This was nausea inducing:
So George Will, who strongly supported the Iraq war before he strongly opposed it, is now strongly opposing the Afghanistan war after he once strongly supported it. In Will’s words, “forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”
It is a column that could have been written in Japanese aboard the USS Missouri.
***Now, like then, America needs spirited realists, not defeatists. We need individuals who believe a nation must be willing to fight for what is right even when it is hard. We need people who are going to resist the temptation to eagerly support war at the outset and then prematurely give up on it.
What we need, in other words, is what George Frederick Will once was.
Peter Wehner, steely-eyed warrior.
Tell me that didn’t read like a 2002 warblogger post.
*** Update ***
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor:
Um, realists don’t fight for what is right even when it’s hard. That’s what idealists do. Realists assess the costs and benefits and then decide what’s in their best interest to do, whether or not it’s right……
Pathetic that he can’t even get the terms of his own argument right.
Forget it. He’s on a roll.
jibeaux
Well, yeah. What’d you expect? These people don’t change. There are people who argue we should still be in Vietnam, for heaven’s sakes. Not them, personally, of course, some other people. THEY should still be fighting in Vietnam.
brantl
Will has never had the courage of any convictions, except about what other people should do. He’s a ball-less wonder. He’s lucky that Kristol is still around or he’d be the most condescending asshole around. Kristol saves him from that. By the thickness of a gnat’s pubic hair.
aimai
I like this part:
That is an admirable principle, one George Will should reflect on far more carefully than he has. It appears to be Will’s principle that when he signs up and speaks out, when he marshals his eloquent and influential words on behalf of war, he will strongly support that war, but only for a season; only so long as it goes quickly, smoothly, and without complications. If, however, the conflict gets hard — if progress is slow and setbacks are incurred, if lives are lost and the war doesn’t end on his time line — Will is ready to declare, as he does in his column today, that “Genius . . . sometimes consists of knowing when to stop.” Translation: he’s ready to up and quit.
I believe the shorter version is:
“Shut up and Dig! There’s a Pony, or a Grave, in here somewhere.”
The Grand Panjandrum
I suspect if the Japanese had had cruise missiles and drones in the 1940’s they might not have been aboard the USS Missouri in 1945. Unless of course it was being surrendered to them.
Wehner’s ilk always seem to summon the courage to send other peoples sons and daughters to fight their wars. Sadly, the chickenhawks will always be with us.
Zifnab
So, we’ve got the hard-hearted War Forever folks – the Kristols and the Wehners – who will doggedly defend any war for any reason (so long as military contractors continue to turn a buck). And we’ve got the fair-weather war folks, who only ever seem to defend a war when a Bush or a Reagen is in office.
I’m not liking either of these pundit options and will continue to stick with Kos and Greenwald. Whether Afghanistan is the “good” war or just another quagmire moneysucking murderous mess is hard to say. But I’ll be damned if I’m taking advice from a neo-con wanker like Will or anyone who cross-posts between the Politico and the National Review.
burnspbesq
Yes, it does. And it doesn’t help that there seems to be a lot of confusion, both in and out of government, about what the mission is. But if we are serious about achieving what I understand to be an appropriate mission in Afghanistan, i.e., do successful counter-insurgency against the Taliban/al Qaeda long enough for a sturdy civil society to take root, and thereby deny them the ability to use Afghanistan to stage destabilizing operations in Pakistan, that’s a very long-term mission that requires (1) a lot of forces, (2) an approach that doesn’t emphasize killing people and breaking stuff as the primary means of achieving the goal, (3) developing a nuanced understanding of the culture and the institutions that are already there, and (4) giving up, for the foreseeable future, on eradicating the opium industry.
