Holla Atchya! My name is David Wallace Bennett and I have recently been invited to comment on Our Political Ramblings, an invitation I accepted with glee. You may find my posts and comments to be a bit jocular at times, but hopefully I'll have something of value to add, on occasion. I grew up in Massachusetts and currently attend school in Utah.
I have been thinking heavily about the War in Afghanistan this week (I have been pondering the past seven days, not thinking exclusively about the happenings of the war that transpired during this week, peradventure you were confused) and I have been reading the New York Times, specifically in regards to President Obama's speech. While my opinions are still in the developmental phase (likened unto dough that has yet to rise, but is still malleable)- I do have some thoughts.
#1) The war in Afghanistan will not be won militaristically. Like the Gadianton Robbers of olden days (are you people LDS?) the Taliban may die out only to return again. Their extreme ideas and intense hatred will just resurface after the US declares the 'Mission Accomplished.' They are not like the Tamil Tigers with a finite location and limited members. I agree that we can weaken their forces and destroy their top commanders, but unlike Nazi Germany they cannot be entirely annihilated.
#2) Afghanistan will be won in other ways. For starters, Hamid Karzai needs to get the heck out of there; OR, as an optimist, I believe he can clean his act up. The poor Afghani's don't know if they should support a Taliban governement or a corrupt Karzai government. Like all of us, Karzai needs to decide where his morals lie. If they are not with furthering his country and ending corruption, the drug trade and the Taliban, he needs to bow out. With a clean governemnt the people will be more united and able to withstand the Taliban. With this will come a significantly greater enthusiasm from the Afghanis to support their country and destroy the Taliban. That will win the war. Secondly, the Afghani's need an alternative to the drug trade. With its enticing lucre it's hard to say no. Opium is destroying the country through its users, producers, and sellers. In my seventh grade health class I was taught the number one reason teenagers started marijuana was boredom. The Afghani's need something to do! Ideas circulating in my head include teaching them to blog, build violins, speak Bulgarian, or introducing them to space exploration. Wars like this one where the opponents are 'enemy combatants' are won through dispelling ignorance and gaining the approbation of the native people. I hope Obama's surge will focus not so much on blowing things up, but more on educating and replacing.
Thanks for letting me write on this blog. You are welcome to visit my more regular blog if you'd like: http://dwbennett.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
David, I'm honored to be the first to formally welcome you to the almost world-famous Political Ramblings blog. Holla! We're excited to have you, though I'm sure none are more excited than Creighton. The poor guy has had to put up with a bunch of heartless, brainless conservatives for quite some time now. Anyway, I understand you are related to Sen. Bennett. My wife and I were in their ward in Arlington as I was interning for him on the Hill during the spring semester of 08. I've got nothing but respect for him, not only as a boss and a statesman, but also as a gospel doctrine teacher extraordinaire, historian, and family man.
You bring up good points about Afghanistan. Historically, it has always been incredibly resistant to military occupations - ask the Soviets who gave up after about a decade. 9 years after 9/11, it's looking like nothing has changed. And in terms of "enemy combatant" hatred toward us yankees, you correctly note that it won't go away if we completely withdraw. (nice Gadianton analogy, btw) That is naive and wishful thinking. However, I think there is some truth to the argument that our presence over there is a rallying cry for "enemy" recruiters. On the other hand, however, a complete withdrawal would open the door to future terrorist safe havens from where they will launch attacks against us.
So what to do if there are problems with both a full withdrawal and a prolonged occupation?
I try to be optimistic. I know the situations are different, but there were plenty of pessimists when things looked really bad in Iraq before the troop surge. Things are looking tons better there now. I have faith in our military and its commanders, but you're right that until they have more support and cooperation from the Afghan people and especially the currently corrupt government, military efforts only get us so far.
My biggest gripe with Obama's speech this week - at enemy headquarters according to Chris Matthews - was that he said that he will implement the 30K troop surge, but in the same breath said that he'll pull the troops out in 18 months. Huh?? I don't like the message that sends to our enemies, who are surely thinking, "Sweet! We've held them off this long, what's another 18 months? Muaaaahahaha!" Perhaps worse, what message is that sending to the Afghans? (On a side note, 18 months is politically convenient for Obama, who faces reelection shortly thereafter)
I realize that we can't stay there forever and that we need to set certain benchmarks and timetables for success, but I think it's very bad form to show your hand to the "enemy" in this incredibly high stakes poker game, if you will. As usual, apologies for the long-winded commentary.
So Dave and I were companions for four months June - October 2006 in Mesa Arizona where we lived in the Mullet. It was literally a business in the front part of the house, and obviously a party in the back part of the house (where we lived.)
