Where Is The End In Afghanistan?

The New York Times has a tick-tock on the internal debate leading to the final Afghanistan strategy, and the story presumes a schism between Joe Biden and James Steinberg, arguing for a more limited role for US forces, and Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton, arguing for a more expansive one.

All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda, as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there.

The commanders in the field wanted a firmer and long-term commitment of more combat troops beyond the 17,000 that Mr. Obama had already promised to send, and a pledge that billions of dollars would be found to significantly expand the number of Afghan security forces.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed for an additional 4,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan — but only to serve as trainers. They tempered the commanders’ request and agreed to put off any decision to order more combat troops to Afghanistan until the end of this year, when the strategy’s progress could be assessed.

During these discussions, Mr. Biden was the voice of caution, reminding the group members that they would have to sell their plans to a skeptical Congress.

I think this depends on your meaning of the word "limited." Everyone in the room agreed with Biden about narrowing the focus to defeating Al Qaeda and dismantling their safe havens. But surely that is not a limited goal. And the lack of a defined exit strategy doesn't exactly presume some limited commitment. Under the terms of this plan, we will be in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a long time, and we will find it harder to extricate ourselves, as such an exit is based on a very shaky Afghan security force and a buy-in from a Pakistani government that apparently cannot be trusted.

Some in the administration are skeptical that the Pakistanis will meet their commitments under the new strategy. “You have people there who just lie to our face, like Zardari, who just lies to us,” said one official who requested anonymity, referring to the Pakistani president. “Honestly, I don’t believe there’s a war going on in the tribal areas. The Pakistanis tell us that, but they’re just baldfaced lies.” The official believes that U.S. diplomats in Pakistan accept Pakistani claims of maximal warfighting efforts at face value: “They don’t speak Urdu, they don’t speak Pashto, and they eat it all up.”

Yikes.

For what it's worth, both Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai praised the new plan, in particular the emphasis on increased foreign aid and economic development and the inclusion of a regional diplomatic component, with the notable addition of Iran at the negotiating table. Those actually are the positive signs of this plan, in my view. But I agree with Publius that a lot of this makes me a little queasy.

You're all familiar with the phrase "canary in the coal mine." The idea was that miners would bring canaries down into the mines as warning signals. When the air became toxic, the canaries would be affected first -- thus warning the miners of imminent danger.

With respect to the Afghanistan policy, the problem isn't that the "signaling" canaries are dropping dead. The problem is that they're too happy -- they're chirping with excessive mirth. Specifically, when Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, and the Post editorial board are all excited about the policy.... well, it might be time to get out of the mine [...]

This strategy seems extremely susceptible to morphing into an open-ended, long-term commitment without clear objectives. Frankly, I didn't see any exit strategy yesterday. I saw no verifiable metrics for determining whether we're achieving our objectives (and on that -- is the objective to disrupt al Qaeda, or to stabilize the government?). I've heard promises of benchmarks -- but nothing yet. And even assuming concrete benchmarks emerge, it's hard to believe we'll really pack up and leave if they're not met.

Let's be clear -- this is an escalation. It's a reasonable one, for now. But these things tend to snowball. To echo Robert Frost, way leads on to way. And if things deteriorate, or if our allies depart, it's easier to imagine that additional escalation (rather than minimalism) will follow. It's not that I don't believe in the goal -- I'm just skeptical that increased military efforts are capable of achieving these goals.

While I disagree with Publius that the objective is unclear, I can certainly see Obama getting boxed in if the mission fails - his newfound neocon friends will push him to commit more troops and treasure, operating on the sunk-cost principle, and wanting to be seen as a strong President, he'll do so. They have a word for leaders like that: Lyndon Johnson.

Obama enters into this with a public fairly wary of an escalating commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan. They support the President personally, and as he explained it on Friday they will support his mission in the short term. But as the days drag on, and the end appears further and further from view, war fatigue and the concern over the economy will make it very difficult to sustain that support at home. Ultimately, some will start talking about "containment" and when we can bring the troops home and turn this into a law enforcement and intelligence mission. And I don't know what Obama's answer would be.

