Arrested Development - Ex-Pats Mexico

On another thread, some members were reminiscing about William Buckley and the role he played in advocating conservative values and positions in a civil manner. Charles Krauthammer, in my opinion is the closest conservatives' have today to fill his shoes. Unfortunately, while Buckley relied heavily upon personal charm to lull opponents and woo those in the middle, Krauthammer frequently uses sarcasm and cynicism to make his case. While not defending his tactics, at least he is no more egregious than his peers on both sides of today's political spectrum. Some may find the below article as a typical attack on the Obama administration. One very prominent member of this listserve has written that she never reads anything with Krauthammers' byline. I think she is missing out on a lot, just as did I when I demonstrated against Buckley's invitation to speak at my college in 1966. It would have enhanced my education had I gone inside the lecture hall and listened rather than exercise my right to protest. Just sayin'.

The three envelopes

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 30, 2009

Old Soviet joke:

Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.

"Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress."

Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed, duty -- to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.

There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint."

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light footprint. For obvious reasons: less risk and fewer losses for our troops, while reducing the intrusiveness of the occupation and thus the chances of creating an anti-foreigner backlash that would fan an insurgency.

This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time, most especially Centcom commander (2003-2007) Gen. John Abizaid. And Abizaid was no stranger to the territory. He speaks Arabic and is a scholar of the region. The overriding idea was that the light footprint would minimize local opposition.

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it proved wrong. The strategy failed. Not just because the enemy proved highly resilient but because the allegiance of the population turned out to hinge far less on resentment of foreign intrusiveness (in fact the locals came to hate the insurgents -- al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan -- far more than us) than on physical insecurity, which made them side with the insurgents out of sheer fear.

What they needed, argued Gen. David Petraeus against much Pentagon brass opposition, was population protection, i.e., a heavy footprint.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently, when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time but that ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.

You made your point well about listening and reading before protesting.

Couple of inaccuracies in the article.

First, Obama hasn't been president for a year. I don't see how any of the mess he inherited could have seen resolution in the time he's been in office. His critics, however, just can't wait that long to throw the rotten tomatoes.

Second, the "surge", nor anything else we've done in Iraq, has not brought about peace in that country. The killing continues.

Third, the situation existing in the economy at the time Obama took office was approaching hopeless, and the previous administration has a heavy burden of blame for it. So, credit should go when it's due, and blame should go the same route.

Fourth...getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place was a mistake. Where to go from here is anyone's guess, and I don't think there is a good solution, for the U.S.

IMO, the "three envelopes" comparison is lame brained. Buckley would have done much better.
Here I must add that I seldom agreed with Buckley about anything at all, but I would be glad to see anyone of his caliber representing the reasonable conservatives. What's going on now is a barroom brawl.

Another thing which is against any new political force is the resistance of the bureaucracy and military. This is of course common in any democracy, but I don't think anyone anticipated the size and power that bureaucracies have achieved in the 21 st century. The problem is that Obama deals with this level of government at a senior level, and majority of the top personell are in fact senior in years (most likely male, and white, but that is a whole separate issue). So any changes, however slight, are more likely to be met with 'that's the way we have always done it', or the classic 'we tried that once and it didn't work'. Change would invalidate the past decisions that these senior bureaucrats made to get where they are now. It is not ideological politics at play, but sheer power politics.

It is too bad, because that's what Obama is all about -hope for the future, change and the youth (who adore him). Stalin would have not used 'envelopes', he would fired the whole lot of the mentally constipated old bastards in charge, and replaced them with not necessarily young people, but with people with the drive, determination and ceaseless energy it is going to take to sort out the giant mess.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and it's relevance, it's decline and it's possible disappearance?

While NATO's 28 member countries grapple with how to improve their chances of beating the Taliban, the alliance is facing growing criticism over how the mission has been conducted and whether it can go on for much longer.
However, they endorsed a recent assessment by ISAF's commander, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that tens of thousands of additional troops are needed or NATO will lose to the Taliban... but stopped short of committing more troops.

Rick Hillier, a retired Canadian general provides a written attack on the alliance's performance in Afghanistan from his time there as commander of ISAF.
"The mission's leadership is "abysmal," he writes. Staff at NATO's headquarters in Kabul "had no strategy, no clear articulation of what they wanted to achieve, no political guidance and few forces.
"
Afghanistan has shown that the alliance has become "a corpse, decomposing," Hillier concludes. "Unless the alliance can snatch victory out of feeble efforts, it's not going to be long in existence in its present form."

Ret. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, a Canadian who worked with the alliance in the early 1990s has voiced similar concerns.

Unity of command has proved elusive, as has co-ordination between NATO and EU efforts.

* Canada has pledged to stop its military operations there by the end of 2010.
* The Dutch parliament passed a motion earlier this month barring the renewal of its Afghan presence.
* And Denmark's leader recently said his country's commitment depends on whether Afghanistan's Nov. 7 presidential runoff goes well.
* Many European countries may follow whatever Germany decides to do and it's a tough slog in Germany.."The image of German soldiers killing civilians haunts the debate, given their history."

Obama is said to be waiting for Afghanistan's political situation to stabilize, before announcing whether he will grant McChrystal's request for more troops.

Already the U.S. has about as many soldiers in Afghanistan as the other 41 countries participating in ISAF put together.

Dan Hamilton, a NATO expert at the Center for Transatlantic Relations said.."Afghanistan is the most acute and direct security threat to Europeans and North Americans that we face in the world today, if we aren't able to master our most direct challenge, then what's the alliance for?"

Read the whole article for a clearer picture as to how it relates to the o.p.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... pStoriesV2

"But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes."

Sure, that is one perspective and more polite than Cheney's claim of "dithering". I disagree with the premise that Obama is is not facing his responsibility as commander in chief as far as AfPak is concerned. I myself subscribe to this point of view:

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,” Obama pledge to 3,000 marines, naval officers and their families who packed into an airplane hangar at the Naval Air Station here. “And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt. Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, and the defined goals, as well as the equipment and support that you need to get the job done.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... B76942D1D2

His decision is coming soon and, as always, it will probably be attacked by the right, the left and everyone in between. Whatever the decision is, I for one believe America (and the world), is better off having Obama be the one to make it rather than the alternative reality of a GOP victory last November wherein McCain or, halloween horror, Palin would've been the one to make the decision.