- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
Afghanistan, Obama, and The Tenacity Question
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The Tenacity Question
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 29, 2009
Today, President Obama will lead another meeting to debate strategy in Afghanistan.
He will presumably discuss the questions that have divided his advisers: How many troops to commit? How to define plausible goals? Should troops be deployed broadly or just in the cities and towns?
For the past few days I have tried to do what journalists are supposed to do.
I’ve called around to several of the smartest military experts I know to get their views on these controversies. I called retired officers, analysts who have written books about counterinsurgency warfare, people who have spent years in Afghanistan. I tried to get them to talk about the strategic choices facing the president. To my surprise, I found them largely uninterested.
Most of them have no doubt that the president is conducting an intelligent policy review. They have no doubt that he will come up with some plausible troop level.
They are not worried about his policy choices. Their concerns are more fundamental. They are worried about his determination.
These people, who follow the war for a living, who spend their days in military circles both here and in Afghanistan, have no idea if President Obama is committed to this effort. They have no idea if he is willing to stick by his decisions, explain the war to the American people and persevere through good times and bad.
Their first concerns are about Obama the man. They know he is intellectually sophisticated. They know he is capable of processing complicated arguments and weighing nuanced evidence.
But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.
Their second concern is political. They do not know if President Obama regards Afghanistan as a distraction from the matters he really cares about: health care, energy and education. Some of them suspect that Obama talked himself into supporting the Afghan effort so he could sound hawkish during the campaign. They suspect he is making a show of commitment now so he can let the matter drop at a politically opportune moment down the road.
Finally, they do not understand the president’s fundamental read on the situation. Most of them, like most people who have spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, believe this war is winnable.
They do not think it will be easy or quick.
But they do have a bedrock conviction that the Taliban can be stymied and that the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be strengthened. But they do not know if Obama shares this gut conviction or possesses any gut conviction on this subject at all.
The experts I spoke with describe a vacuum at the heart of the war effort — a determination vacuum. And if these experts do not know the state of President Obama’s resolve, neither do the Afghan villagers.
They are now hedging their bets, refusing to inform on Taliban force movements because they are aware that these Taliban fighters would be their masters if the U.S. withdraws.
Nor does President Hamid Karzai know. He’s cutting deals with the Afghan warlords he would need if NATO leaves his country.
Nor do the Pakistanis or the Iranians or the Russians know. They are maintaining ties with the Taliban elements that would represent their interests in the event of a U.S. withdrawal.
The determination vacuum affects the debate in this country, too. Every argument about troop levels is really a proxy argument for whether the U.S. should stay or go. The administration is so divided because the fundamental issue of commitment has not been settled.
Some of the experts asked what I thought of Obama’s commitment level. I had to confess I’m not sure either.
So I guess the president’s most important meeting is not the one with the Joint Chiefs and the cabinet secretaries. It’s the one with the mirror, in which he looks for some firm conviction about whether Afghanistan is worthy of his full and unshakable commitment.
If the president cannot find that core conviction, we should get out now. It would be shameful to deploy more troops only to withdraw them later. If he does find that conviction, then he should let us know, and fill the vacuum that is eroding the chances of success.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has said that counterinsurgency is “an argument to win the support of the people.”
But it’s not an argument won through sophisticated analysis. It’s an argument won through the display of raw determination.
Note: This item contains 8 connected files (see top right)
Added: Nov 1 2009 In: news_politics,middle_east
Recorded on: Nov 1 2009By: marinemom 
- Tags:
- afghanistan,
- obama
- Views: 699 |
- Votes: 1 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 17
- |
- Send to Friends |
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
-
Unknown title (jpg-file)
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
Determination ! Thanks MOM ! How soon they forget . Stay safe Troops and Thanks ! Support OUR Troops !
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "monkeyboy61" (R)
His indecision clearly indicates he lacks the backbone necessary to make hard choices.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "Fenrisulfr" (R)
Thinkin is fer fags, ya jus run in guns a'blazin! YEEEEEHAAAAAW!
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "Nurb" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "marinemom" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
they're going to come back no matter when we leave. In fact they've never left, they've just been scattered and constantly harassing our troops.
It's a shithole sandtrap. Doesn't the history of other nations and empires invading that place mean anything to anyone?
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "Nurb" (R)
karzai must be shitting bricks. 8 years...only a matter of time now before he's on his lonesome.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "matttheoz" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
they're going to come back no matter when we leave. In fact they've never left, they've just been scattered and constantly harassing our troops.
It's a shithole sandtrap. Doesn't the history of other nations and empires invading that place mean anything to anyone?
Yes, the history is what it is.
