some first thoughts on the president's address

[bigtree]

A few things things stood out . . .

There was a convincing argument about 'training' Afghans to take care of their own security. They do need this, although I was less convinced about drawing Afghans to 'our interests', as the president put it, and getting them to defend those. I don't think our campaign against 'al-Qaeda' in Pakistan will ever be in the security or stability interests of Afghanistan.

He spoke of Pakistan taking the fight to the combatants and 'al-Qaeda' in their country, but many reports I've been reading from Pakistan say they are afraid of the spillover from this escalation. They say that this war on terror is our war, not theirs. They say this conflict and the unrest was imposed on them. I'm listening to Matthews say that it's a tough argument that we're making Pakistan more secure by 'pushing' the Taliban in Afghanistan. I agree. It's a dubious argument. I actually believe that offensive activity by our military forces against those who resist their advance in the provinces will be a series of battles won and the overall objectives of tamping the insurgency down lost.

I listened to the language about diplomacy and I agree that our 'interests' as the president described them in terms of our nation's security demand more than a military response in Afghanistan. I'd go further and say that our military mission is counterproductive to the very 'goals' of reducing the 'plotting' against America, our interests, our allies that the president outlined. There were very little specifics about economic development and assistance (like the agriculture initiative the president mentioned) and I'm anxious to hear the State. Dept.'s fleshing out of this effort.

But that effort will have to be administered and enabled by our military in most of the areas needed at the same time we're escalating the 'fight' against the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm not convinced that there will be enough of a good reception from Afghans to the efforts to mitigate our military mission through aid and assistance. I believe that whatever gains we make in these areas (mostly behind our line of defense) are ephemeral and easily corruptible.

I hear the president saying that our mission in Afghanistan is an international one (unlike Vietnam), but it's still mostly U.S.-dominated mission with Canada and Poland leaving in 2010 and the public sentiment for continuing in Afghanistan from our closest contributor, Britain, evaporating by the day.

I also listened with interest as the president both denounced the occupation of Iraq, yet pointed to the escalation or numbers of troops there as something Afghanistan lacked or needed. It's hard to reconcile the two impulses. Iraq is a prime example of the folly of the nation-building the president denounced in one sentence and advocated in Afghanistan in another (albeit posturing as less of a crusader than the last officeholder). This escalation of force is very similar to what Bush did in Iraq when it looked like his occupation was imploding. The president intends to occupy enclaves and provinces while 'pushing' the Taliban resistance, attacking resisting populations in an attempt to pacify them enough until the Afghan government and citizens have the capacity (or interest) to do the same. The mission looks like the same Potemkin of stability that we've erected in Iraq. I'm all for doing what we need to leave, but it's a pretty cynical and dangerous strategy to sacrifice lives and resources for what I believe is only going to produce the posture of stability in Afghanistan, if that. More likely, the unrest will spill over into other areas and other countries, like Pakistan.

The president spoke a bit about the domestic ambitions he has and sought to balance those in his long view of his presidency and couple those with his military ambitions abroad. I think he only succeeded in highlighting the folly of our dubious defense against the violent extremism generated in no small part by the the very military mission he's escalating - all of that threatening to overcome all of the fine ideals he expressed at the end of his address. I hope he noticed the irony in all of that.


more later . . .

[aquart]

1. We can't train them to deal with THEIR country.

They know it better than we do and they know VERY well how to fight in it. It is beyond arrogance to believe we know better than the people who have been defeating invading armies for over 2000 years.

[bigtree]

2. right

to the Afghan people: 'We don't seek to dominate you, but we won't leave until you do what we want.'

[bigtree]

3. .