Afghanistan: Republican Chairman Steele Stumbles, "Progressive" Reaction Fumbles (Mull)

EA correspondent Iosh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

It shouldn't be breaking news to anyone that the Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, said something stupid. His silliness is well known. Pretty much every time he opens his mouth in public, something bad happens to Republicans.

Only this time, his bumbling was somewhat relevant to us. Here's Chairman Steele on Afghanistan:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRmkef2wZo[/youtube]

The [General] McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders has with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.

Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. It was one of those areas of the total board of foreign policy [where] we would be in the background sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops.

But it was the President who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan...

That's a mess of a statement. Steele's decision to Rethink Afghanistan is very much appreciated, especially since he's joining the majority of Americans on that point of view, but unfortunately I'm not sure his comments are particu,larly helpful. They likely won't change a lot of minds, if any at all on his side of the political aisle.

What is of far more concern, however, is the reaction from the Democrats, and I'm sorry to say it isn't any better. If anything, it's worse than any of Steele's stumblings.

Steele's dialogue is a little unclear, but here are the points he made:

• The war in Afghanistan is Obama's choice


• Previously, the US had not "actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in" the war


• Obama campaigned against Iraq, while threatening to escalate in Afghanistan


• History teaches that engaging "in a land war in Afghanistan" is unwise and/or impossible


• There are alternatives to engaging in Afghanistan

With the exception of his "land war in Afghanistan" assertion, what he said was true.

Obviously, the war is Obama's choice. He's the Commander in Chief, and for the last several years Congress has all but abdicated its role in the use of military force, so any decision to remain or escalate in Afghanistan is entirely President Obama's. No, Obama did not personally begin the invasion --- that was President Bush --- but the idea that Obama had no choice in the matter is simply ridiculous.

Was the US actively prosecuting or engaging in a massively bloody and expensive counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan before President Obama's decision to escalate? No, it was not. The US under Bush began with around 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, and even as the situation deteriorated year after year, they only reach a max of around 32,000 in 2008. What happened next? President Obama took office, and the number of troops doubled. Now it is triple what it was when he came into office, almost 100,000.

And yes, he campaigned on that, just as Steele said:

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Finally, was Steele right about there being alternatives to the war in Afghanistan? Yes. We talk about them all the time here, ranging from development aid to a free press to engagement with regional governments. There are many, many options besides the disastrous war policy, covering all of the US' national security interests including counter-terrorism and stable governance.

Steele's comment about not engaging in a land war in Afghanistan? Yeah, this is just stupid.  I'm guessing that Steele is trying to riff on the advice of a British general to the House of Lords in the early 1960s, "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China." Or maybe he is a film buff and took in the line from The Princess Bride, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Throughout the period of de-colonisation of east Asia (and much of the rest of world) during the 20th century, indigenous militant movements defeated European colonists and gained independence. The obvious example is the war in Vietnam, devastatingly lost first by the French and later by the Americans.

You don't get involved in a "land war" because the natives will beat the crap out of your modern tanks and planes. It's not pretty, so don't even try it.

I get Steele's sentiment: military adventurism is definitely not a smart policy for the US. But that doesn't really have anything to do with Afghanistan in this context. Yes, Afghanistan is hard to invade, but so is Helsinki, Finland or Fresno, California. Nobody likes an invading army. The insurgents are not fighting us because they are in Afghanistan, they're fighting us because we are in Afghanistan. That's not our country.

Yet even if his comments weren't especially helpful, Steele still comes out on top. At least he was honest, right?

Match him up with the supposedly critical "progressive" commentators. We'll use Spencer Ackerman as our example.

Now we all love Ackerman; he's a smart guy and a clever writer. Everyone reads him, and even though he's a stout progressive, his readership spans the political spectrum. Ackerman has a clear understanding of the topics he covers, and for that reason he's a must-read far outside progressive circles.

But more than occasionally he says something that goes off-line. Maybe it's that he downplays the civilian horrors of war, or his position too closely mirrors that of the comanders in Afghanistan. For me, it's his creepy obsession with the military executing American citizens.

This is one of those times when he's not exactly doing the left, or himself, any favors.

