Questions About Afghanistan

Afghanistan.

I've read and watched Michael Steele's naieve speech in Connecticut and its clear he will never be confused for George Kennan, but some of the brushback from the right concerns me.  I think too many in the Party are perhaps unwilling to listen to reasons why this war might not be the right war for any number of reasons.  Its been liberating being in the minority in some ways, and in the last two years or so I've started to look at things less from a kneejerk, mid-20s, just starting in politics, Republican to a more thoughtful, independent conservative and our wars are one place I've begun to have questions. 

And they are for right now.  So many in our party like to harken back to what brought us to Iraq and Afghanistan and I agree with the reasons to go to both.  The Taliban had enabled al Quida and the Hussein regime was a menace to the world that we thought with genuine intellegence from all over the world that they had weapons of mass destruction.  But lets stop talking about how we got there and instead focus on what we are still doing there.

In some ways Steele is right, Obama did make choices in this war.  He set up the paradigm during the campaign that Iraq was the lost cause and Afghanistan was the noble cause . . . ironically nearly two years later the opposite is true.  But why is it wrong for Steele to question victory there?  What are we doing right now in Afghanistan?  What is our missision?  Is it to kill al Quida?  Fine, then lets put the plan in place, present it clearly before Congres and the American people, and then execute.  Right now, it seems we have a policy of half-fighting, half-making sure Barack Obama doesn't look like a weak president on foreign policy.  And what else?  We are basically proping up the Karzai government, which is clearly corrupt.  Defend this, explain to the American people why this devil is better than the next.  Are we properly going after the terrorits, who I've heard have all gone to Pakistan.  So if they are in Pakistan, what are we doing in Afghanistan besides nation building and holding up a government that is funded by drugs?  John McCain two years ago talked about Waziristan being where these evil men are, why aren't we there?  Why are stuck in a god foresaken country that has already swallowed up one former superpower?  Are we still executing the original mission?  We are propping up Karzai but then telling his opponets when we are going to stop, why are we not surprised that he is making overtures to the Taliban?  After we leave, he still has to govern. 

Does it make me a bad Republican for bringing these questions up?  Basically what I want is for someone in Congress or in the Administration to give us a clear reason why we are there right now, what we are doing, and how we are going to win.  The fact that it is becoming harder and harder to answer those basic questions of war worries me deeply.

Comments

[Kafiristan Bob]

There are two issues here.

One, Steele is not up to the job and needs to step down.

Two, the war strategy certainly needs to be addressed. So, here's a likely scenario.

Regardless of the issues surrounding the firing of MacChrystal, the result is that our war strategy has changed dramatically. This is partially due to fact that Obama and his administration have totally trashed US policy beyond all recognition.

In order to save himself from the most immediate failure, Obama appointed Patraeus to save his nuts. And Patraeus will do that by completely redefining the ends, ways, and means to victory in Afghanistan.

Patraeus will stop any pretension of nation building and return to the original Bush strategy of finding, fixing, and destroying those in Afhghanistan who pose a direct threat to US and Allied interests. Protect a few metropolitan population centers and advise and train the ANA and Afghan police forces to do that. Hunt down Talliban and AQ forces wold plan, train, and equip threats to coalition interests.

Everybody else departs. No remote Forward Operating Bases, no Provincial Reconstruction Teams (there's nothing to re-construct), No building roads, bridges, dams, etc. If those are to be built, the Afghans will have to do that. No trying to turn Afghanistan into a small democratic model of a western country. It's about the tribes. Afghanistan is a tribal-based culture and social order.

Maintain a few small regional airbases, a few regional centers to support Afghan training and operations. Some parts of the country will be chaotic. But, let the tribes deal with that.

Total US footprint in the country, maybe 10-15 thousand. Maybe less over time.

That will be the new Patraeus-based victory. Once implemented, Obama's Afghan failure becomes a managed success.

But, Steele still needs to go.

[Not a Scion]

Chris,

I don't have a problem with Steele's POLICY position on the issue. I don't agree with him on it, but we have room in our party for disagreement on the issue. We have our Ron Pauls along with our John McCains and our Jim DeMints.

My issue with Steele - and I say this as someone who SUPPORTED his elevation to RNC chairman - is shock at just how unbelievably DUMB his comments were.

Afghanistan was "a war of Obama's choosing"? Really?

He can claim to have mispoken if he wants, but to ignore the 9/11 rationale that directly lead to the start of the Afghanistan conflict isn't just a policy disagreement, but a statement seriously out of step with reality.

To then go on and argue that "anyone should have known" that to fight a land war in Afghanistan is a lost cause is to attack not only the policy of the Obama and Bush Administrations, but to attack the 9/11 environment that produced it and to imagine that everyone not only SHOULD but DID think as Steel does now all the way back in 2001. Steele's version of what everyone apparently "knew" in 2001 is utterly out of step with the reality of 2001.

And that's the problem.

I won't fault Steele for disagreeing with me on policy. I understand and respect that. It's the sheer idiocy of his comments that is starting to wear on me as a former supporter.

[Washington Bob]

Steele needs a hazmat team to follow him around. Actually, Steele and RNC have become irrelevant.

Conservatives will win the next election cycle, with or without the RNC.

[ADB]

This is a courageous post. We do have to question why we are in Afghanistan while so many lives are at risk, and we are spending so much money.