None of those things are easy, and I have serious concerns about how long the American people are going to continue to be willing to pay the price. But if achieving the objectives in Afghanistan makes it substantially less likely that fanatics who can’t be deterred get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, I will continue to reluctantly be for it, even if I am always nagged by doubts about whether the goals are attainable and whether we are going about it the right way.
geg6
@Zifnab:
You said exactly what I think. Thanks.
burnspbesq
I should have added that achieving the mission in Afghanistan is going to require a huge change in the organization, culture and doctrine of the US military, which is still built and organized to fight the Red Army in Germany. We need an entire officer corps that thinks like the captain who wrote that famous PowerPoint deck about dealing with the locals in Iraq.
joe from Lowell
I support the Af-Pak War, and find that column dishonest and offensive.
The Missouri? I’m sorry, are the Taliban going to occupy our country and write our Constitution if we move to an over-the-horizon strategy? Hell, they’re not even going to occupy Afghanistan and write its constitution if we do that!
And how the hell is it “surrender” to attack the enemy with AC-130s and Delta Force teams?
cmorenc
Will may indeed be more than a little late in his coming-to-Jesus moment on Afghanistan, especially given his track record on these sorts of things. Will may also be the very best there is among the elite punditocracy of giving a serious, sober, soundly analytical-seeming face to utter bullshit.
Nonetheless, I’m afraid this may be one of the few times that Will is actually right about something important, and is amply supported by facts and history. Afghanistan has proven a deadly Tar Baby for every Foxy leaders of other powerful nations. It has forbidding geography and a deep-seated tribal warrior culture that fiercely resists any organized attempts at conquest or organization – and that’s when native Afghan leaders try to do it. About the only thing that brings Afghans together in more than small tribal groups is when outsiders attempt to conquor or invade the country, and then the fierce resistance is exponentially multiplied.
Look at all the skeletons mighty countries have left behind in futile attempts to tame Afghanistan for their own purposes and interests:
– Great Britain
– Russia
….
I don’t even think the great Ghengis Khan was able to hold onto Afghanistan, certainly not very long.
Tongue of Groucho Marx
Why have facts on your side when the facts make your penis look smaller?
Leaf
“Now, like then, America needs spirited realists, not defeatists. We need individuals who believe a nation must be willing to fight for what is right even when it is hard.”
Um, like not torturing people?
burnspbesq
@cmorenc:
“Afghanistan has proven a deadly Tar Baby for every Foxy leaders of other powerful nations. It has forbidding geography and a deep-seated tribal warrior culture that fiercely resists any organized attempts at conquest or organization – and that’s when native Afghan leaders try to do it. About the only thing that brings Afghans together in more than small tribal groups is when outsiders attempt to conquor or invade the country, and then the fierce resistance is exponentially multiplied.
Look at all the skeletons mighty countries have left behind in futile attempts to tame Afghanistan for their own purposes and interests: – Great Britain – Russia
….
I don’t even think the great Ghengis Khan was able to hold onto Afghanistan, certainly not very long.”
All true. And yet … ask yourself what happens if the Taliban or forces allied with the Taliban come to power in Pakistan. I happen to think that what happens is that India launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike to take out Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. That’s a consequence that I am not willing to accept. Fixing Afghanistan is, at best, an indirect means of forestalling that eventuality. But it’s the best we can do for now, because going into Pakistan in a big way would be entirely counter-productive.
Afghanistan is only secondarily about Afghanistan.
asiangrrlMN
@aimai: You rock. I just had to say that and repeat my offer of buying you a drink if you’re ever in MN.
Ok, Mr. Steely-Dan Eyed! Then you go fight. In fact, for every neocon who is rah-rahing any of the wars, that is my automatic response. Just as Congresspeople who do not support s o c i a li zed medicine should not get tax-payer paid-for healthcare, these punditidiots should all be drafted. In other words, walk your fucking talk or STFU.
cleek
this is how the right will turn Afghanistan into “Obama’s War” ; Obama himself will do a great deal towards that end by escalating, sure. but when the right decides they’ve had enough, Obama will be stuck holding the Bagram.
