Andrew Sullivan: The Morning After

[babylonsister]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-morning-after.html

The Morning After
Andrew Sullivan



I think this strategy is doomed. But then I think any strategy that does not pledge to colonize Afghanistan, pour trillions of dollars into it and stay for a century is doomed. So why do I end up this morning feeling rather similar to my colleague, Jim Fallows, who simply sighs: 'Well, I hope he's right"?

Here's why. The sanest option - leave now - would leave allies high and dry, prompt domestic cries of surrender, demoralize the military, break a clear campaign pledge, and signal to Pakistan that the Taliban is their problem now. Everything but the latter are worth avoiding.

snip//

How best to unwind the empire? By giving McChrystal what he wants and giving him a couple of years to deliver tangible results. If McChrystal delivers, fantastic. I will do a ritual self-flagellation and bow down to the man with no body-fat and a close relationship with 33 Kagans of various generations and genders. If McChrystal does his best and we still get nowhere, Obama will have demonstrated - not argued, demonstrated - that withdrawal is the least worst option.

The far right will accuse him of weakness - but they will do that anyway. All he need do is remind Americans of what the far right version of "strength" is: engaging an enemy on his own turf, sustaining an insurgency by our very presence, draining the Treasury of trillions, sacrificing more young men and women to shore up one of the most corrupt governments on earth, and basically returning to Bush-Cheney land. And that will be a very telling argument in 2012: do we want to go back to Cheneyism? To torture and endless occupation and a third war with a Muslim nation, Iran?

On reflection, Obama was saying something quite simple: one more try, guys. We owe it to those who have sacrificed already to try and finish the job. He has given the effort the full resources it needs at a time of real scarcity. He has given COIN doctrine one more chance to prove itself. He has put Petraeus and McChrystal and the 45 Kagans on notice: prove your case. And in this, I think Obama has found a middle balance that reflects where a lot of us are on this and that also offers a good faith chance for progress - with a good sense exit ramp after a reasonable length of time.

The final piece of the puzzle strikes me as this: the big ramp up in CIA activity in Pakistan. This is the second channel, the one Obama barely mentioned last night. It may be the more important one. My sense is that Obama wants to get bin Laden. Well, of course he does. Which president wouldn't? But the international and domestic impact of such a coup is hard to overstate and Obama's sense of how it would transform him and the entire dynamic of the terror war is typically cunning. I see the Afghan effort as one last chance to get al Qaeda's leadership, to bring justice to the 9/11 perpetrators, while hoping, in the medium term, to tamp down the raw civilizational conflict that empowers them.

As always with Obama, look a little deeper. He has made the very best of a very bad situation. And he is playing a long game for a win or a necessary withdrawal or both. I retain all my doubts; but I give him and Gates and McChrystal and Clinton and the troops all my support for the two years ahead. This much he and they deserve.

One more try, guys.

[HopeOverFear]

1. "What President wouldn't?" = Bush wouldn't...and didn't

Agree wholeheartedly with the rest of his op ed.

[Cha]

2. At least Andrew is dealing in facts

and going off on some bush comparison tangent that has nothing to do with reality.

[quiet.american]

6. Beat me to it, Cha. nt

[Cha]

11. They lose all validity

when they expose that they can't or won't see the difference.

That strawman only proves the user hasn't been paying attention.

And, Sullivan does pay attention.

[hlthe2b]

3. I appreciate Andrew's balanced and pragmatic analysis

As one caught in the middle, not happy with either this approach or any proposed alternatives, it is a good read.

[Duende azul]

4. He is wrong on 2012. And on much more.

Obama will sacrifice all those people only demonstrate to the public: "See, it doesn't work, now we leave"?
Does Sullivan really believe Obama has such a cruel sense of humor? telling the commanders "Gotcha! And I knew it from the start you would fail. Ha!"? That's multidimensional chessplaying for perverts.

And rest assured, the Media will not contribute in any antiwar agenda.
By then there will be the same mantra as just now: leaving is loosing.
And by that time no one - with the short public attention span given - will even remember Bush and Cheney.


If Obama really wanted to tell them "One more try, guys.", he should've openly done so.

The most probable developement is that no Dem will even talk about withdrawl with the general election around the corner ("weak on defense", "so many sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform in vain?").

And the antiwar movement? Hell, those who call the shots will always be able to put a wacko repub on stage to threaten peaceniks again in the lesser of to evils corner.

For now the task is to stifle the antiwar sentiment enough with fluffy propaganda and hopemongering. This Andrew Sullivan-Guy is just part of the machine to sell the war. And you will not be able to hold Obama accountable for the hope Andrew Sullivan instilled in you.
There were lots of Andrew Sullivans on DU during campaign to calm down the folks who where worried with Obama's Afghanistan and Pakistan war remarks. These apologists are nowhere to be seen nowadays.
They have changed message to "he told you so during campaign".
And their meme in 2012 will be: "He never told you we'd be out in 2012. Didn't you pay attention to his speech?"


So this Sullivan-Guy is grossly misleading. And don't you get me started on his Osama nonsense. Who will buy that of all actors possible the CIA will deliver Osama to let Obama out of the war-trap? That's ridiculous.

[Lilith Velkor]

5. The CIA put the kibosh on the Iran invasion two years ago

They are capable of doing the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reason.

I don't think it's in their interest to let us out of the region entirely, since they make so much money in the heroin trade, but it might be in their interest to see to a symbolic victory in order to keep the press away.

That being said, Bareback Andy is still full of shit. Unreccing this thread, as I automatically do whenever someone posts his drivel here.

[emulatorloo]

7. interesting piece, thanks for posting it n/t

[lunatica]

8. It's called the Horns of A Dilemma

No good solution so he goes with the best possible bad solution.

That's what it looks like to me. I knew that Bush and Cheney knew that all they had to do was start the war and let things get fucked up. That their war would continue simply because to choose to end it suddenly would be un-viable.

I had hoped that it wasn't too late, but unless we want our country to be perceived as quitters, like Sarah Palin, then we must stay to try to finish the job or bring it to a better ending than just abandonment. Besides, we already did that before when the Russians left and we just turned our back on Afghanistan and it came back to bite us badly.

[grasswire]

10. yep, it was George's job to break the egg

...and he did.

[grasswire]

9. easy for everyone, Andrew, except the soldiers who will die...

...or be maimed, as well as their families.

How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake? The question is now put to Sullivan.