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

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...