Disqus - Latest Comments for afivenson

Re: Hannukah & Eid-al-Adha

afivenson — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:42:21 -0000

Actually, Hannukah has not yet passed for the year. Tonight is the 6th of 8 nights.

For some historical perspective on the birth of the holiday, here's a column from December 10th by the NY Times's David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009...

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

afivenson — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:09:28 -0000

Kim, thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm glad to know that you are so passionate about this issue.

I agree with you: war is bar-none the most horrible institution that we as a species have created. No one likes the effects it has on individuals, and on a society as a whole. That being said, the purpose of my post was not to rally in favor of war, but to understand the factors that went into the decision making process that led to President Obama's announcement last week. The questions I am attempting to answer are:

-Why would our leaders make such a decision, as they, above all people, recognize the costs associated?
-What benefits do they see that maybe most people don't?

Understanding how the answers to those questions apply to US national interests will help us to better reconcile our situation, and maybe even quicken our exit from Afghanistan on grounds beneficial to those national interests.

If you're interested in the war, and what we're doing there, I urge you to start reading the experts on both sides of the issue and trying to understand their perspectives. That will help you to deepen your own knowledge of the situation. You might look into the following information sources:

http://afpak.foreignpolicy....
http://smallwarsjournal.com...
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/a...
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes....

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

afivenson — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:55:13 -0000

wine clubs & suzannecamarillo: thanks for your comments

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

afivenson — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:10:59 -0000

Thanks for reading, Dan.

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

afivenson — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:10:40 -0000

Thanks for the response Mike. You make great points, and all of them force me to think harder about all of my own.

First, on the subject of credibility as a justification for war.

We didn’t enter either war because of credibility, but given the position we’re in today, it’s a major reason why our elected officials have made the decision they have made.

Obviously the decision to invade Iraq was a misguided one from the start, and it has done major damage to our international credibility (the Bush presidency did plenty of that). The goal now is, in effect, damage control. Paradoxically, that means sending more of our boys into harm’s way (personal friends of mine among them).

I think the key is to approach it from a realist perspective, that is to say, we are in the situation we’re in because of what we’ve done before. There’s nothing we can do about that, all we can do is look forward to the next decision. For me, that means whether or not you agree with our presence there, the fact is that pulling out now, and not accomplishing our goals, would be very harmful to us on the international stage. If we did decide to pull out, a lot of countries would applaud the decision, but they would also be licking their chops and seeing that the US no longer has the fortitude or the will to lead among nations. With China, India, and Brazil all eager to take their seats at the big boys table and push their own interests on the international stage, we have to be more concerned than ever about where we stand. That’s not to say that international politics is a zero sum game; we can all rise together, but in order to keep setting the agenda as we have done for the past fifty years, we’ve got to have credibility, other countries have to know that following our lead is the path to success, not failure. The decision makers understand this, although they’ll never say it. They have to stick to the homeland-security argument, because that’s the only one that constituents will condone.

Second, I wholeheartedly agree that unique formulation of our political, social, and economic culture has led to our elevated position in the world, but you must admit that this relationship is cyclical, especially in today’s interconnected world. This was a topic I meant to delve deeper into in the post, and I think explaining how American diplomatic (and military) might has bettered our lives at home is worth a whole separate post. Still, I think it can be said that it wasn’t until our great military victories earlier in the 20th century that the United States was really catapulted into the position of a “hyperpower” and it has been thanks to our diplomatic efforts that we’ve been able to capitalize on that position. I guess one way to look at it might be that our quality of life (and thus our ability to innovate and create) HAS elevated our position in the world, but our position in the world has also contributed to our quality of life, especially in the latter half of the 20th century.

Thirdly, as for the decision to send more troops, I don’t like it any more than the next person. Once again, my intent is not to lend support to the decision, but simply to shed some light on the factors that have contributed to it.

Thanks for the comments, I hope our discussion isn’t over!

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

afivenson — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:09:07 -0000

You’re absolutely right, Obama’s statement that US forces would begin to withdraw in mid-2011 is indeed a confusing signal. Since that statement, both Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates have been dissembling left and right to emphasize that that date is not set in stone. They were on Meet the Press together on Sunday to state exactly that. To see the clip, click here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id... and scroll down a bit. You might have to sit through a Boeing commercial, but after that the clip with Sec.s Clinton and Gates will begin.

The difficulty for Obama is that his speech (http://www.youtube.com/watc... had a whole litany of different audiences, each of whom took something different from the speech.

First- the American people. He had to set a time horizon for withdraw to send his constituent the message that our commitment is not everlasting, especially with the 2010 and 2012 elections creeping ever closer.
Second- the Afghan government. The decision to send more troops says “we support you” but the time horizon is primarily directed at the corrupt polity of Hamid Karzai. The statement is that they had better get their act together and curb corruption within their government, because that’s the only way they’re going to build support among their people and de-legitimize the Taliban. This is the most difficult balancing act, because if conditions are not better come 2011, and Obama does decide to pull out, it will be an even bigger disaster for US credibility because of how hard we’ve tried and still failed.
Third- The Taliban and al-Qaida. He had to tell them that we’re still coming for them. For their ears, it would have been better not to specify a withdraw date, because knowing that could allow them to just sit tight until 2011, and once we’re gone, launch an all new assault. However, our presence in their country legitimizes their battle and bolsters recruiting efforts, so it would seem that this strategy would rob them of their boogey man.
Fourth- The Afghan people. He wants them to know that we’re going to be there to protect them, and that when we clear the Taliban out of a town, we’re no longer going to move on to the next town so the Taliban can just roll back into town and kill anyone who’s seen as a collaborator. Once again, it would have been better for this audience not to hear about the withdraw date, because that might cause them to hedge their bets
Fifth- Our allies. Once again, sending in more troops is our way of saying “follow us, this is our battle and we’re going to win.” The hope is that it will inspire our allies to shoulder a little more of the load, and with NATO committing an additional 7,000 troops to the effort, it would seem that this has been accomplished.
Sixth- Pakistan. Similar to the Afghan people, he wants Pakistan (both the people and the government) to know that we’re not going to abandon them, and that we’re taking further ownership of the battle. The withdraw date was not exactly music to Pakistanis’ ears.

