What's Next for U. S. Strategy in Afghanistan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-22/whats-next-u-s-strategy-afghanistan
Eighteen months ago, President Obama ordered a surge of 30,000 U. S. troops into Afghanistan. Tonight, he is expected to announce his decision about the pace and scope of bringing them home. Following the death of Osama bin Laden and a decade of war, more Americans than ever say they want our troops out of Afghanistan. Some experts claim drones and special forces can keep the Taliban and al Qaeda at bay. But others say security and corruption are still a concern. And while political talks show promise, they worry the Afghan insurgency is far from over. Diane and her guests discuss the risks and benefits of reversing the surge in Afghanistan.
Guests
David Ignatius
columnist, The Washington Post; contributor to “Post Partisan” blog on washingtonpost.com. His latest book is titled "Bloodmoney: A Novel of Espionage."
Lt. Gen. David Barno
former Commander of the Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, 2003-2005 and Senior Advisor at the Center for a New American Security.
Phyllis Bennis
director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies; co-author author of "Ending the U.S. War in Afghanistan: A Primer"
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The quote of the percent of Americans who oppose troops in Afghanistan is misleading. Some 40% of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 so of course it's hard for them to understand why we're in Afghanistan.
thanks for having Phyllis Bennis on, please consider devoting a whole program to her
views of current affairs, both domestic and foreign
The problem with our president is he is incapable of bold decisions. As the professional candidate he is out of his element in the governing role. We cannot expect anything from him except making things worse as he as demonstrated in his job performance to date. If he is not the worst president ever he is right up there with them.
So the people who work to make huge profits for corporations are required to give up 27% of their income to taxes that are sent as foreign aid to wealthy foreigners to buy their friendship.
Everyone knows what kind of friends have to be bought - and where they are when their assistance is needed - gone - that is what kind of friends are bought.
Caller mentioned that war in Iraq was due to 9/11 - - please correct him. War in Afag.was due to 9/11 and War in Iraq was admin. misleading american people. Very different. thanks, Tara
Your guests who argue that the Afghans can’t sustain an army to defend their nation without U.S. help are in need of a reality check. The Afghans are perfectly capable of defending themselves without the assistance of foreign troops. They did so against the Soviet Union, and they are doing so against the U.S. and NATO today. The problem is we are supporting an “army” that does not have the support of the Afghan people, riven with enlistees who quickly desert or are agents of our enemies.
There may be hell to pay after we withdraw, as there was in Vietnam. But the reason for that will not be our withdrawal, but the fact we invaded in the first place. If we don’t want any more 9/11’s, the key is not trying to keep Al Qaeda and its ilk taking root there. The key is withdrawing our troops from the entire area, so that groups like Al Qaeda, or the regimes of countries like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. will have no reason to attack us.
I have yet to hear anyone (here or elsewhere) talk honestly about what is going to happen in Afghanistan after we leave. The Taliban's website displays dozens of videos of grisly executions which leave no doubt as to how they treat those whom they deem collaborators. This will include every Afghan who ever worked as a translator for an NGO, every Afghan who drove a supply truck for the coalition so he could feed his family, and every parent who had the termerity to want an education for his or her daughter. It is simply perverse to say that the situation in Afghanistan will improve when this group is again in control of the country.
Of course, they may not regain control--poll after poll shows that the Taliban remain profoundly unpopular with most Afghans and even with most Pashtuns. But then we are faced with what is maybe an even worse possibility: another civil war which will rival the chaos of the late '80s and early '90s which gave rise to the Taliban in the first place. Is that is our best interest? And don't forget that it was partly our abandonment of Afghanistan in the late '80s that helped bring about that chaos. Do we want to make the same mistake again?
Yes the cost is great, but there is no alternative--not only to we bear a moral responsibility not to abandon the Afghans to their fate, but our strategic interests will not be enhanced by what all the world will perceive as a military defeat. What will become of unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan, with its neighbor either in chaos, or ruled by triumphant Taliban regime?
Abandoning Afghanistan is a recipe for humanitarian and strategic disaster.
Anyone who believes that Afghanistan is a problem limited to current President Obama is a fool.
Afghanistan is the product of our dysfunctional political system where, every four years, citizens replace the leader of a corrupt and immoral political party with the leader of a different (but essentially the same) corrupt and immoral political party to become Commander in Chief.