SOFA Compliance FTW

Antiwar groups aren't going to quibble about three months in the initial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Where they will have an issue is if the Administration doesn't abide by the bilateral agreement on total withdrawal by the end of 2011:

“The fact that the President is sticking with a time-line that is at least close to the one he announced during the campaign is a good thing,” adds Tom Andrews, a former Congressman who is national director of the Win Without War coalition. “He was under tremendous pressure to back off of a time-line.”

There’s still the prospect of some more friction from the left, however. Antiwar leaders want to see a clearer sense of how many residual forces will remain — today’s Times suggested the possibility of as many as 55,000 — and what precisely their mission will be. They also want Obama to reaffirm his commitment to the Iraqi Parlimanent’s Status of Forces Agreement, which would set the end of 2011 as the deadline for all troops to be out.

“It’s important that the administration makes clear that it fully supports these firm deadlines,” Andrews continued. “And we need to be much clearer about the role the residual forces are going to have. We hope to see clarification when he makes his announcements.”

This is absolutely right. There are firm deadlines, the abrogation of which would be met with swift fury from the Iraqis and condemnation from the world community. Our troops would become targets once again and we would be illegal occupiers in a foreign land. I would be in the streets if Obama sought to delay total withdrawal.

But every indication is that, despite pushing from the generals, he will. The generals have in part a sincere belief that residual forces are needed to forestall chaos and in part a macho arrogant faith that only the military can solve problems. Both rely on false premises and should be rejected.

Ultimately, I think you'll see the antiwar community be much louder with respect to Afghanistan, especially as the death toll rises, than with respect to Iraq.

Antiwar Caucus United; Actual Filibusters To Come?

It's hard to separate the good legislation from the good words when it comes to Iraq, but the news that the Out Of Iraq Caucus is on board with the latest bill helps me make my decision.

Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.

The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.

The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008 [...]

A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."

The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.

"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."

Versions of this legislation have passed over and over again, only to falter in the Senate. Again, Harry Reid is SOUNDING tough, saying that "the president won't get his $50 billion" if he rejects the bill, but the proof is in the action. And forcing a real-deal filibuster would be a good place to start.

Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.

That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the chamber, said a forced filibuster is “possible” and would “generate attention.”

“We want to go to the bill, and [Republicans] have to decide initially whether they want us to go to the bill,” Durbin said. “I wouldn’t call it theatrics.”

Everyone needs to know exactly who is holding up the end of this occupation and an overall shift in strategy. Huckleberry Graham can start reading the dictionary and Mitch McConnell can sing a capella, for all I care.

They're Fighting For Your Right To Ban Them For Saying "Stop The Fighting."

Turning free speech and the notion of a military defending American Constitutional rights completely on its head, a Veteran's Day parade in Long Beach banned antiwar veteran's groups from appearing on Saturday.

A participation application filed by Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out was turned down because organizers want Saturday's parade free from politics.

"They do not fit the spirit of the parade, the spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done," said Martha Thuente, coordinator for the nonprofit Veterans Day Parade Committee.

"We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq," she added.

Now, you don't have an inalienable right to march in a parade. But Veterans For Peace WAS allowed to march in the same parade last year. Not to mention the fact that plenty of the groups marching on Saturday have advocated an explicit political agenda in the past. The VFW and the American Legion have made plenty of public pro-war statements over the years, that would seemingly conflict with this expressed belief that only "nonpartisan" groups be allowed to show their pride in wearing the uniform.

Contact information for the Long Beach Veteran's Day Parade is here. It is impossible and even dangerous to sanitize democracy of any political thought because some arbitrary official deems it "inappropriate."

Welcome To The New World Order

Apparently, activists like Retired Col. Ann Wright and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink are being denied access to Canada because of their misdemeanor arrests for things like disorderly conduct during antiwar protests.

As Rick Perlstein notes, this is really something:

This is a horrifying development for human rights. This is a horrifying indication of the moral wasting visited upon the world by an American conservative movement invested with governing power. And, last but not least, this is a sad step backward for Canada's proud history history of refusing to be intimidated by the United States.

In one of the last issues of Lingua Franca, I wrote about a very fine little academic study entitled Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canda, by John Hagan. American officials were outraged when Canadians asserted their sovereign right not to turn back war resisters. But Canada refused to be bullied. Those days, apparently, are over: America says jump; Canada answers, "How high?"

I'm sure Bush-lite Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has something to do with this. It's pretty dispiriting.