 |
| Gen. Keith M. Huber |
The Tennessee World Affairs Council
By Carlo Muñoz, The Hill, 6/17/13 - Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) is blocking millions in State Department
funds for Afghanistan, until President Obama discloses details abut the
CIA's decade-long effort to funnel cash to Afghan leaders, including
President Hamid Karzai.
The ranking Republican on the Senate
Foreign Relations panel has put a hold on $75 million in government aid
to Kabul “until such time as I receive sufficient information" on the
CIA program, Corker said Monday. (read more)
My Comment: With so many scandals, it is hard to focus on all of them. With Bengazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives, the Obamacare shakedown, and massive spying on Americans, it is easy to let something slip by, but this should not fall through the cracks.
While supposedly trying to build a democratic nation in Afghanistan we have undermined democracy by funneling many million to Karzai and his friends. CIA funds have reportedly fueled the rampant corruption and fraud that has plagued Karzai's government since the war began. I applaud Senator Corker for sticking with this issue. I would normally not be in favor of cutting off funding to an ally at a critical juncture in which we are preparing to hand over full control of security operations to them. However, if the only thing keeping the Karzai government in power is "waking around money," then they will fall anyway when the money runs out. We need ansewers and a full acounting!
Monday, 27 Feb 2012,
Newt Gingrich said Monday it is impossible to "fix" Afghanistan and suggested the US should tell Afghan citizens to "figure out how to live your own miserable life."
Speaking at a business luncheon in Nashville, Gingrich amped up his criticism of US involvement in Afghanistan following a string of attacks by Afghan soldiers on American troops.
"We're not going to fix Afghanistan," the former House speaker said.
Gingrich: Impossible to 'Fix' Afghanistan
In fund raising appeals and in editorials, President Obama is being criticized for delays in making a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. I don’t criticize him on this front.
My more cynical self tells me that the President’s delay in reaching a decision on Afghanistan is tied to his push to pass health care reform. It is easier for the President to deal with one issue at a time. Political capital will be used up in any decision on Afghanistan. In the Senate, the President only has a one-vote margin in favor of his version of health care reform. If he proposes an increase in troops in Afghanistan then some of the more liberal Senators who are already disappointed that the health care bill does not include a robust public option or even more radical reforms or who are upset about the anti-abortion language in the bill may also be outraged at an escalation in the war in Afghanistan. They may be less susceptible to arm twisting if they feel they have been on betrayed health care reform, abortion rights, and war policy. Any decision on Afghanistan may weaken the President’s influence to pass health care. My less cynical self takes the President at his word. He wants to consider all the options, get the advice of a lot of people and make a correct decision.
What decision the President should make, I don’t know. Afghanistan seems like a no-win situation. I do not see how it can turn out well. I see no good way forward or good way out. Any decision has peril.
To remake Afghan society and turn the nation into a functioning well governed democracy seems virtually impossible. That is too lofty of a goal. To even attempt it would take at least a ten-year commitment, many more than the proposed 40,000 troops that are being requested now and untold treasure. To withdraw without leaving a stable government behind that is capable of defending itself would return Afghanistan into a safe haven for Al Qaeda and a launching ground for terror, and our defeat would inspire and encourage our enemies.
There are various options between these two above choices obviously but no good options. What we have been doing and are currently doing is obviously not working. The country is becoming less secure; not more secure. Any decision the President makes will probably be the least bad choice, not a good choice. It seems like a hopeless cause. We are fighting in a country that has only an 11% literacy rate, where opium production is the primary source of revenue, where tribal loyalty trumps nationalism and the terrain is inhospitable.
The Karsi government is corrupt, it hardly functions and the Afghan Army may terrorize the local population more than the Taliban. I read one story recently that said the US had to patrol with the Afghan Army, or at the first opportunity instead of pursuing Taliban, the Army would set up makeshift road blocks to shake down travelers.
While General McChrystal, commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, has told President Obama that he needs 40,000 more troops if the country is to be stabilized, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired Army general and former commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, is objecting to any increase in troop level saying that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government. (read more)
I have little confidence in and respect for President Obama. I wish someone else was calling the shots. Nevertheless, we only have one President and Commander-in-Chief at a time and Mr. Obama is that person. He has a tough decision to make. I think he is correct to push for an exit strategy and a clarification of our goals before agreeing to a 40,000 increase in troop strength. I hope that in desperation he does not simply split the difference between various options and send 20,000 more troops and kick the can of hard choices down the road.
The holding pattern we are in now may be no worse than whatever decision is eventually made. So, Mr. President, take all the time you need to make the best decision; dither on.