Hey Michael Steele: there was this thing that happened on September 11, 2001 that you might have read about. Long story short: it resulted in the U.S. invading Afghanistan.

Hey Spencer Ackerman: remember how that mission was a complete and total failure? You might have read about it. Long story short: we didn't catch Osama bin Laden, as a Senate Commitee report pondered:

Bin Laden expected to die. His last will and testament, written on December 14, reflected his fatalism. “Allah commended to us that when death approaches any of us that we make a bequest to parents and next of kin and to Muslims as a whole,” he wrote, according to a copy of the will that surfaced later and is regarded as authentic. [...]

But the Al Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

Yep, the guys responsible for the 9/11 attacks "walked unmolested" into Pakistan. Nine years ago. 2001. What does that have to do with occupying Afghanistan with 100,000 troops right now in 2010? Since I'm sure Ackerman would appreciate a Simpsons reference, let's note, "The opportunity to prove yourself a hero is long gone." The guys responsible for funding and supporting the 9/11 attacks haven't been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade. Our occupation there has nothing to do with capturing bin Laden, or even Al-Qa'eda as whole (they're gone).

Well, maybe Ackerman means we have to stop Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qa'eda. Too bad, that's also in Pakistan. We've known that for years, too.

Thus, as the Pentagon was making preparations for launching Operation Enduring Freedom, it was known even to its own experts in its intelligence community that the Pakistan army and its ISI were the creators and sponsors of not only the Taliban, but also of al-Qaeda, which emerged as the most dreaded jihadi terrorist organization of the world after bin Laden shifted from the Sudan to Jalalabad in Afghanistan in 1996, from where he subsequently moved to Kandahar.

Despite this, the US chose to rely on the Pakistan army and the ISI for logistics and intelligence support in its operation to wipe out the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the IIF. The army and President General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military dictator, who had sponsored and used jihadi terrorism in an attempt to achieve Pakistan's strategic objectives against India (destabilizing India and annexing Jammu and Kashmir) and Afghanistan (strategic depth), were sought to be projected as the US's stalwart ally in the "war against terrorism" and rewarded for their ostensible cooperation through the resumption of generous economic and military assistance, which had remained curtailed since the Pressler Amendment was invoked against Pakistan in 1990 for clandestinely developing a military nuclear capability and further cut after the Chagai nuclear tests of 1998 and the overthrow of the elected government headed by Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister, by the army in October, 1999.

See? We know Al-Qa'eda and the Taliban are in Pakistan; we know they're supported by the Pakistani state. So why are we in Afghanistan? Are we planning on occupying it forever, just to make sure that we "molest" the hell out of bin Laden when he crosses the border next time? What's the decade-long hold up?

To be fair, Ackerman is only spinning another variation of the Al-Qa'eda excuse. We expected that. The real travesty here is this:

Now, if you want to say that “the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan,” congratulations, hippie! You’re now part of the antiwar movement in this country, so you might as well argue forthrightly for the Obama administration to pull out before Gen. Petraeus — who arrives in Kabul any minute now — has an opportunity to do whatever he can. [...]

You can criticize Obama’s decision to escalate that war. But you’ll also have to explain why muddling through or pulling out better serve U.S. interests against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And maybe you can make that case. But your fantasy of the Afghanistan war doesn’t inspire confidence.

Got that? If you question the US policy in Afghanistan, you're a "hippy!" You're not serious, just some jerk who doesn't want to give General  David Petraeus a fair shake. I mean really, what is the peace movement's strategy for Afghanistan? "Muddling through or pulling out." That it's, absolutely nothing more, just those two things.

This kind of bullshit is just outrageous. Surely Ackerman is aware of the beating the war is taking in congress.

The vote in the House last night was complex, involving amendments, self-executing rules, budgets and statutory and non-statutory caps. David Dayen has some of the rundown, though more of the story keeps coming out. However, the big news of the night to me and others organizing against escalation in Afghanistan was the vote on the McGovern amendment.

The McGovern amendment, if it had passed:

• Would require the president to provide a plan and timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and identify any variables that could require changes to that timetable.


• Would safeguard U.S. taxpayer dollars by ensuring all U.S. activity in Afghanistan be overseen by an Inspector General.


