Tuesday, December 1, 2009
My guess is that President Obama held so many meetings with his national-security advisers on this topic—nine, plus a 10th on Sunday night to get their orders and talking points straight—because he wanted to break through his own ambivalences; because he needed to come up with a reason (not just a rationalization) for doing whatever it is that he’s decided to do, some assurance that it really does make sense, that it has a chance of working, so he can defend it to Congress, the nation, and the world with conviction. Let’s hope he found something. A columnist can be ambivalent; a president can’t be.

Fred Kaplan - My mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan

In the end, the dichotomy he draws between the acceptability of his ambivalence and the unacceptability of a president’s in such a situation sounds to me like he’s saying “it sucks to be you” - which given the complexity and seeming lose-lose outcome of each potential avenue, I kind of agree with. Yet, I’m entirely comfortable with a President and his administration taking their time (or dithering, depending on who you ask) to hammer out a strategy to achieve the nation’s objectives (which, in and of themselves, have not been entirely crystal clear), even going so far as to reconsider campaign rhetoric (which admittedly was rather cheap and crass - but then again, when isn’t it) and previous actions of his administration.

Should a president be ambivalent after initiating a significant war strategy? No. Should a president be ambivalent (at least as I read it) to a point where he questions and considers the intricacies of an issue before initiating said strategy? I think yes.

Friday, November 6, 2009
If [Obama] gives them the extra troops they’re asking for, he loses politically,” Hersh said. “And if he doesn’t give them the troops, he also loses politically.

The Herald-Sun - Hersh Military waging war with White House

That about sums the whole damn thing up.

(via robot-heart-politics)

About as succint of a political description of the AfPak situation you’ll find.

Monday, November 2, 2009
The emerging favorite Republican tactic for killing reform measures without actually admitting that they want to kill reform is to complain that Democrats are “rushing things.” They’re not against reform, they just want enough time to do it right. Kevin Drum, who adds “Unless, of course, the subject is Afghanistan.  Then it’s ‘dithering’ and ‘playing Hamlet.’ (via southpol)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Frontline in Afghanistan

“All Americans seeking to understand the debates on Afghanistan and whether or not to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there should watch it. John Nagl, Bill Mayville and Stan McChrystal make a good argument for a counterinsurgency campaign, while Andrew Bacevich and an especially pithy Celeste Ward make a good argument against pursuing such a campaign. All sides, in other words, acquit themselves rather well. All sides, that is, save for the Pakistani officials. An American watching this documentary might be of two minds as to whether or not we should pursue a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, but he or she will also be of two minds as to why we continue to send so much money and other resources to a country whose leaders are either lying or delusional about the presence of anti-Government of Afghanistan insurgent groups — such as the Quetta Shura Taliban and the Haqqani Network — in Pakistan. The judgment of the documentary’s producers seems to be that Pakistan is more an enemy of the United States than an ally.”

(via the daily dish)

this piece from the new york times magazine is also on my to-read list.

Monday, October 12, 2009
For his part, McCain likes to justify McChrystal’s number of 40,000 by imbuing it with the supposedly magical powers of the “surge” in Iraq. But it’s rewriting history to say that the “surge” brought “victory” to Iraq. What it did was stanch the catastrophic bleeding in an unnecessary war McCain had helped gin up. Lest anyone forget, we still don’t know who has “won” in Iraq.

frank rich in “two wrongs make another fiasco”

another must read from mr. rich.