While I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's economic policies, I have, so far, been pleased by much of his management of foreign affairs. Candidate Obama never presented himself as the most pacifist and isolationist of the Democratic field of candidates. He was much more centrist than Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, yet he was very critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and promised a change. We have seen some real change and some superficial change and much of the same.
Some Republicans have criticized Obama’s recent making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachev. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. It may be beneficial to be on a first name basis with the bastards. Sometimes if is even necessary to ally ourselves with the most ruthless and despicable of people, as was the case in World War II. I am not so sure that Hitler was a lot worse than Joseph Stalin, but Germany was a threat and Russia was our ally and FDR had to make nice with Joseph Stalin. While Chavez may be irritating tin-horn dictator, he is hardly a Mao or Stalin.
Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursuing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake. I am glad to see us move toward normalization with that nation.
I am pleased that we are escalating the war in Afghanistan. I think Bush made a big mistake in going to go to war in Iraq and failing to pursue victory in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the Taliban to reestablish their rule in that country. I am pleased that we are pressuring and prevailing in persuading Pakistan to take a more aggressive role in suppressing the Taliban in that country. I am pleased that Obama has only tweaked the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and seems committed to exiting that conflict in an orderly fashion that will preserve the peace and stability and leave behind a sizable American presence. .
In the war on terror, which we no long call the “War on Terror,” Obama is essentially continuing the Bush policies. While Obama uses less bellicose language and does not have the cowboy swagger that irritated so many, there is very little to distinguish Obama from Bush. He sounds more moderate but his policies are the same. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said “talk softly and carry a big stick.” I am not displeased with the more moderate tone. I have mixed feelings about the continuation of some of Bush policies.
When Bush was president and prominent national conservatives formed the American Freedom Agenda, I cheered. I was concerned that the Federal Government was amassing unchecked power. I did not approve of the government claiming the authority for warrantless searches of Internet communications. I do not approve of torture. I did not approve of special rendition. I thought George W. Bush was exceeding his constitutional authority.
Many of the same policies that were continued or initiated by Bush are being continued under Obama. Special rendition is a policy that started in peace time under Bill Clinton. It is the practice of kidnapping suspected enemies and turning them over to other countries where they can be tortured. We are speaking of real torture not a gray area that may or may not constitute torture. By letting a third country do the dirty work we can claim to have clean hands and not have engaged in torture ourselves. George Bush expanded the rendition policy and Obama has not ended the practice.
.
One Obama proposal that should concern all civil libertarians is the Cyber-security Act of 2009, which is essentially the same as Bush’s Total Information Awareness but under a new name. It would grant the government authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity. My concern is that such authority will be misused. This seems to violate the constitutions prohibition against an unreasonalble search. The same people that were outraged about Total Awareness are very quite about Cyber Security.
Obama was very critical of the bush administration policy regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo. I do not think the issue of what to do with irregular forces captured on the field of battle is an easy riddle to solve, however I do not think that we should hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. Recently, when the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, captured outside Afghanistan, had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo, the Obama administration argued they did not. Bagram is a less high profile prison than Guantanamo but the issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krathamer pointed out that on policy after policy the Obama administration is continuing the policy of the Bush administration. “The latest flip-flop,” writes Krathamer. “is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an ‘enormous failure.’ Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.”
I admit I am conflicted. On the one hand, Obama’s policies seem to vindicate the policies of George W. Bush. I could conclude that George W. Bush was right all along and when faced with the enormous responsibility of keeping this country safe, that Obama came to a realization that the only prudent course to follow was that that was set by his predecessor. When one does not have the responsibility for our country’s security it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. Obama put aside partisanship and campaign promises and did the right thing.
On the other hand, I could conclude that Obama is an opportunist who did a complete flip-flop. He would say anything to get elected but he is a power hungry opportunist who cannot turn down the occasion to amass more power. I don’t know which view is correct.
What I cannot understand is how civil libertarians and pacifist of the left, who loathed George W. Bush, are letting Obama get by with continuing the same policies they professed to hate. If these policies were wrong when enacted by George W. Bush, are they still not wrong?
The Next Guantánamo
The New York Times, Editorial, April 12, 2009
The Obama administration is basking in praise for its welcome commitment to shut down the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But it is acting far less nobly when it comes to prisoners held at a larger, more secretive military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. [full article]
Commentary
As a Senator and as a presidential candidate, Obama repeatedly and forcefully said that he thought prisoner held at Guantanamo deserved the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court. Now on the same issue, but a different facility, he is singing a different tune.
Recently the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan captured outside Afghanistan had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo. At issue were three prisoners at Bagram, two from Yemen and one from Tunisia, held by the U.S. military at the Bagram facility in Afghanistan without charges for more than six years. The Court ruled they have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The Obama administration is appealing the ruling.