Comrade Dread
Uh…you do know that a ‘spirited realist’ would understand that the longer an occupying army stays in Afghanistan and fights for it’s desired government (while slashing and burning the locals crops and callously dropping bombs on wedding parties), the more likely we’ll be facing an increasingly hostile population who will start supporting anyone who opposes us, even the noxious Taliban.
And a ‘spirited realist’ would probably advocate staying the hell out of Afghani politics and try to negotiate with the Taliban for the heads of OBL and his top lieutenants as the quickest and most expedient way to accomplish our original goals.
And then that ‘spirited realist’ would probably tell you to go screw yourself and die.
burnspbesq
@joe from Lowell:
“And how the hell is it “surrender” to attack the enemy with AC-130s and Delta Force teams?”
We could probably have a spirited debate about whether AC-130s and Delta Force are the right tools for the job. But that wouldn’t affect the validity of John’s primary primary point.
Will is, as a matter of objective reality, a tool, a fool, and a waste or column inches.
joe from Lowell
Where on earth does this idea that Pakistan needs a pro-American government in Kabul in order to survive come from? Pakistan is a much larger, more powerful, richer country than Afghanistan.
The idea of an Afghan government sponsoring a rebellion via clients in Pakistan is ridiculous. It’s like saying the Mexican government could overthrow the United States by backing Chicano separatists.
joe from Lowell
Will is, as a matter of objective reality, a tool, a fool, and a waste or column inches.
Indeed he is. That Wehner fellow, though, seems quite a few shades worse still.
Cruel Jest
Uh huh. Complete with … let’s call it protein wisdom.
Zifnab
Two questions. First, how does our presence in Afghanistan prevent a popular embrace of Taliban doctrine in Pakistan? It’s not like the Pakistanis don’t know about Taliban culture and political beliefs. And sweeping through the border, slaughtering young men (and the occasional women and children) doesn’t seem like it wins a lot of hearts and minds?
Second, how did you get from “Taliban on the border” to “India’s gonna pre-emptively carpet nuke it’s next door neighbor!” Let’s set aside the fact that no one has used a nuclear weapon in over sixty years. You’re suggesting two NEIGHBORING nations are going to start using ammo that will quickly fuck over their own countries. I don’t care how many maltov cocktails my next door neighbor and I have been stockpiling, I’m not going to embrace a first-strike policy that has a good chance of burning down my own house.
And that’s not even addressing why we think a movement made up of poverty stricken farmers and zealous luddites will be able to seize and launch a nuclear weapon. That’s like quaking in fear that the Amish are going to seize control of NASA.
Stefan
Now, like then, America needs spirited realists, not defeatists. We need individuals who believe a nation must be willing to fight for what is right even when it is hard.
Um, realists don’t fight for what is right even when it’s hard. That’s what idealists do. Realists assess the costs and benefits and then decide what’s in their best interest to do, whether or not it’s right……
Pathetic that he can’t even get the terms of his own argument right.
Sasha
Tell me that didn’t read like a 2002 warblogger post.
Unpleasent memories?
ellaesther
I’m sorry, I didn’t hear anything after the end of the Will quote: “America should do only what can be done from offshore… concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
A nation that actually matters.
Take that, Afghanis.
Athenawise
Olbermann eviscerated Will’s column yesterday. Will is a dangerous man because he’s so “reasonable.” He’s also a smug, pompous ass.
The Republican strategy, stirred, shaken and oft repeated:
1. Obama is forcing America to take on impossible levels of debt.
2. Healthcare reform is off the rails.
3. Afghanistan is Obama’s war.
None of this has anything to do with the truth of what Obama inherited or what is good for the country. It’s all about what is good for the Republican party, poising them to regain power, reclaiming seats in the midterm election and the White House in 2012 after the “disastrous” Obama presidency.
catclub
Joe from lowell@21
That is actually what the tea-bagger, anti-immigration bozos are worried
about – Reconquista!
You imagine it, they can fear it.
The bedwetter fears again. Perhaps a new right wing superhero
– the diapered bedwetter!