• Require the President to update Congress on the progress of that plan and timetable

If it had passed, that amendment would have been the beginning of the end of our war in Afghanistan, forcing the President to commit not just to a start of the drawdown – perhaps 2011 – but to and end of the war.

Does that sound like "muddling through or pulling out" to anyone? No, it's clearly a responsible timetable for ending the war as the conditions merit, with the addition of new regulations and benchmarks to ensure that any progress made during this timetable is sustainable for the long-term, to include the responsible use of taxpayer funds. Muddling through? Are you crazy?

It gets better. The McGovern amendment got 162 votes in the House, an incredible number of members going on the record in support of ending the war. That 162 includes such notable hippies as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jane Harman, and Rep. Bart Stupak.

And just what exactly is the new US commander, General Petraeus, supposed to do when he arrives in Kabul? Will he make Karzai less corrupt? Will Karzai become more legitimate? Will Pakistan end its national security strategy of support terrorists and militants? Will Afghans stop being killed by NATO forces, or will they just learn to love it? Will Petraeus personally ensure that every dollar goes to the right place, nothing is wasted or funneled to the Taliban? All of our troops will stop dying? How will Petraeus do this? OK, so he arrives in Kabul any minute now. Then what?

So what do we get out of all of this, from Steele's awkward comments to Ackerman's inexplicable reaction? Easy: The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the left, the right, liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Labour, Hawk, Pacifist.... These political concepts just don't mean anything in the context of this war.

If we go by the definitions of these ridiculous political terms, these nonsense buzzwords created and fueled by our media and politicians, then the entire field of US foreign policy becomes completely unintelligible. Put bluntly, it's gibberish. Baby talk.

Ending the war is just smart policy. The United States has absolutely nothing to gain from a war in Afghanistan. Nothing. There's no Al-Qa'eda there, we're not going to magically turn it into a thriving democracy and stalwart regional ally just because we send in a few more guys with guns. There's just nothing there for us. We could bring those troops home, so we're not scrambling around like idiots every time there's a wildfire in California or a hurricane in the Gulf. We could be spending much less than the trillions we're spending now, and we could use it to buy things we actually need. Jobs, infrastructure, energy, education, whatever it is you can think of, the US desperately needs it.

Ignore the partisan bickering. The facts show that the war is ruining the country, it is ruining Afghanistan and it is ruining Pakistan. It has to end, whether you're a progressive like Ackerman or a conservative like Steele.

Comments

[Catherine]

I appreciate the author's desire to stay far from the maddening crowd in his analysis, but isn't it just too bad that Mr Steele didn't have Josh Mull standing next to him to clarify and interpret his words for the audience?

The fact is that Steele said, referring to the war in Afghanistan: "this was a war of Obama’s choosing" (note the past tense) and did not say: "Any decision to remain or escalate in Afghanistan is entirely President Obama’s".

Steele said: "This [war] was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in", and did not say: "tripling the troop numbers and actively prosecuting or engaging in a massively bloody and expensive counterinsurgency escalation of the war in Afghanistan was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in".

And Steele said "There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan…" without naming all those wonderful alternatives Josh Mull can come up with. So I don't think those who took Steele's comments at face value (as a depature from reality) can be faulted the way Mull claims.

What is more problematic for Steele, and something that Mull only mentions in passing, is the complete about-face he did from his previous supportive stance on the war in Afghanistan in December 2009:
“Although this decision took far too long and it should not have, I am glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs. However, tonight’s speech must be the beginning, not the end, of the case President Obama makes to the American people as to why this is, as he said during the campaign, ‘a war we have to win.’ If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans – and the American people – will stand with him. But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed.”
http://www.gop.com/index.php/news/read/rnc_chairman_statement_on_president_obamas_afghanistan_strategy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.gop.com/index.php/news/read/rnc_chai...

I do agree with Mull here, though: "The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the left, the right, liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Labour, Hawk, Pacifist.."
The prosecution of the war after the Taliban were toppled following 9/11 has to do with a long history of interventionist US foreign policy that spans congresses and administrations of all colours.

[Dave]

"The obvious example is the war in Vietnam, devastatingly lost first by the French and later by the Americans."

