That Other War Posted by Michael Cohen

First, let me thank everyone for their comments on my posts from yesterday. Personal attacks aside, I actually agreed with a significant percentage of what people wrote. I hope people will stick around the site to see what else we have to say. In more case than not, we're on the same side here. Ok, on to today's blogging.

I'm a bit surprised that this story in Sunday's NYT about the failed U.S. war in Afghanistan didn't get more attention. I won't try to summarize the tale of missteps by the Bush Administration, although suffice to say it's as depressing as you might imagine.

At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator drone spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.

None of this should be terribly surprising. It was obvious 5 years ago that for its talk about democracy and stability in Afghanistan, they didn't really have the stomach to do the tough sort of nation-building necessary to stop the country from falling back into turmoil. The Administration's fixation on Saddam caused them to lose sight of a real potential for foreign policy success in Afghanistan. Imagine how much better off America would be today if that nation was on the path toward democracy. It's rather amazing in one respect. We dropped the ball on winning a smaller war in Afghanistan so that we could lose a much bigger and costlier war in Iraq. One line in particular, however, jumped out at me:

On May 1, hours before Mr. Bush stood beneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner, Mr. Rumsfeld appeared at a news conference with Mr. Karzai in Kabul’s threadbare 19th-century presidential palace. “We clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities,” he said. “The bulk of the country today is permissive, it’s secure.”

The Afghanistan announcement was largely lost in the spectacle of Mr. Bush’s speech. But it proved no less detached from events on the ground.

Amazing. This Administration seems to believe that as long as you say something resolutely and with vigor that's a policy - implementation be damned. It's policymaking by flagwaving. Or, as I prefer, the James Brown approach, namely "Talkin' Loud and Saying Nothing." These guys just don't seem to understand that words have consequences particularly in foreign policy. When other countries (or turbaned terrorist leaders) hear you talk tough and then see that you aren't willing to follow through with action, they tend to start questioning your trustworthiness and resolve.

The irony is that we went to war in Iraq in order to show the world how tough we were; to make enemies of America cower in fear at our extraordinary resolve. Instead, it's had the exact opposite effect - we look like a paper tiger unwilling to match our tough talk with tough action. One of the things I learned when I was speechwriting at State is that a)you should never say anything that you weren't prepared to back up with action and b) words have consequences, other countries are listening to what American leaders say and if your rhetoric doesn't match reality, it badly weakens your credibility and erodes your national interests.

It's a lesson that seems to elude this White House . . . well at least the tough talk got the President re-elected, I guess that makes it ok in the end.

Comments

[Sophia]

"Personal attacks aside, I actually agreed with a significant percentage of what people wrote."

Given the trivial nature of the discussion, I can see why you don't bother explaining which parts you agree with.

"I hope people will stick around the site to see what else we have to say."

From this, I'm assuming that you don't agree with the significant majority of comments pointing out in assorted ways just how much you have missed the point.

"In more case than not, we're on the same side here."

What's the basis for this statement?

[Don Bacon]

Perhaps the failed US war in Afghanistan isn't getting attention because the president has sent signals, like the recent executive order on Iraq, that dissent will be punished.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq . . .all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States . . . to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support . . . are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in . . .

Anyhow, the notion that the US coulda, woulda, shoulda built a new nation in Afghanistan with more efficient attention to detail is the same basic argument used to explain the Iraq fiasco, and Vietnam before that. Horsepucky.

The American people are looking for tough talk to get us out of war, not into it.

[masaccio]

Here's a thought for a blog post which will help all of us understand just where you are:

Should the United States should invade another country for any reason other than an imminent threat of attack by that country (not some inhabitant of that country) on the United States itself?

[Don Bacon]

"Should the United States should invade another country for any reason other than an imminent threat of attack by that country"?

Elective war is illegal under the United Nations Charter, the law of the land, irregardless of an imminent threat.

But isn't it reasonable that the US should attack if there is an imminent threat? "Imminent threat" needs to be defined, and that's difficult to do. Condi Rice, as National Security Advisor, said: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", which sounded to many (and was obviously meant to sound) like an imminent threat, and it worked. Now we're going through this again with Iran, except the "imminent threat" is to our best ally Israel. We don't have any mutual defense treaty with Israel, but we do with other countries and "an attack on one treaty member is an attack on all" or somesuch wording is in these treaties. Do the same conditions apply to "imminent threat"? Apparently, because "all options are on the table" in regard to Iran.

So, it seems to me, once you say elective war is an option then it becomes too easy to: "Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war" with a hoked-up imminent threat, as has been done.