Also – great post on the rollback/containment conclusion of
the Soviet Union over at Yglesias.
catclub
Ack !
joe from Lowell@18 not 21
brantl
” It appears to be Will’s principle that when he signs up and speaks out, when he marshals his eloquent and influential words on behalf of war, he will strongly support that war, but only for a season; only so long as it goes quickly, smoothly, and without complications.”
In other words, he’s only willing to support the imaginary kind of war that only goes on in his head, as no real war is uncomplicated or actually goes “smoothly”. What a putz.
ellaesther
@The Grand Panjandrum: Waaaaay OT, but I had to tell you how much I loved your “Cheney/Palin 2012 – The Mayans Were Right” comment yesterday!
Oh, it made me happy, it did. (And I suspect it served to inspire our host!)
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@burnspbesq:
burnspbesq you make some good points about the potential cost to the rest of the world if Afghanistan falls apart completely, but I keep coming back to one huge gaping hole in our anti-Taliban strategy there, which is that we are working at cross purposes with Pakistan. If you read for example Ahmed Rashid’s book “Descent into Chaos” it becomes painfully clear that very powerful elements within Pakistan’s govt and military and grassroots Islamist political movements do not want us to “win” in Afghanistan, in fact they see the achievement of US objectives there as very much inimicable to their security and their broader geopolitical agenda vs. India.
So what we are doing in Afghanistan right now (and ever since the invasion) is like trying to support Chiang Keishek and the Kuomintang against the Communists in circa late 1930’s China with the very dubious “assistance” of the Japanese govt and the Imperial Army. This isn’t going to work because our major regional alliance “partner” doesn’t want it to work, and I don’t see how we will do anything other than flounder in Afghanistan until we solve that strategic paradox.
Brachiator
@Zifnab:
Popular embrace of Taliban doctrine? Have you been paying attention to what has been happening in the Swat Valley and other areas of Pakistan? Popular embrace is not an issue. Hell, popular embrace was not an issue with the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
What has taken everyone by surprise, including all foreign policy “experts,” is the degree to which the Taliban and other forces, previously clients of Pakistan’s military, have turned on their supposed masters and are now threatening some degree of political instability within Pakistan.
This is not good for anyone.
Leaving aside your pointless condescension, the wild card here is: what would happen to Pakistan’s nukes if somehow the Taliban took over? Think Khmer Rouge in Cambodia with a helping of nuclear weapons.
cleek
“America needs spirited realists, ”
spirited realists ?
they would be the opposite of steely-eyed dreamers, i suppose.
Stefan
Leaving aside your pointless condescension, the wild card here is: what would happen to Pakistan’s nukes if somehow the Taliban took over?
What would happen to America’s nukes if somehow the Teabaggers took over? It’s as likely a possibility…..
sparky
@Brachiator: uh, guess why that happened? because the US started bombing the crap out of the place. in other words the US is achieving exactly the opposite of what it says it is trying to do.
again, this is just like southeast asia: foreign power activities are destabilizing the entire region.
and the argument about Pakistan and nukes is just silly. they have already sold the technology abroad, and as far as “radical Islam” goes the ISI is filled with people who have no love for the US. not to mention the idea that the Taliban are going to take over the country is just silly.
great, just what everyone needed: a bright shiny *new* domino theory for the new millennium.
Maude
@Brachiator:
I might add that women will suffer unbelievable harm under the Taliban. The women aren’t armed and trained to fight them off.
I hate that Bush abandoned the Afghan people so long ago. At least the US military is trying to see a way clear and change bad strategy. At least Obama is intelligent.
What about our soldiers there and those who have come home? They have a real stake in this.
This isn’t Vietnam.
It is NATO and other countries have a say in what happens.
We are there and it is reality.
I think that if we go out of there now, an awful lot of Afghans are going to be oppressed.
The NATO countries can influence the Afghan government to knock off the corruption and start getting it right. I doubt that the Taliban would want the government to stand if all troops leave.