I am not quite sure how I feel about the whole issue of giving captured prisoners due process rights. I oppose extending constitutional protection to captured POW’s. We should follow the Geneva Convention and established rules of war. However, in an unconventional war, how does one determine if someone is an “enemy combatants” or someone who just got rounded up accidentally? When the enemy is not the army of an opposing nation and wears no uniform, it makes the rules a little murky. I don’t want to turn loose terrorist to kill again, however we should not hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. While the issues are not simple, the Court has ruled narrowly and I think wisely. I think the Bush administration was wrong and the Court was correct.
The issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as at Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration. Obama is appealing the ruling and arguing that the ruling would “impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.” Does that sound familiar?
The NY Times has taken issue with Obama on his reaction to the court ruling, but most of the establishment is keeping quite. It seems Obama can do no wrong even when his position is indistinguishable from the Bush position on the same issue. Where are all of those voices that condemned Bush? Were they expressing a principled conviction or just anti-Bush? Do I detect some hypocrisy? Either Bush and Obama are right; or, Bush and Obama are wrong.
I am reassured by President Obama’s announced policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no way of knowing weather we ought to get out or Iraq in 16 months or 19 months or 23 months. I have no way of knowing the size of the ideal residual force to leave behind. Nevertheless, based on what I think I know, I find Obama’s policy on both Iraq and Afghanistan reasonable and reassuring.
I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the very first. I always thought it was a rush to war that could have been avoided. The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction seems to validate that the war was unnecessary. The attempt to tie Iraq to the 9-11 attack on America was deceptive. It certainly appears, as has been alleged, that George W. Bush was determined to invade Iraq from the time he was first elected and nothing was going to deter him from that decision. While I was opposed to going to war in Iraq, it also seemed to me that we were withdrawing from Afghanistan before the job was finished.
Despite being opposed to the initial invasion of Iraq, I did not think we could just pull out once we were in. Our invasion created chaos and instability and a withdrawal without creating a measure of stability could have led to a bloodbath, an expanded regional war involving several nations, and a strengthened Iran. Thankfully the surge, which Obama opposed, was a success and made a responsible withdrawal possible.
Obama’s current policy on Iraq is essentially a continuation of the Bush policy. Under the Status of Forces agreement Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government, all US troops will be out of Iraq by 2012. If McCain had been elected we would not have waited until the last minute to withdraw all of our troops, so a staged withdrawal under McCain would probably not look much different than what we are getting under Obama. Leaving up to 50,000 troops behind is not a complete withdrawal anyway. 50,000 troops is a still a lot of troops.
On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly promised a withdrawal within 16 months and did not mention that that withdrawal excluded 50,000 troops. I am pleased that he is acting responsibly when it comes to national security and not honoring an irresponsible campaign promise. Despite Obama’s campaign pledge, he never was the most anti-war of the Democrats. He was much less pacifist than either Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, who tried to outdo each other in their pledge to quickly exit Iraq. For those who voted for Obama, they had other choices if an immediate withdrawal form Iraq was their primary concern.
As soon as Obama had the Democratic nomination secured, he started moderating his campaign pledge of a quick withdrawal and started talking about acting in consultation with the commanders in the field and evaluating the situation in Iraq. As the candidate of the Party, he sounded more reasonable than as a candidate for the nomination. Now, as President, on national security matters he sounds not that much different from his opponent John McCain.
I fear that Afghanistan may prove a difficult war that drags on for a very long time. Nevertheless, I think we are doing the right thing. I hope we have benchmarks for achieving progress in Afghanistan and I hope we have clear objectives. I hope we have an exit strategy. I hope we have a good estimate of the cost of this war and do not have unrealistic expectation. I wish Obama would present a more detailed plan for Afghanistan and hopefully he will.
I suspect that if McCain was President and had announced he would leave a residual force of 50000 troops in Iraq and was sending more troops to Afghanistan that the anti-war crowd would be in the streets in massive numbers. Obama has such strong support among the electorate that hopefully the anti-war crowd will not gain traction and derail his announced policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hopefully the anti-war crowd has been marginalized and most of those who would normally be in that camp have been co-opted by Obama.
Today the cult of Obama is so strong and he has so much political capital that he can lead the American people anywhere he wants to take them. When flag-draped coffins start coming back from the war in Afghanistan however, I wonder how long the anti-war left will stay in his camp. I suspect that if things do not go well in Afghanistan that many of those who celebrated his victory will turn against him. I hope Obama has the strength of character to put America’s national security interest first even when the going gets tough and people are no longer cheering but are booing.
Posts
All Comments