If we give Afghanistan back to the taliban, then we go back to situation there pre-9/11.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "marinemom" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
they're going to come back no matter when we leave. In fact they've never left, they've just been scattered and constantly harassing our troops.
It's a shithole sandtrap. Doesn't the history of other nations and empires invading that place mean anything to anyone?
Yes, the history is what it is.
If we give Afghanistan back to the taliban, then we go back to situation there pre-9/11.
its like that in pakistan and northern africa right now, they have camps training muslim extremists, but fighting them doesn't mean invading and nation building every time like with the current messes we're in. To accomplish what they want to accomplish they're going to need hundreds of thousands of troops
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "Nurb" (R)
to bad you cant remove the innocent ones and make the
place a parking lot!
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "realpriority" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
they're going to come back no matter when we leave. In fact they've never left, they've just been scattered and constantly harassing our troops.
It's a shithole sandtrap. Doesn't the history of other nations and empires invading that place mean anything to anyone?
Yes, the history is what it is.
If we give Afghanistan back to the taliban, then we go back to situation there pre-9/11.
its like that in pakistan and northern africa right now, they have camps training muslim extremists, but fighting them doesn't mean invading and nation building every time like with the current messes we're in. To accomplish what they want to accomplish they're going to need hundreds of thousands of troops
Yes, but most of those countries are fighting them. If we leave Afghanistan now, they will take over and no one will be fighting them. Then we're back to where we were before 9/11.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "marinemom" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
they're going to come back no matter when we leave. In fact they've never left, they've just been scattered and constantly harassing our troops.
It's a shithole sandtrap. Doesn't the history of other nations and empires invading that place mean anything to anyone?
Yes, the history is what it is.
If we give Afghanistan back to the taliban, then we go back to situation there pre-9/11.
its like that in pakistan and northern africa right now, they have camps training muslim extremists, but fighting them doesn't mean invading and nation building every time like with the current messes we're in. To accomplish what they want to accomplish they're going to need hundreds of thousands of troops
Yes, but most of those countries are fighting them. If we leave Afghanistan now, they will take over and no one will be fighting them. Then we're back to where we were before 9/11.
I wish I could be optimistic, but it's going to be that way no matter when we pull out.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "Nurb" (R)
repeating the same rehtoric over and over, denying problems exist, ignoring criticism, and action over forethought doesn't equal "tenacity" or "determination", its just being stupied and bull-headed.
There's no reason to be there anymore, you can't invade and build a nation to fight terrorism, bring the troops home and let them rest before the pakistan/india shitshorm starts because no one else in the world is going to do dick about it.
If we do that, the taliban will take over Afghanistan again.
they're going to come back no matter when we leave. In fact they've never left, they've just been scattered and constantly harassing our troops.
It's a shithole sandtrap. Doesn't the history of other nations and empires invading that place mean anything to anyone?
Yes, the history is what it is.
If we give Afghanistan back to the taliban, then we go back to situation there pre-9/11.
its like that in pakistan and northern africa right now, they have camps training muslim extremists, but fighting them doesn't mean invading and nation building every time like with the current messes we're in. To accomplish what they want to accomplish they're going to need hundreds of thousands of troops
Yes, but most of those countries are fighting them. If we leave Afghanistan now, they will take over and no one will be fighting them. Then we're back to where we were before 9/11.
I wish I could be optimistic, but it's going to be that way no matter when we pull out.
It is hard to be optimistic about Afghanistan. Nurb, I think the only hope for a positive outcome in Afghanistan is to be very, very tough. Tough on the militants, and tough on the Afghan government as well.
I don't think these people will respond to anything else.....So it's the carrot or the stick, the iron fist or the velvet glove, the best friend, or the worst enemy.
I don't like this any more than you do. I just don't think failure and defeat is good for the U.S., Afghanistan, or Pakistan. It's only good for our enemies.
Posted Nov-1-2009 by "marinemom" (R)
If the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda are the types of people that would respond to diplomacy, a kind gesture, discussion and negotiation, there is hope for obama to win them over.
On the other hand (as appears to be the case) the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda follow an unswerving fanatical islamic agenda and think nothing of mass murder, then a more robust, committed military approach is probably called for; which would apparently exclude obama.
The same is probably true of Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Palestinians and others that appear to be unimpressed with the power of the U.S. at this time.
Oh what to do, what to do...... tick tock, tick tock
Posted Nov-2-2009 by "wozzoo" (R)
Good morning marinemom, I can't believe it has been almost 5 weeks we discussed this little deal.
It's a sad commentary on the new administration's ability to make timely decisions.
Thanks for the upload.
Best Regards from The Peoples Republic of Ma.
Posted Nov-2-2009 by "aussite" (R)