The things I dislike about Obama are present in every (except Ron Paul) republican candidate. The difference between democratic and republican candidates is so small (both pro tax cuts, both pro war, both pro big business etc. etc.) as to be laughable.
The wars will continue until the big banks can no longer make money off of them. Democrat or republican- it makes no difference.
We could wait a billion years and the generals would still advise us to stay.
What is so wrong about Afghan government officials becoming rich by stealing from funds meant to help their people?
Sounds like they are getting ready to run for the U.S. Congress.
WillT26, well how about that we both like Ron Paul! I don't for a minute believe you would vote for him though.
Obama said he would rather be good one term president than a bad two term president. Looks like he's shooting for a little of both, a bad one term president.
Obama can execute a short one year withdrawal plan now, everyone knows will we have a presence there for decades into the future in any event. The man is incapable of decisive bold action. Certainly not my measure of a good leader.
monte on June 22, 2011 @ 10:30 am wrote: "The problem with our president is he is incapable of bold decisions."
Yeah, like the way he failed to make the bold decision to deal with the Somali pirates who had hijacked that freighter during his first months in office. Or the way he failed to make the bold decision to kill Bin Laden when we had the chance. Or, . . . .
Oh, wait, never mind!
WillT26 on June 22, 2011 - 12:34 pm wrote: "Afghanistan is the product of our dysfunctional political system. . . ."
No, Afghanistan is the product of an incompetent President (Bush the Second) who diverted resources and attention from a war of necessity (Afghanistan) to a war of choice (Iraq), and we're still paying for that folly!
(We're also still paying for other follies committed by that man, by his party, and by the philosophies of Reaganism.)
As for Ron Paul: he's another example of "stupidity masquerading as virtue". Fortunately he probably has as much chance of becoming President as I do. (And I'm not insane enough to run!)
Etaoin, "Yeah, like the way he failed to make the bold decision to deal with the Somali pirates who had hijacked that freighter during his first months in office. Or the way he failed to make the bold decision to kill Bin Laden when we had the chance. Or, "
Sorry I don't see these minor decisions as bold!!!! NOT even close!
monte on June 22, 2011 @ 1:59 pm wrote: "Sorry I don't see these minor decisions as bold!!!! NOT even close!"
Funny, because when Clinton failed to make the decision to "take out" Bin Laden when he had the chance conservatives never failed to condemn him for it (forgetting, of course, that their "beloved" Bush the Second also failed to do that when he had the chance, and he did so for the same reasons as Clinton). But, of course, now that Obama has truly accomplished that mission, you pooh-pooh it.
You know, monte, you really should try to make my task of proving you're a mindless partisan ideologue a little bit difficult!
MY QUESTION IS WHY DOES OBAMA CONTINUE TO BE SO MEEK IN HIS RESPONSE TO WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE US CITIZENS WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN AFGHANISTAN? WHY WON'T HE TAKE A COURAGEOUS STANCE ON THIS ISSUE?
Etaoin Shrdlu 2 wrote:" You know, monte, you really should try to make my task of proving you're a mindless partisan ideologue a little bit difficult!"
It's easy for you because you yourself are a "mindless partisan ideologue" It's obvious your out of ideas when you start hurling personal insults at me.
I will give the man credit where credit is do, if he does something worthy of high praise I will indeed praise him.
I would be interested in knowing what the guests think will be the fate of the one American POW, Bowe Bergdahl, currently held by the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is rarely mentioned by the national media, but we hear about him on occasion here in Idaho as it is his home state. He was recently promoted for the second time while in captivity.
I think it is just disgraceful how Phyllis Bennis acted as an apologist for the Taliban in this discussion. It is the thugs who set out IEDs on the roads who are responsible for killing innocent civilians, not the American soldiers who use those roads. And how many of those 100,000 contractors she mentions actually work for AID, as part of Province Reconstruction Teams ? It is just another example of the selfishness and invincible ignorance of the Vietnam era peace activists who never, ever took responsibility for the suffering THEY caused by their indifferent cowardice in the Third World. The little guy with a donkey and his wife in a burkha is not our enemy. The Taliban will never be our friend, and the Taliban will never be a force for good in Afghanistan.