God, what a mess.
There is a chance that, done right, Afghanistan will be better off than it is now.
It is in our best interest to help set things to rights.
Can someone tell me why we can’t get rid of the contractors?
tamiedjr
Dag. Now I have this song stuck in my head.
LoveMonkey
@Tongue of Groucho Marx:
Ah, that’s what’s doing it.
LoveMonkey
And now for something completely different.
Go out and find ten people who (a) are not internet infopolitical junkies and (b) know who George Will is.
Take all the time you need, and send us a postcard now and then.
Your friend,
LM
Brachiator
Man, Will is an ignorant tool.
I know he likes to pull it out and show his command of history, but here he comes up short. Aside from the usual “Afghanistan has never been conquered stuff,” one could ask will how is it that remote bombing only strengthened British resolve during WW II, but magically is supposed to be effective against the Taliban?
There is also the little thing that many Afghanistan warriors view drone attacks as particularly cowardly (but they admire snipers, who also do their thing from afar, so this gets complicated).
But as other have noted, military action against anyone tends to draw otherwise independent tribal factions together, which complicates the aims of any US intervention.
By the by, the August/September issue of Military History Magazine has a great article on why Pakistan has never been conquered, and also why Kabul has often been relatively unimportant, even a misleading trap (invaders easily take the big city Kabul, only to be sucked into an unwinnable conflict with hills groups).
Also, Will says that only Pakistan matters, stumbling into the stupidity of the Durand Line, which arbitrarily divided Pakistan and Afghanistan, and this was a result of British imperial ambitions and a desire to blunt 19th century Russian thrusts into the area.
Confusing, ain’t it?
The point is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are linked in ways that a lot of stupid Westerners have either forgotten or never knew. And while it would be nice if the US could just pull out of the region and hope for the best, if the Taliban regain control in the region and ever again offer aid and comfort to Al Queda or other groups, this would be bad for everyone. Further, a de-stabilized Pakistan, or fundamentalist movements which might cause worsening problems in Kashmir or India, might set off a regional catastrophe. It doesn’t have to rise to the level of nukes to get pretty bad.
This is nothing like Vietnam or even the Afghanistan quagmire that doomed the Soviets. The possibility that the Taliban or another group will allow terrorists a safe haven and staging area is not acceptable. How to blunt this without infinite war or occupation is the hard question, and certainly is far beyond George Will’s whimsical little fantasies.
Maude
@Brachiator:
Well said.
liberal
@burnspbesq:
Problem is that (a) those objectives can’t be achieved, if you look at the history of great power involvement there (read: Britain and the USSR), and (b) what we’re doing in Afg appears to be making Pak less stable rather than more.
Besides which, if we changed to a policy of complete uninvolvement in that part of the world (i.e., including the middle east), the fanatics would have no interest in lobbing a nuke at us anyway.
Time to listen to George Washington and John Quincy Adams on the topic of foreign policy, even if they are dead white european males.
liberal
@Brachiator:
Empirical evidence that our being in Afg helps the situation: zero.
Plausibility of theoretical arguments that our being in Afh helps: weak.
liberal
@Maude:
LOL!
1. By the same argument, we should still be occupying Vietnam.
2. No one is stopping Afg women from arming themselves and murdering Taliban thugs (which would, incidentally, be OK w/ me). It’s not our responsibility to do it for them, and furthermore even though we do indeed feel bad for them, history shows that (a) state power is almost never used for humanitarian ends (good outcomes are a byproduct, not a policy target), (b) there’s no way that the US is ever going to devote the resources (personnel and materiel) that it would take to pacify Afg over the long haul.
All our involvement there is going to do it waste American lives and dollars, and potentially increase the likelihood that Pakistan becomes unstable.
burnspbesq
@liberal:
“Empirical evidence that our being in Afg helps the situation: zero.”
