Skip to main content

Afghanistan strategy now being driven by ... 2010 Congressional Elections?

This, from McClatchy, is exceptionally worrying:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has given the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan 60 days to conduct another review of the American strategy there, the fifth since President Barack Obama took office less than five months ago.

The Defense Department announced Monday that Gates has ordered the new U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, to submit a review of the U.S. strategy within 60 days of their arrival in Afghanistan.


OK, you say, they're still fumbling around--nothing new here, except for the WHY the're still fumbling around:

The need to review a strategy that hasn't been implemented yet is being driven by U.S. domestic politics, as well as by developments on the ground.

The first five months of this year have seen a 59 percent increase in insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, a 62 percent increase in coalition deaths and a 64 percent increase in the use of improvised explosives compared to the same period last year, according to Defense Department statistics. Those are highest levels so far in the eight-year war.

Meanwhile, some congressional Democrats have begun to question the administration's request for additional funds for the Afghan war and what they say is the absence of a clear exit strategy.

"As the mission has grown bigger, the policy has grown even more vague," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

As a result, three defense officials told McClatchy, McChrystal's clearest goal for the next year is to change the perception that the Afghan war is a potential quagmire in time for next year's midterm congressional elections.

They point to the 2006 midterm elections, which became a referendum on the Bush administration and its Iraq policy. Then-president George W. Bush's Republican Party lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years, and it lost six Senate seats.

"We are not even on the ground yet, but we hear the political clock ticking," said one military officer, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk to the media. "We are trying to buy time, as well."


There is always a political element in decisions about war-making. This, however, is beginning to creep beyond the line of legitimacy, and the Obama administration is edging into the prospect of permanent government by campaign, in which keeping power is more important than doing the right thing.

It is of no use now to point out that Dubya also did that, because (a) he's no longer in office and (b) this administration promised a change.

The change, insofar as foreign affairs and human rights has been concerned, is that President Obama gives better speeches, while his Justice Department still argues state secrets doctrine for virtually everything, his closest advisors are arguing executions without trial at Gitmo, his Secretary of State is discussing pre-emptive war against Iran, and his Generals are still de-stabilizing the Indian subcontinent and Middle East because these are the only wars we have, which are needed to justify the fact that US military expenditures, according to SIPRO, continue to be 41% of total world military expenditures, larger than the expenditures of the next ten nations combined, and more than seven times larger than the number two spender (China).

Some Republicans have suggested that Barack Obama is serving Jimmy Carter's second term. I don't think that's at all accurate. But it's beginning to look like comparisons between his presidency and that of LBJ may not be out of the question.

Comments

Nancy Willing said…
off topic - this is from Rita Landgraf today -

You may have read or heard Walgreens’ argument that the state has neglected to take advantage of other cost saving initiatives, such as increasing the use of generic medications. Here are the facts:

• Many brand name drugs are actually less expensive for Medicaid than their generic equivalent because of rebate programs with drug manufacturers (of which Walgreens does not have knowledge).

• In cases where the generic truly is less expensive to Medicaid, brand name drugs are approved only when the recipient’s doctor has submitted a detailed medical justification and obtained prior-authorization for the brand name drug.

• Walgreens enjoys a better profit margin on generics, which may better explain why they advocate for them.
Anonymous said…
Re: Af-Pak and Obamas new war! The Lt. General who served under Bush in Afganistan and was present when all the torture went on, has now been before the Senate. Senator Levin asked a softball question of this follower of Bushs torture and will be the #1 guy in Afganistan. He was part of the torture program, and yet not one demorat even asked him about the torture. He was there since 2002...can you now understand there is no difference between the two fascist, corporate parties in the US?

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?