How did Senators John McCain and and Joe Lieberman spend the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war? Did they apologize for cheerleading the Bush administration’s pernicious lies that led our country into and have kept us mired in Iraq? Did they show remorse for a war that took the lives of over 4,000 US soldiers and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, while costing us $3 trillion when all is said and done? No, instead these Senators brought us the sequel to their twisted buddy comedy, escalating the war in Afghanistan.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed yesterday, McCain and Lieberman urged the Obama administration to go all in after completing its policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The “minimalist” or “reductionist” path would be, in their view, “dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it.” As with the Iraq war, McCain and Lieberman believe it’s in our national interest to win in Afghanistan at all cost, which they even define as establishing “a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary.”
How do McCain and his ideological Benedict Arnold of a sidekick propose achieving such a lofty goal? Well, that part they don’t get into. No need to be bogged down with the specifics; suffice it to say our country needs a broad counterinsurgency and we need it now! The maximalist approach, which is ironic, considering McCain and Lieberman criticize and fear-monger about those who use “loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan.” The thing is though, and I never ever thought I’d write these words, McCain and Lieberman are absolutely right.
The type of success McCain and Lieberman dream of in Afghanistan would require at least 640,000 US troops, as Derrick Crowe has written, judging by the US military doctrine’s rate of 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents. We already know the Pentagon is pushing for at least to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for a decade or more. So not only do McCain and Lieberman believe the Obama administration should engage in a long-term military commitment where the costs could very well exceed those of the Iraq war (both in terms of lives lost and tax dollars spent), but they want President Obama and the Democratic leadership to invest all their political capital to do so.
There’s a good frame here that those of us who oppose the war need to use to our advantage: Let McCain and Lieberman champion an all-out war in Afghanistan. It means that if Obama and centrist Dems are not willing to side with this hawkish agenda and immediately commit over half a million troops long-term, then they have abslutely no business sending 17,000 troops or pursuing a half-hearted military agenda because clearly it will be insufficient and ineffective. It’s either a broad-based counterinsurgency, or its regional diplomacy–you can’t have it both ways. Now that McCain and Lieberman have set the rules, we can force the hand of the Obama administration: go all in or go home. Hopefully, Obama will opt to stand up from the table and leave.
I just read the article above, and I am stunned by how easy is to manipulate US public opinion.
So, you want terrorist-free Afghanistan, after bombing and killing them for 8 years? Or, to be more precise, you want a friendly Afghanistan where all of its people will like USA?
At first, I thought this is some kind of joke, having this published while USA is attacking another country in the region, arogantly firing missiles on north Pakistan villages. Also, killing civilians and creating more problems.
It goes down to a simple statistics, nothing more. Since there is no family in Afghanistan which did not lose at least one of its members or relatives and friends, it is hard to beleive such goal is even possible.
Unless, you try to kill all people in Afghanistan.
And, it looks like what McCain is advocating for.
We are there killing terrorists, if you don't like it, tough shit. When Pakistan decides to go get the terrorists in their jurisdiction – we won't have to attack them. When civilians stop hiding terrorists in their midst, they won't die. Just like the lesson learned in Gaza.
Don't you get it stupid?
[...] What war Brooks thinks we can win with 17,000 troops is anyone’s guess. As I’ve written before, most foreign policy experts agree that 17,000 troops will be insufficient to achieve stability in Afghanistan. Andrew Bacevich, for instance, said 17,000 “hardly amounts to more than a drop in the bucket.” But if Brooks disagrees with critics on the left who claim the Obama administration is simply rehashing the Iraq surge strategy, what about voices on the right like Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who claim the only way to bring about “success” in Afghanistan (as they define it) is through an all-out war that requires a massive, long-term military commitment? [...]
I've been reading all day about how the 'success' in Iraq – that's how it's being billed now – is a major credential for some of the military personnel that are getting involved in Afghanistan in earnest. This is what all the “lessons we learned in Iraq is about”. The United States oversaw the deaths of at least a million Iraqis. This is an astounding conclusion. It is a simple equation – occupy, kill the irritant population, declare success. Is this how we do business? The answer, of course, is something like 70 years of “Yes.”
This is the big goal in Afghanistan. Kill everyone who isn't cooperating. Prop up a puppet regime, and when that president finds himself unable to keep from criticizing you for your callous murder of civilians, place a prime minister in power using an end-run that subverts the country's constitution. Roll your eyes that the country might actually 're-elect' this president you worked to get elected and can no longer stand. Keep killing everyone who doesn't cooperate with the more powerful foreigners. Declare success. Do it quickly so we can turn our attention back to South American socialism quickly, before all the Dominoes have really fallen there. Kill another million or two there that aren't cooperating. Liquify whole populations. Declare success. Empower puppet regimes that will continue to do this in your absence so you can get back to killing a million people in the Mid-East. Declare success.
I've been reading all day about how the 'success' in Iraq – that's how it's being billed now – is a major credential for some of the military personnel that are getting involved in Afghanistan in earnest. This is what all the “lessons we learned in Iraq is about”. The United States oversaw the deaths of at least a million Iraqis. This is an astounding conclusion. It is a simple equation – occupy, kill the irritant population, declare success. Is this how we do business? The answer, of course, is something like 70 years of “Yes.”
This is the big goal in Afghanistan. Kill everyone who isn't cooperating. Prop up a puppet regime, and when that president finds himself unable to keep from criticizing you for your callous murder of civilians, place a prime minister in power using an end-run that subverts the country's constitution. Roll your eyes that the country might actually 're-elect' this president you worked to get elected and can no longer stand. Keep killing everyone who doesn't cooperate with the more powerful foreigners. Declare success. Do it quickly so we can turn our attention back to South American socialism quickly, before all the Dominoes have really fallen there. Kill another million or two there that aren't cooperating. Liquify whole populations. Declare success. Empower puppet regimes that will continue to do this in your absence so you can get back to killing a million people in the Mid-East. Declare success.