Hawk Down: Why Biden flipped on Afghanistan.

[Jennicut]

Michael Crowley
September 24, 2009 | 12:00 am

During the 1990s, Joe Biden emerged as one of the Democratic Party's chief foreign policy spokesmen, a strong proponent of the idea that U.S. military power could be used unapologetically for altruistic purposes. He was a strong advocate for military intervention in the Balkans, for instance, and, despite some doubts, he supported the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq and even defended the wisdom of the invasion for several years. "There are some really bright guys and women in my party who underestimate the transformative capability of military power, when coupled with a rational policy that is both preventative and nation-building in nature," Biden told The New Yorker in March of 2005. But the transformative power of military-backed nation-building is just what Biden is now coming to doubt in Afghanistan.

People familiar with Biden's shift in thinking say it has many roots. But none is more apparent or vivid than his disillusionment with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. Soon after Karzai took office in December 2001, Biden traveled to Kabul and, over lunch on two successive days, clicked with the new leader. "They took to each other very well," says a former Biden aide. Impressed, Biden argued that Karzai deserved America's full support, even as Bush officials questioned whether the Afghan was capable of establishing a strong central government.

Within a couple of years, however, Biden was criticizing Karzai's candor and leadership. Nothing shook his faith quite as much as what you might call the Karzai dinners. The first occurred in February 2008, during a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan that Biden took with fellow senators John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Dining on platters of rice and lamb at the heavily fortified presidential palace in Kabul, Biden and his colleagues grilled Karzai about reports of corruption and the growing opium trade in the country, which the president disingenuously denied. An increasingly impatient Biden challenged Karzai's assertions until he lost his temper. Biden finally stood up and threw down his napkin, declaring, "This meeting is over," before he marched out of the room with Hagel and Kerry. It was a similar story nearly a year later. As Obama prepared to assume the presidency in January, he dispatched Biden on a regional fact-finding trip. Again Biden dined with Karzai, and, again, the meeting was contentious. Reiterating his prior complaints about corruption, Biden warned Karzai that the Bush administration's kid-glove treatment was over; the new team would demand more of him.

The article goes on to address the differences in the administration:

Soon after Biden returned to Washington from his January visit to Kabul, the Obama team began its debate on Afghanistan. Some powerful officials--including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Afghanistan point man Richard Holbrooke--argued that the president should approve a substantial troop increase that would enable a broad counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban and stabilize the country. Biden emerged as a leading voice of doubt. Even if such a project could succeed, he argued, it wasn't clear that the massive cost--perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars and untold human lives--would be justified. Biden also worries about politics. In private, his friends in Congress have been forcefully reiterating their publicly expressed doubts about the prospects for success in Afghanistan. As one who has seen nearly 20 election cycles since he came to Washington in 1973, Biden has taken care to remind administration officials that the politics of foreign policy can't be ignored, and that Capitol Hill opinions will invariably shape war policy.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/hawk-down?page=0,1

This is very important as Biden could influence Obama to not send more troops. I started out supportive of Obama's efforts there but lately have begun to doubt that there is anything we can get out of Afghanistan that is positive. With McChrystal and others pushing for more troops, I wonder who Obama will listen to...Hillary and Holbrooke (and Gates) or Biden?

[Arctic Dave]

1. No one messes with Joe!

[blm]

2. I think Biden and Kerry are in the position to influence WH somewhat more than Clinton and Holbrooke

Thank undergod. I think Obama spent enough time with both these men on SFRC to know they are engaged on the issue on many levels. The Dubai/Saudi appeasers of the last 3 decades will have to take a back seat.

[undeterred]

3. Feingold too.

[Jennicut]

5. I do think Kerry and Biden have a lot of experience being on the SFRC

I just hope Obama listens to them. Kerry and Biden both went to Afghanistan before and that is when Biden walked out on Karzai because he would not answer anything truthfully.

[vaberella]

4. I think Obama is looking at Biden. He's reiterated several times he's reassessing the situation.

This has been his trademark. He want's Bin Laden, assuming he's alive, and he wants to get him for his crimes. However he's also not willing to kill or kids or send them out for something wortless. He also wants to help the nation because unrest there leads to unrest across the Western Asia. So he has a lot to juggle...however O is not a war monger and seems to want money spent more on social programs than war.

[Cha]

6. Very interesting background on VP Biden's evolution

on Afghanistan, thank you, Jennicut~

I know this is going to be huge decision and a delicate balance..good luck to those who have to make it.