Even if true, there is, needless to say, exactly the same amount of empirical evidence that our picking up our toys and going home would help the situation.
In this context, the lack of “empirical evidence” is a strawman. What would be useful would be an explanation of why you find those “theoretical argments” implausible.
Brachiator
@sparky:
Well, no. The increasing political instability in Pakistan has much to do with the failure of strong leaders committed to democracy to rise up after the fall of Pervez Musharraf. US military efforts in the country add to the problem, but are not the main source of the problem.
Kinda irrelevant to questions about Pakistan’s existing nukes.
But previously the ISI was not particularly radical. They were strongly nationalist, which is not the same thing.
Had someone said a couple of years ago that the Taliban would have any degree of control in the Swat Valley, some might have said, “that’s just silly.” Had someone said a couple of years ago that the Taliban would launch significant attacks almost anywhere within Pakistan, some might have said, “that’s just silly.”
Wrong historical model. The situation in the region has its own antecedents. There is no particular reason to invoke either Vietnam or the domino theory.
liberal
@burnspbesq:
(yawn) Clearly the burden of proof is on those who favor intervention.
HyperIon
@Tongue of Groucho Marx: Why have facts on your side when the facts make your penis look smaller?
Why don’t *I* ever get fortune cookies that are so pithy?
I’m gonna have to think about this.
John Cole
@Sasha: Sadly, yes.
kismet
Isn’t it strange how Will’s view on the wars flip-flopped as soon as a Democrat was running the show? Now he’s all “ohnoes, let’s not blow any more money over there” like we won’t remember that he was gung-ho for it when Bush was paying for wars with our money.
ricky
You gotta admit above all else, Will knows his baseball.
ricky
@HyperIon:
Facts side with your small penis.
ricky
I thought I was submitting an even pithier response to Hyperlon, when the blog fortune cookie told me my penis “comment is awaiting moderation.” We already acknowledged that.
Richard Stanczak
I clicked on Mr. Wehner’s [pronounced weiner] link and was instantly hit by his imposing picture. I have lectured my kids about not judging people by their looks but holy jumping catfish! How can’t you in this case?
Mr. Wehner appears to be the perfect Republican pundit/wingnut, the fearless keyboard warrior at his finest.
From now on, every time I read some typical “bomb those bastards back to the stone age” rant by one of the many NeoCon mouthpieces, Mr. Wehner’s image will flash through my mind.
Thanks John.
Brachiator
@liberal:
RE: But if achieving the objectives in Afghanistan makes it substantially less likely that fanatics who can’t be deterred get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons…
If you are using history to talk about the futility of attempting to occupy, rule, or nation-build Afghanistan, I see your point. But you’re just speculating along with the rest of us when it comes to anything else.
This is arguable, and as I noted with another poster ignores Pakistan’s internal history.
Of course, the problem is that we have already crossed this Rubicon. You assume, without any empirical evidence, that fanatics would immediately forget any and all of our past involvements in the region. (“Hey, America, you shocked and awed the crap out of Iraq. Busted it up big time. Executed Saddam. But as long as you are gone and stay gone, no problem!”)
And fanatics, like birthers, can create new grievances to justify their actions.
But of course, what you advocate is not uninvolvement, but isolationism. And the US could never have any allies in the region, since friendship with any nation might somehow offend a fanatic.
Didn’t John Quincy accompany his father when the US was begging France and the Netherlands for help, not non-involvement? And then, there’s this:
Kinda loosey-goosey non-involvement.
Throwin Stones
Peter Wehner – nice handle.
I see that Mr. Wehner worked for Bill Kristol once upon a time and then in 07 ran W’s Office of Strategery.
Consider the source.
Makewi
If the job is hard you should just give up. Like trying to provide health care for everyone in America. It’s too hard.
Brachiator
@Makewi:
I think you meant to post this in the “Makewi’s Love Notes to Sarah Palin” thread.
David
So, I see that the Republicans want America to lose in Afghanistan now, and they want the Taliban to win.