at the airport cause it contained more than 3 oz. of a condiment used to flavor links of compressed pig guts. I remember thinking back after 9-11 that things would, indeed, never be the same. It's a shame we were all stuck with the leadership of Bush, Cheney and Rove after 9-11.

A reader writes:

I love the time line that Obama has proposed for withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan.  Crafty.  The neocons (McCain for one) are already saying that it gives comfort to the enemy, that they will just wait until we leave and then attack again.  And the reason this is bad is what?

I think the hope of the White House is that the Taliban will lay low.  If the Taliban want to wait until we leave, perhaps there is time for the Afghans to train and begin to defend themselves.  If the Taliban attacks, there are enough troops to counter their attacks and weaken them by attrition.  A win/win for us.

Obama is also telling the Afghans in the street that we are leaving, which hopefully will say to them that we are not their enemy, not their occupiers, and hopefully keep ordinary patriotic Afghans from joining the Taliban.

Very cool.

Another adds:

For what it's worth, the Liberals I follow on Twitter are all howling about the speech.  And, right now, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove are trashing the tone, the lack of detail, the focus on domestic policy, etc.

 

In short, he pissed off everyone.  And given the bag of garbage he was handed by the last Administration, that means he hit a home run.

And she's onto something:

I think his message was very clear – to the military. They wanted more – they got it – faster than they asked for. He has now placed the full burden of victory or defeat at the hands of McChrystal and Petraeus, for he has set a timeline within his term of deciding their fates regarding success or failure – something that is rarely done in presidential politics. Bravo!

As for the perpetual war complex – he's now given them their termination papers and boy do they not like it! Look at our conservative war hawks. Scowling.  Look at the blowhard "former military commanders" on TV – boy they don't like it!  Deadlines!  Oooh – scary – send wrong message.  Even Cheney thinks it's "weakness". 

Legacy is at stake!  Divert attention!  And the media – Politico in particular – follows like the good microphone Zombies they are!

Well, I get it. And the President gets it. He's outta there, but he's going for the Hail Mary. If the military doesn't deliver, he's got the political cover to say "game over".

And if the military does deliver, if his first term ends with a stabler Afghanistan and the capture or death of bin Laden and the successful prosecution of KSM in a civilian court of law … well Cheney really will have something to worry about. And his political shield against a war crimes prosecution will be gone. 

See? I haven't lost all hope after all. I've just gained an awful lot of chastening.

(Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.)

And in the end, why I will support him in this policy whatever my doubts and reservations:

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

Ackerman:

I think it’s fair to say the following: we knew since Obama began running for president in early 2007 that he would escalate the Afghanistan war. But we didn’t know that he would so thoroughly embrace the counterinsurgency template that Petraeus and his circle began to create. I explored this in my essay for The National recently. But tonight really underscored it.

Reihan Salam:

Assuming this really is a conditions-based decision, setting a target date for withdrawal isn't necessarily a bad thing. The trouble is that the timetable might be so overoptimistic as to set unreasonable public expectations, and I think that's what worries Senator McCain. Given the political constraints the president faces — less than a quarter of Democrats believe that a troop surge will improve the security situation in Afghanistan and a large and growing number want out — I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nate Silver:

Politically, this seems very risky: in the long run, there's much more downside to breaking the promise than there would be upside to keeping it. If nothing much has changed in Afghanistan and our troops aren't getting out 20 months hence, we can presumably expect some major blowback, especially from liberals — a primary challenge from Obama's left flank would not be entirely out of the question.

Armchair Generalist:

I still think the rationale that the Obama administration uses is shit – that somehow, securing Afghanistan is vital to our interests and that AQ is just chomping at the bits to move back into Afghanistan while

eyeing Pakistan's nukes.

It's weak, it's not a supportable defense to address violent non-state actors. But at the least, he offered goals, he stated his rationale, and he clearly stated that he's not relying on strictly military power. He demonstrated a basis for using all the elements of national security. And he's committing to start pulling out in mid-July 2011 (none too late to influence the 2012 elections).

Ben Smith:

Tonight's speech includes a passing, abstract reference to "human rights" — but not a single reference to Afghanistan's women and girls. That, presumably, falls into the category of "nation building." "As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests," Obama said tonight.

