What in God's Name is Condi Rice Talking About? Posted by Patrick Barry

One Iraq analogy that does apply pretty neatly to the Afghanistan situation is that in both cases, you can count on screwball conservatives to take a debate and depict it in utterly black and white terms, no matter how nuanced, multi-faceted and careful it actually is.  Ben Frumin flags Condi Rice's latest interview in Fortune, that hot-house of crack journalism, as evidence of this phenomenon:

"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."

If memory serves me correctly, the last time we left Afghanistan and we abandoned Pakistan, was not actually before 9/11, but when Condi and the Bush administration invaded Iraq.  Though the U.S. was fortunate to avoid another catastrophic attack as a result of that neglect, it was more or less the consensus of the intelligence community that the decision to take their eye off the ball wound up increasing the terrorist threat from the region. 

But on a broader level, who exactly is talking about abandoning Afghanistan?? I'm pretty sure that for all the haranguing done by Michael, he's not ready to call for the U.S. to start packing its bags. He's just skeptical that the Administration has the right strategic grasp of the problem, and would like to see alternatives.  The same goes for a lot of my friends who question or even oppose the logic of further troop increases.  I don't see many of those people calling for a wholesale abandonment of Afghanistan.  Calls for increased foreign assistance, channeled through Afghan-run NGOs as a means of addressing root-causes of terrorism? Yes. Arguments for vigorous diplomacy aimed at creating a durable political solution to reduce extremism? Again, yes. But cutting and running? Ignoring Afghanistan until all of a sudden there's another 9/11? Who participating in the mainstream conversation is arguing that position?

All this leads me to two conclusions. First, that there is a legitimate debate, largely occurring in progressive circles, about our strategy for Afghanistan.  And second, that there is another debate taking place between people arguing for a never-ending war in Central Asia and their imaginary foils, who think we should run away.

Comments

[CIB OEF]

Really? We left Afghanistan then did we? Then how in the hell did I get a Combat Infantrybadge there in 2004 if we had abandoned it a year earlier?

[Zathras]

Well, if you "raise questions" without offering alternatives (note: this does not mean content-free catchphrases like "vigorous diplomacy"), you allow the other side to describe your position any way they want to. You can then jump up and down calling the other side mean, or crazy, or even unsophisticated about nuance. This may make you feel better, but it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Critics of the Obama administration's Afghan policy need to man up. Obviously, the risk in proposing an alternative plan is that if your ideas get adopted and don't work out well, you could get blamed for it. You might have to live with the charge that you promoted a policy that led to carnage in Afghanistan, or even a terrorist attack in the United States, for years. Too bad.

Look, criticism is easy. Anyone can do it. It's the people willing to stick their necks out on behalf of alternatives to a policy they don't think will work who add value to the public discussion about a very hard problem like Afghanistan. If you're not willing to do that, well, Wal-Mart is hiring.

[Juan]

So, the only legitimate debate is largely occurring in progressive circles? Everyone else is arguing with specters and apparitions.

Brilliant. Democracy Arsenal and its highly talented staff has demonstrated absolute mastery of all arguments and has clearly illustrated its point that there is not another soul in the world who has anything whatsoever of value to add to any conversation. It is becoming more and more clear to me with nearly every read why this is such a powerful and influential group.

I had been told that this was a space occupied by a lunatic fringe of the intellectually flawed, disingenuous arguers of dubious and specious ill-conceived theories. I had been led to believe that the contributors here possessed little or no real military experience and questionable credentials in the arena of foreign policy in general, but this posting has rendered all such suppositions completely moot! Now that I have been assured that by avoiding all other considerations and staying well within the only legitimate discussion of the question of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that being the one being held largely in progressive circles, I have essentially assured myself of being correct in any possible case.

Thank you, Patrick for your brilliance, your outstanding talent, your wonderful and undeniably thorough service to your country, and especially for the knowledge (which I shall carry with me now and forever) that the only real discussion of this, or I'm sure by extrapolation, any issue really largely exists only within progressive circles. It is only by sheer luck that I was wearing polarized lenses when I read the above, else I surely would have been struck blind by the brilliance of it all. To think that all this time, I suffered from the delusion that someone else may have had a valid point. I am forever in your debt for having freed me from any further duty to intellectual rigor.

As the Spartans would say, may you live forever, Sir.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[r4 software]

Hi,
I know What did Condi Rice actually say? “I conveyed the authorization of the administration …” She says she did not personally authorize waterboarding torture of prisoners. She simply told the people who were to do it that it was okay.