I know a lot of people didn't like how Pres. Obama took so much time, but I've already made it clear that I did. I think it was important to weigh all possible options, and take enough time to make the right decision. We've been there for 8 years already, 2 more months didn't really have that much of an impact in my opinion.
I was listening to an interview tonight on NPR with the ambassador to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, his name slips me at the moment. The interviewer asked him what he thought about the comparison between this and Vietnam. He said something like this; "the similarity is we're fighting a people who have a hiding place to fall back on like the vietkong(no idea how to spell that.) However, the one difference is that the vietkong in Northern Vietnam posed no direct threat to the US...the Taliban and Al Quaida do." I think it was important that Pres. Obama make sure there was a drawout date, showing Americans we will surge, and then begin to draw our troops out showing this is not a war without end. Secretary Clinton said that this pull-out date was not without condition however, if it is obvious that withdrawing at that time would be detrimental to US security, we will not do it. I think this is a good, balanced plan. We are already sending in people to help build Afghan school, teach Afghan farmers to farm something other than Poppies (Devin's uncle and Chris's brother Dave is just about to head over there to teach them that.) I think we will win in Afghanistan, and I think America will be safer because of it. Might I add that this should have been completed in 2002, not 2009. But due to some misleading information, false accusations, and an entirely false premise for waging war against another country that took up most of our resources, we allowed the taliban and al quaida to survive and become stronger. But looking forward, I believe we will prevail.
The main thing I don't get is why doesn't Pres. Obama just fire Gen. McChrystal? To me this whole thing was a sign that Obama doesn't trust the judgment of the man expected to run the whole thing. If Obama trusted the McChrystal, he either wouldn't have needed to second guess him or they would have ultimately reached the same conclusion.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that McChrystal has since come around, that he can win with only 30K troops. While I recognize it as a possibility, I don't think it's the most likely one. But I really don't know (for once, lol), I guess we'll just have to wait and see huh?
One other nagging concern I have: I think it's just too easy for Obama to say "I consulted with experts." The real question to me is whether he actually followed their advice or not? I honestly have no idea.
A few things . . .
1. Obama's "dithering" - the recommendation was made in August, it is now December. That's 4 months. I respect that he made an "informed" decision, but 4 months?? I didn't expect him to make a decision the next day, but come on, 4 months is way more than enough time to become "informed." My theory is that he was wrestling with Biden and calculating the political consequences (with his liberal left constituency) of a troop surge.
2. Assurances from Secretary of State Clinton mean nothing. She isn't the commander-in-chief, Obama is. It's his decision ultimately, not hers.
3. Creighton, you say that Afghanistan should have been won in 2002, but then go on to blame failure in Afghanistan on Bush and the Iraq War, surprise surprise. We didn't go into Iraq until 2003 - that's when the Argentines started spitting on us American missionaries anyway (seriously). So how could a war that started in 2003 possibly have prevented victory in Afghanistan that you think should have occurred in 2002? That makes no sense.
4. Jeff, about McChrystal ... it would look really bad for Obama if he would have fired him. He had just barely appointed him as commander on the Afghan front! No one on this planet knows more about this style of warfare than McChrystal. So even though Obama probably wanted to fire him and find a general more willing to conform a military strategy to Obama's political goals, he knew he couldn't do that. And if McChrystal did really "come around" as you say, I'm sure it wasn't without a lot of intense pressure from the administration.
Okay okay cross-examiner. Consider my comment to be revised to 4 months and 2003. I remember now it was march of 03 and august so 4 months. However my opinions and reasons previously stated still stands.
Sorry Creighton, just keeping you honest :) Just another factual thing with the Iraq war to consider ... sorry, I'm in law school finals and over-analyzing everything.
Rumsfeld is the one who thought we could get in, get the job done, and get out with a minimal force of around 35-50K boots on the ground in Iraq. Looking back, he was wrong. Gen. Eric Shinseki was blackballed by Rumsfled for initially recommending a much more substantial force (at least 100K-150K) in order to secure the Iraqi army defectors and weapons before Al-Qaeda could move in and take advantage.
Because we had such a SMALL force, these measures weren't taken, and as a result, the insurgency really gained strength, making things difficult in Iraq. It wasn't until the recent troop surges - where we built up the troop numbers that Gen. Shinseki originally wanted - that the situation in Iraq dramatically improved.
These facts illustrate that the main problem with Iraq certainly wasn't that we were using too many resources, it's that we weren't using enough to begin with. Perhaps if we would have followed Shinseki's advice in the first place the Iraq War would have been over years ago.
This story also highlights the importance of listening to your generals, especially when they say you need a certain amount of troops to get the job done. If I remember correctly, McChrystal's recommendation was for 60-70K additional troops in Afghanistan. Obama is giving him half that.