DiA:

[T]here basically wasn't anything in there about any of the fascinating strategic issues that have been raised over the past couple of months. We have no idea what the split in emphasis is on population security v counter-terrorism, no idea if or when American forces will pursue Taliban/AQ inside Pakistani territory, no idea whether the "tribal" strategy is a reality. Guess we'll have to keep following developments on the ground and the articles at the think tanks to see how things are headed. This is less of a clear signal than George Bush provided, actually, in December 2005 when he used the language "clear, hold and build", or in his later descriptions of the strategic thinking behind the "surge". Again, I guess the calculation is that most of the public doesn't really care about that stuff or understand it.

Jim Geraghty:

My relief at Obama's decision comes with a nagging sense of having written about expiration dates. I think he's making the right call tonight; I hope he sticks by it, if, say a year from now his approval numbers are ten points lower, the base of his party is in revolt, flag-draped caskets are returning home, and the sense is that all of our progress has come at a supremely high price.

David Kurtz:

The Republican talking point this evening in reaction to the speech is that if Obama is really, truly, unconditionally committed (no fingers crossed behind his back) to the Afghanistan effort, he wouldn't set an "artificial" deadline for withdrawing troops.

Ace Of Spades:

Basically, when you tell your ally you're bugging out in a couple of years, and they know when you do bug out they lose, you have incentivized them to begin defecting to the enemy early.

Jennifer Rubin:

So far this speech should have been delivered at a DNC meeting — the Democratic base seems to be his primary concern and audience.

Patrick Barry:

This vehement opposition to timelines has never totally made sense to me.  Of course it's important to demonstrate commitment, but its equally important to gain leverage, something that timelines can give you.  One surefire way to make countries like China, Iran and Pakistan start taking affairs in their backyard more seriously is to make them aware that there is an end-date to their riding on America's coat tails.  Right now, Pakistan has less incentive to behave productively in Afghanistan, mostly because it's mostly consequence free. We're the ones holding the bag!  But if they're forced to reckon with a future where it's not as easy to hide in America's shadow, it would be reasonable to assume more responsible behavior.

(Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.)

Almost uniformly negative. And the GOP will do all they can to destroy this commander-in-chief. 

Watching Fox, you can see the core line of attack now decided upon. The GOP will support the surge as McChrystal's effort, but spend the entire war to denigrate Obama as commander-in-chief and implementer of it. They will attack him as weak even if he adds 30,000 new troops under the smartest strategy he can. I have to say I have now watched the entire Fox coverage and all of it – all of it – is hostile to a president at war in a conflict he inherited spiraling into collapse.

Only O'Reilly has a smidgen of fairness. O'Reilly is now the independent voice on Fox. Now, I'm now watching Karl Rove use McChrystal against Obama and accusing the president of isolationism. Yes: he used the term "isolationist" to describe the addition of 30,000 more troops. If they're going to call you isolationist anyway, why bother intervening?

Obama's answer is that we cannot tolerate another terror attack. But at what cost? Is there any limit to the cost?

The way our politics of fear is now constructed, there is no limit to the costs involved in nation-building in every conceivable failed state that could be a safe harbor for Jihadists. We cannot have the adult conversation about how much terrorist damage the US should tolerate compared with the costs of trying to control this phenomenon at its source. We are not mature enough as a country to have that conversation. And Obama has decided it isn't worth confronting that question now.

I just don't believe that Afghanistan will be in much better shape in 2011 than it is now, or that withdrawal in 2012 will have any greater a chance of avoiding subsequent implosion than withdrawal now or withdrawal from Iraq in 2010.

So I am left with this deep ambivalence and concern. But we are at war and he is the president and he has committed the troops. I'll do with this what I did with the 2007 surge: support the troops once the decision is made, even though I disagree with the decision. And I fervently hope and pray this strategy succeeds in ways that the Iraq surge has not yet succeeded. And I just as fervently pray that the uncertainties and risks of those two countries do not destroy this president as they destroyed the last. And that they do not take this country with him..

8.35 pm. "Not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes."