That’s a lot of audiences whose interests he had to balance. Overall he and his advisors must have made the decision that including the withdraw date was better than leaving it out. As John McCain said in a piece on ForeignPolicy.com this week, it’s not good for our credibility, but the idea is that making the statement covers Obama politically for now, and hopefully when 2011 rolls around, the situation on the ground will be different. If not, he’s going to have a difficult time getting another troop surge.

Also, I agree that those two questions are key, and that a realist perspective is the best approach. We’re there, what’s happened has happened, what do we do next and why? The administration has made the decision to escalate, let’s hope it’s the right one.

I did read the article you suggested. An interesting perspective, the author seems to say that the entire war is futile. That might be right, but he doesn’t address the potential consequences of a complete pull-out. That’s what I’m attempting to do.

Thanks for weighing in!

Re: The "Heaven" of world religions other than Christianity

afivenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:55:57 -0000

Haha the alliteration was good, yes!

Re: The "Heaven" of world religions other than Christianity

afivenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:00:20 -0000

Hi Ed, my apologies: I wasn't clear with my meaning.

What I meant was that just as most modern Christians DON'T believe they'll get a set of wings, harp, and halo upon arrival in heaven, most modern Muslims DON'T believe they'll get 72 virgins if they martyr themselves.

It seems that we are in complete agreement on this :)

As an addendum, we should recognize that even extremists who are willing to blow themselves up may be doing it for reasons other than a belief that they'll be given 72 virgins in heaven.

Re: Why did Obama drop his chips before heading to the table?

afivenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:39:08 -0000

Marat, there are definitely two sides of this decision as any other. If they are intending to do what they said they were going to do, defend from Iranian missile launches, the decision will be more effective.

Obviously there are sacrifices that come along with that decision, but obviously the administration has decided that its strategic relationship with certain Eastern European countries is strong enough that they will have other opportunities to strengthen those strategic alliances.

Re: The "Heaven" of world religions other than Christianity

afivenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:36:28 -0000

In the context of nine historical crusades one can understand how the promise of 72 virgins to those who make the ultimate sacrifice for the protection of their religion/culture would be an effective recruiting tool, both historically and today.

Modern Muslims believe that promise just as much as modern Christians believe they’ll get a set of wings, harp, and halo upon arrival in heaven (with the exception of a very small subset of extremist).

Re: Why did Obama drop his chips before heading to the table?

afivenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:39:04 -0000

Ed, thanks for your perspective.

Another question that was on my mind was: given the rosy portrait administration officials have painted of the decision, saying it will cost less and better address the threat of Iranian short and medium range missiles, it seemed that there must be some major trade-off. Poland's (and the Czechs') trust was just that, I.E., the chips we dropped before sitting down at the bargaining table.

Re: Drab life of a foreign correspondent & crisis in Kurdistan

afivenson — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:53:52 -0000

I haven't read that one Marat, but I'll definitely add it to my list haha

and i agree, it looks like a difficult life jetting around Africa with Mrs. Clinton!

Re: Ahmadinejad's inauguration is the not end for opposition

afivenson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:11:12 -0000

I would be very surprised to see any sudden realizations on behalf of any politicians; the battle lines are drawn, and they've all got too much riding on sticking to their guns, especially those that support Ahmadinejad (still a large majority).

Still, that doesn't mean I'm not hopeful, especially given Rafsanjani's involvement.

Thanks for posting that web site, it's really helpful!

Re: Do we all have a stake in climate change?

afivenson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:07:07 -0000

Thanks for the comments!

The post was made with regard to whether climate change (be it real or imagined) would be a real threat to America's national security. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the droughts, floods, and massive geographic and topographical changes that would come as a result of climate change would affect our national security, both by drawing us into foreign conflicts and by affecting our own national defenses by weakening our infrastructure.

I suppose all of this does depend on a belief in the veracity of the threat posed by climate change, and our own agency in its onset. I can't make the case any better than Al Gore/Thomas Friedman/T Boone Pickens, and it seems to me that if you aren't convinced by the information that's out there already, you don't want to be convinced :)

The difficulty is that the issue is so vehemently split between political dogmas that no one is really willing to listen to the other side. Liberals tend to exaggerate the current dangers/effects of climate change ("It's too late!") and conservatives tend to downplay it ("It's all a lie!").

Disqus - Latest Comments for afivenson

Re: Hannukah & Eid-al-Adha

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

Re: The other reason we're still in Afghanistan

Re: The "Heaven" of world religions other than Christianity

Re: The "Heaven" of world religions other than Christianity

Re: Why did Obama drop his chips before heading to the table?

Re: The "Heaven" of world religions other than Christianity

Re: Why did Obama drop his chips before heading to the table?

Re: Drab life of a foreign correspondent & crisis in Kurdistan

Re: Ahmadinejad's inauguration is the not end for opposition

Re: Do we all have a stake in climate change?

Re: New Comment System

Re: New Comment System