For America's sake, I hope Obama isn't making the same mistake Rumsfeld did with Shinseki.
I give Pres. Obama high marks for his stated POLICY on Afghanistan.
The timetable was not hard-fast. Troops "start" withdrawing in 18 months. No specifics on the pace or when a withdrawal would be complete. Once the new troops are in place it will be three times the strength compared to the peak during Bush's term. Withdrawal of 10,000 would still leave plenty behind. So in this instance it was good that Pres. Obama left a rhetorical escape hatch.
What disappoints most is Pres. Obama's Bush-bashing. It was not presidential of him to blame the current situation on former Pres. Bush. Whether Pres. Obama is right or wrong about it doesn't matter - it does no good to cast the blame on the predecessor president. Pres. Obama shows disrespect for the office he holds and a complete lack of class when he whines on and on about Pres. Bush. That part of his speech came straight and unfiltered from Mr. Partisan, not Mr. President.
Still, I think his current Afghanistan Policy is a good one.
Okay now my turn to be the cross-examiner.
Devin said "This story also highlights the importance of listening to your generals, especially when they say you need a certain amount of troops to get the job done. If I remember correctly, McChrystal's recommendation was for 60-70K additional troops in Afghanistan. Obama is giving him half that." According to every source I could find, but I'll give you one, http://www.gallup.com/poll/124238/americans-split-afghanistan-troop-increase-decrease.aspx, McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops. Obama promised 30k and asked for other countries to step up their efforts, already securing another few thousand, thus coming pretty close to the 40k asked for.
The other thing I wanted to mention was General McChrystals actual statement. Here is a part of that. "The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."
You also expressed concern about the timetable, this is what General McChrystal had to say about that. "Shortly after Obama's speech, Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters, "I am absolutely supportive of the timeline," and that the time ahead would be used to build up Afghan forces to convince the people of this war-ravaged country that they can eventually take care of their own security." That came from FoxNews.com by the way, fair and balanced. (If you can imagine me right now, I'm sticking my thumb in a downward fashion and blowing air out of my mouth with my tongue inbetween my lips making a phhhhhttttfff sort of sound, signifying my opinion that foxnews is the farthest thing from fair and balanced.)
I want to point out that a lot of liberals and democrats are not very happy with the decision Obama has made to step up troop levels. If he was the narcissistic, self-serving, one-sided president you make him out to be, he surely would have pulled our troops out. So give the man some credit, he did what he thought was right, even though it cost him some popularity points with the democrats.
And I agree with Chris, Obama should have left the Bush bashing up to someone else like me.
Touchay Creighton, nice job. Are you sure med school is where you belong? Haha. Don't ask me where 60-70K came from (that's why I said "if I remember correctly"). I'll have more time to double check myself after finals are over. I apologize, please forgive me.
And I'm not too surprised McChrystal is extra supportive of Obama to the press. I'm sure Obama gave him a pretty good talking to after he came out and publicly criticized Obama for ignoring him a few months ago. That's what it looked like anyway with the pic on air Force One. He's wised up since then. I'm glad the Pres and the general are back on the same page though.
I give Obama credit for making a tough decision that he knew would be unpopular with his base. He made sure to give the base plenty of ammo though in that speech with all the Bush bashing.
But the idea that this one-time decision definitively proves that Obama is NOT narcissistic, self-centered, etc made me laugh. (If you can imagine me right now, I'm slapping my knee, throwing my head back, holding my side, and laughing out loud, signifying I thought that was hilarious) I'd be here all night listing OTHER decisions he's made and things he's done that makes me, and many others, think otherwise.
I can imagine that actually, that was quite descriptive, so thank you. Well sometimes I get a little overambitious with my claims. Because I actually still think he's a little bit on the narcissistic side. You know this guy loves the spotlight. I fully expect him to start hosting things like the grammy's, academy awards show, and possibly even Miss America. It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Couple things: 1) technically I think both of you were right about McChrystall's request, it was 40,000-80,000. But I think Devin was closer to what he wanted because obviously he wants as many troops as he could get so he was probably hoping for 60-70K rather than >40K.
2) fyi "touche'" is how you spell that word, lol. I believe it's French.
3) just because all there were a few Democrats who weren't ecstatic about this decision doesn't mean Obama wasn't pandering or manuevering. Don't you think it's interesting that his deadline was right around re-election time? To say that he "did what he thought was right" is giving him a little too much credit.
The ultimate bottom line, I think, is whether this strategy ACTUALLY WORKS. If it does then nobody will hardly remember or even care about the speech or all this other stuff, but if it doesn't...Obama's just screwed.
Post a Comment