Afghanistan Strategy Review
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-12-15/afghanistan-strategy-review
The White House review of President Obama’s war strategy in Afghanstan is setting the stage for troop withdrawals next July. The new assessment cites progress in pushing the Taliban out of key population centers in the south. But it also highlights remaining challenges, chief among them the safe havens in the border region of Pakistan. Two new U.S. intelligence reports paint a gloomier picture of the war and the risks of the Taliban returning to parts of the country. The administration suffered a diplomatic setback on Monday with the loss of the U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke. Diane and her guests discuss the status report on the Afghanistan war.
Guests
James Kitfield
senior correspondent, The National Journal.
Bill Harris
former senior U.S. civilian representative, Kandahar Province and a retired career member of the U.S. Senior Foreign Service.
Jessica Mathews
president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Andrew Exum
fellow at the Center for New American Security. He blogs at CNAS.org and is the author of "This Man's Army." He served as a civilian adviser to General McChrystal and was an Army Ranger, serving two tours in Afghanistan.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Rather than talking about what to do in Afghanistan, we need to seriously discuss what and why we are still there. Forty five million living in poverty in the US versus chasing several hundred terrorist for a trillion dollars is not a good choice. I now hear a drum beat starting to broaden the invasion to Pakistan. It is time to stop the perpetual war and figure out a new strategy.
Brian
One of my friends has a son that is a fireman. He is thinking seriously about going to Afghanistan as a civilian contractor. How safe are the men & women that do this?
Diane,
I am shocked by the comments of your guests. They keep talking about the Taliban like it some foreign force. The Taliban are the people, and they look at the US as an occupying force who must be fought. There is absolutely no history of a foreign occupier imposing their will on the Afghan people. Your commentators, except for one are just parroting the official US government line. We have not improved the daily life of the Afghan people, as a matter of fact we have only brought poverty, violence, and devastation to the average Afghani.
Keith M. Jordan
Cleveland, Ohio
What are the alternatives to a military war in Afghanistan? We have a history of abandoning Afghanistan. Is there something we could do now that doesn't require war that would be helpful?
Where is the voice for peace on your show this morning Diane? I love listening to your program, but was so upset I felt compelled to turn the radio off.
Your panel is discussing the strategy of murder. How many of us do they kill, how many of them do we kill? Have your guests have no respect for human life, has our government? Success in this war should be mourned as equally as failure. America has closed her eyes to the truth. This war is a tragedy, a travesty, and a waste.
I agree with the caller that this discussion is insane. This war is not making us safer. On the contrary, it is turning Afghan civilians and the muslim world in general against us. We have lost sight of the reason we went there: to capture Bin Laden. Why are we just talking about the Taliban? What had they to do with 9/11? Nobody has mentioned Al Qaeda yet, which has just got stronger since 9/11.
We seem to have completely lost sight of our original objectives. Did not we set out to neutralize Osama bin Laden and his friends? Not all Taliban may be friendly with him. Why are we fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, while Hamid Karzai is trying to get them on board of his government?
As the Romans did 2000 years ago, we shall find out soon that partners of necessity are of limited value.
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2010/09/teutoburg-forest-mind.html
If an American asks a local Afghan if they like the Taliban, do you think they are going to give an honest answer?
My 43 yr old brother is going to Afghanistan in April in the Naval Civil Engineer Corp. as part of Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands Program.
He sees this as opportunity to make a difference helping the people of Afghanistan. His greatest concern is that it will have little impact because the lack of effective government.
I agree with many of the comments here. I am glad I'm not the only listener to think this way.
Why is there no one on the panel representing the majority opinion of Americans? That is, why is there no one representing the point of view the the US should withdraw its military forces? All they have is apologists for the current policy, or those who are mildly critical and simply want slight revisions to the current policy! This is shameful and frankly ridiculous. And it's an ongoing problem every single time the issue of the Afghan War (as well as the Iraq War ) is addressed on this program. There are plenty of well-spoken members of the peace movement, peace organizations, and respected columnists that represent that point of view on the program. Yet none are present. There is no excuse here.
The problem here becomes clear in the response (or lack thereof) to the caller on this recent segment -- who described himself (rightly) as an "average American" -- who asked what he could do to end the war. The guests did not really address the question. That is because they could not; they don't want to end the war, but to continue the current war policy.
As a long time listener, I weary of these repeated conversations that exclude any real discussion of withdrawal. I am turning this off and looking for intelligent discussion of the war elsewhere.
Diane,
I listen to your show all the time and I am very happy to get the views discussed daily.
However, I continuously hear a comment that Afghanistan is America's longest war on your show as well as other news programs. Speaking as a Viet Nam veteran, I do not think this is true. Viet Nam started in 1955 (some say later in the 50's) and ended in 1975. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Raymond Tyrell
Beaufort, NC
I haven’t heard this much sophistry since the flimsy Gulf of Tonkin excuse and the domino theory.
I had the same reaction as many who have posted here. Listening to this segment was like listening to a discussion in an insane asylum, with everyone pretending that the most bizarre assumptions and behavior were normal.
And besides our warfare, mostly illegal, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, we get a constant push from groups inside the Beltway to attack Iran and Pakistan! Nobody seems to be aware that we are following bin Laden's publicly stated plan to the letter, that it is working even better than he hoped, to have us bleed ourselves to death the way the Soviets did.
Also, in terms of time-table, we are actually about to start our *fourth* decade of chaos and fighting in Afghanistan, going back to 1979/1980 when Zbigniew Brezezinzki persuaded President Carter to entice the the Soviets into invading, that it would produce a Vietnam-like disaster for them. Talk about blow-back to us!
All the major responsible media seem to be co-opted into treating our Iraq/Afghanistan warfare as rational and necessary. I suppose it becomes impossible to state every day that the emperor has no clothes, when the emperor and his Washington supporters act every day as if he does.
If a big part of the surge strategy is to gain the faith of the people through the flooding of the Taliban strongholds with governance, how can it work when the people see the U.S. forces as a passing fase. The people are looking to their long term safety and security, and they can't put their faith in a force that announces it will leave by 2014. The Taliban will be around for a long time, so their obvious choice is to put their money in the Taliban.
Christian Ronnow
Salt Lake City, Ut
I will always love Diane Rehm (our host) unconditionally, but for once I have to second what HARPER has pointed out about the guests not being representative of the opinion of the informed public. (What was that the Carnegie Endowment claims to be for? International Peace? The left hand is estranged from the right.) Holbrooke's last words: "You've got to end this war in Afghanistan."
There are mant guests that could articulate the case for peace now. I blame American University and the management of WAMU. Take Diane off the leash, Mark and company. We are tired to death of corporate war lobbyists.
be the first one on your block to have your boy-girl-to come home in a box it didnt work with soviets.so let bankrupt america-ho knows we can sell our souls to the chinks-and we will all live under a tree-i love being broke all the time don't you-feeding the whole world-having every country hate us-ya thats the american way