*******

The Americans didn't lose that war. They left South Vietnam with Thieu at the helm. The country continued to function until 1975.

The Soviets did not lose in Afghanistan. The USSR withdrew its forces in 1989; about 3 years before the Soviet-backed Afghan government collapsed. That government collapsed due to infighting and corruption. It was a shame because the Soviets left Najibullah with plenty of arms and other equipment needed to govern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_Crowd_Circa_1980.png" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_Crowd_...

'Afghan crowd, circa 1980. Note many of them are dressed in Western clothing with Western hairstyles of that era. Most importantly note that the women are without veils.'

Just think of what Afghanistan could have become if Najibullah had succeeded.

[Baz]

Dave

At the risk of being labelled "racist" (again!) - is there ANY hope that countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran can ever form stable Democratic societies - given their evident propensity for religious and ethnic differences within - these differences and people's loyalties to them exceeding their loyalties to the "greater good" of the country. Plus, of course, the rampant corruption at all levels of Society. I can't see it in my lifetime.

Barry

[Dave]

Barry,

That's very difficult to answer, but I'll take a stab at it.

In early America, there were many different factions/denominations of Christian peoples spread about; the Puritans in New England, the Dutch in New York (Dutch Reformed Church), the Catholics, Lutherans and Jews in the Middle Atlantic states, and the Anglicans and Baptists in Virginia and the rest of the south. These groups had no real love for each other. They had their theological, doctrinal and cultural differences...but, there was one thing that united them; a thing that brought them together -- their Judeo-Christian heritage and the Bible, a book that had been written with divine inspiration (as they believed). It was the one thing that brought these groups into union, leading to the Continental Congress. I believe that if the Christian factions in early America had been as separate/divided and hostile towards one another as the leading factions of Islam are today, a new nation would not have been born. The United States of America would not have come into being. Natural/inalienable rights or 'moral rights' which are recognized as universal rights that transcend the cultural and the political. Government is supposed to protect those rights...not define them. These values are Enlightenment values, but the 'natural rights of man' (as a political doctrine) goes back to the Stoics (Seneca). The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the three core tenets of the natural rights of man. Stoicism is a school of Greek philosophy. A lot of Hellenic influence can be found in the Bible. The Apostle Paul wrote in Greek. The Jews were heavily influenced by the Greek mind. The early settlers believed that these rights were God-given rights. Again, it binded these peoples together. These things are largely non-existent in the Muslim world.

Another difference I've noticed between the West and the Islamic world is the Muslim world's tendency to channel its anger outside. We in the West are introspective. We have an 'I' and 'Me' mentality. When something is wrong and must be made right, the Western individual will blame him/herself and attempt to make things right. In the West, blaming others is a sign of immaturity. In the Muslim world, there is a 'We' mentality. The Ummah thinks with a single mind. It is a collective. However, it is only united when it is engaged in a state of hostility against the 'other'. -- Jews, the West. Right or wrong, that is the way I see it. That's why when Muslims are slaughtered by other Muslims, no party is condemned. However, when the 'other' (infidel) commits crimes against Muslims, that other is condemned across the Muslim world. The Muslim world's reaction to the genocide in Darfur (Bashir's visit to Ankara) and the latest crisis in Kyrgyztan are examples of that. They either do nothing or they don't do enough.

[Dave]

Barry,

What are your thoughts?

David

[Baz]

Dave

Sorry - but I did not respond further as I thought your post was good. I believe we are on the same wavelength. I guess that we should never say "never" - but in this case, I will. While these countries allow their ancient ( and backwards) cultures/religions/ethnicities to stop them from moving forward, I cannot see that they can sustain a stable form of Democracy, or otherwise become part of this 21st Century.

I am a believer in the Darwinian concept of "evolution of the species" - and I fail to see why that theory should not apply to the human species as well as any other. Back in the 60's, when one part of the species was visiting the moon, there was another part of the species (in Africa) that was starving during a famine. ( you may remember the Republic of Biafra - it no longer exists ). Evolution of a species implies forward movement for the species to continue to exist (even if in a changed form) - stagnation in an old form, or regression to a past form is not part of Evolution. Within current cultural/ religious/ethnic constraints, I see no good future at all for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Barry