I confess I do not feel those highest hopes. I do not share his confidence in American military and civilian power to turn the roiling region of Afghanistan and Pakistan into something less threatening. I see no reason after the last eight years to see how this can happen, even with these new resources. But if you rule out withdrawal right away, then this seems to me to be about the smartest strategy ahead. But I see absolutely no reason to believe that it will mean withdrawal of any significant amount in Obama's first term.

8.34 pm. "I refuse to accept that we cannot summon that unity again." He will have to overcome Cheney.

8.32 pm. Is he choking up? I get a sense that these cadets in front of him are affecting him. He seems different now than before he became president: a commander-in-chief of a different timbre.

8.30 pm. A reprise of liberal internationalism, and a Niebuhrian mix of military realism and global hope. "We do not seek to occupy other nations." And yet we do. And we will.

8.29 pm. The reiteration of America's commitment to human rights and dignity, in stark – and unspoken – contrast with the war crimes of his immediate predecessors.

8.27 pm. "The nation I am most interested in building is our own." But Afghanistan is a close second. Yes: Afghanistan.

8.25 pm. Here's the insistence on a limited commitment to keep the pressure on Pakistan to cooperate. It makes no sense to me. Why would they not wait for us to leave? And if we recommit now, won't that take the pressure off the Pakistani and Afghan governments?

8.23 pm. The argument for staying on offense is pure Giuliani. If you thought you were voting for a peacenik last year, you weren't paying attention, were you? The notion that we do not face a popular insurgency as in Vietnam is also unconvincing.

8.22 pm. The Pakistan pivot: what sounds like a major reset with a critical country. But the description of Pakistan sounds hopelessly utopian to me, does not address the extremist forces within Pakistan's military.

8.20 pm. A direct straight to camera appeal to the Afghan people declaring an absence of any desire to occupy the place for longer than, er, a decade. I have no idea how many actual Afghans will see this statement. Or how they will respond.

8.18 pm. And now an unconvincing passage on Afghan responsibility for their own country. If so, why can they not do so already?

8.16 pm. He has stated that no war plan he contemplated advocated deploying more troops before 2010 and he has now also said that he has approved the fastest possible pace of deployment next year.

8.15 pm. A statement that there remains a clear threat to the security of the United States. But at what cost? And by what means?

8.14 pm. A somewhat moving account of how seriously he takes this decision.

8.10 pm. An utterly and self-evidently convincing defense of the deliberations Cheney has called weakness.

8.09 pm. An utterly and self-evidently unconvincing defense of the legitimacy of the Karzai government and the recent rigged elections.

8.06 pm. A careful repetition of the Iraq diversion without any direct criticism of the last president. Classier than Cheney, though that isn't exactly a tough bar.

8.05 pm. A reprise of the original rationale – under domestic and international law – for invasion.

8.01 pm. I'm watching it on FNC to see how the far right will react. So far, the GOP position is that the new strategy is great because it means more troops and war, but not great because, well, the president is a patsy who is not interested in staying there indefinitely. They will target him as weak because they know how to do that. and they will ensure that if the war fails, he will be blamed, and if he succeeds and tries to withdraw within three years, he will be blamed. The Republicans are out to get this president, whatever he does.

A young girl eats some food as displaced Afghans queue to receive relief aid from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), on December 1, 2009 in Kabul, Afghanistan. As temperatures begin to drop around the country, the UNHCR and the Afghan government are providing relief supplies, including blankets, sweaters, plastic sheets, jerry cans and bags of charcoal, to help some 200,000 vulnerable people cope with the harsh winter. By Majid Saeedi/Getty.

Steve Coll discusses Afghanistan:

Afghanistan's most successful period of modern politics occurred between the late 1920s and the late 1960s. The country was very poor but it managed a sustainable, multi-ethnic system of governance that included a role for a weak central government and diverse regional powers — some tribal, some other — backed by a national Army. The present circumstances are different — huge flows of international money and support tend to seek and even require a strong central government. But the model I elude to is probably more plausible. It's a balance between central and local authorities. That's more plausible than wishing for a central government that can deliver presence and justice in every nook and valley of this mountainous country.