Friday, October 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
Links
- BBC Obama Diary
- CapitolHillAccess
- DC Interns (What not to do)
- DC365
- DCBlogs
- DCFoodies
- Eschaton
- ExpressAdvocacy
- Famousdc.com
- Farragut Medical
- First Read
- fivethirtyeight.com
- Flu.gov
- Gapminder
- HopStopDC
- Hot Air
- http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
- http://www.flu.gov/plan/index.html
- Hullabaloo
- John Cole's Blog
- Kennedy Center
- Matt Yglesias
- Michelle Malkin
- National Journal
- Next Right
- NW Nurse Practitioners
- Open CRS
- Red State
- Stats
- Talking Points Memo
- The Hill
- The Page
- ThinkProgress
- TownHall
- WAPO Blogs
- Washington Caps
- Washington Nationals
- Washingtonian.com
- Wonkabout
- WSJ Best of the Web
- Youtube US Government
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(3448)
-
▼
October
(339)
- Dede is done!
- White House War Against Right Wing Media
- Framing the debate on the results of next Tuesday'...
- And for the POLITICAL grumpy vegans...
- For all the "Grumpy Vegans" in the room...
- Public Option: A disaster in disguise?
- Happy Birthday Chris
- Free speech and international law
- $894 Billion or $1.274 Trillion?
- 7 members of Congress under investigation for ethi...
- Happy Halloween!
- Time at Guantanamo Considered at Sentencing
- Tough stuff from Peggy Noonan
- Fun facts about the House health bill in this Poli...
- Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support the ...
- More on Lieberman
- Wed College Girls- from the NYT a hundred years ago
- The conversation-Self Image and Party Politics
- Article about Reid's Senate Leadership Ties in Wel...
- Groundhog Day: Ten Articles that Keep Appearing in...
- Revolution in a Box: Read this article about why ...
- Affordable Health Care for America Act
- Boehner: Let America Read the Bill
- Transcripts of Defeat
- Obama makes early morning visit to Dover AFB to ho...
- Ah, the Published Life
- Cash for clunkers cost $24,000 per car
- $8000 housing credit costs $43,000 per house
- The Old Hat People?
- Singing in the rain
- Lawrence Halprin, architect of the FDR Memorial, d...
- Click on the image to enlarge it.Read the first le...
- The Hill "World Series could be game-changer for N...
- History of Arlington Cemetary
- Obama Is Right About Fox News
- Post-graciousism?
- List of America's Safest Cities
- "The only thing we have to fear is FOX itself"
- Chrysler to unveil product roadmap on November 4th
- Today's Senate Environment and Public Works Commit...
- Humane Society Legislative Fund Fundraiser
- The Swine is Here!
- Scalia Would Have Voted to Keep School Segregation
- More public options?
- WSJ op-ed arguing that we legalize insider trading
- What if Bush Did it?
- CNN Drops to Last Place Among Cable News Networks
- U.S. News & World Report: America's Best Places to...
- Afghan Election Rests on the Backs of Donkeys
- Christie Vilsack Not Challenging Iowa Sen. Grassley
- Myths of our Afghanistan debate
- CHEESESTEAKS FOR CHEESECAKES: NEW YORK AND PENNSYL...
- Editorial: Region needs U.S. attorney
- Anyone dressing up as Barakula for Halloween?
- Barack the Barbarian
- State of Distress
- Tea Party Ready to Hit the Road
- New rules due on defense outsources
- More Republican obstructionism
- Hotel Owners Changes Employee's Names
- Yuppie 911
- The Left vs. The Right
- "Health Insurance" company doesn't provide insuran...
- the Bros on the Hill
- Is Bam too much of a Bro?
- Schumer-Big John Showdown on health care (Round 2)...
- Wish I could afford that...
- More on Obama vs. Fox
- Will Schumer amendment doom health care?
- Noonan on Obama
- Spanish versus English
- Outfoxed
- Surge against Fox out of Alinsky playbook?
- GOP favorable rating lowest in a decade
- Of Climate Change and Nuclear Power
- Obama graces NJ with his presence
- The Left takes on The Left
- Some Dems worry about surge against Fox News
- The Chicago Way
- MediaMatters takes on Fox
- Senator Byrd stands up for safety of elementary sc...
- Firefighter v. New Haven, again
- Senate GOP campaign chief Cornyn turns his attenti...
- The Aryan Sisterhood
- The Hammer on the War on Fox
- Intrigue behind the war
- Okay, so I just saw the picture link for this on t...
- The Nation preps book mocking Palin
- Dede in deep doo doo?
- From Gitmo to Amherst?
- Conservatives roar; Republicans tremble
- Giant Seagull Interrupts News Anchor
- Algae Key to Climate Change Reform?
- Gillibrand's Op-Ed in WSJ about Cap and Trade
- Did You Know: WJ Hosts Wear Pants
- A World Without Cars
- More on microtargeting
- What is microtargeting?
- What a good looking group!
- Text of Cheney speech
-
▼
October
(339)
Contributors
- Amy S.
- Amy
- Andre
- Anna Mikhailovich
- B. De Graff
- Beaumont
- Ben A.
- Beryl
- Binchan Luo
- Brandon D
- Camron
- Cara
- Caroline Novas
- Charlie Ruff
- Charlotte
- Chris R
- Colin
- Cris
- D. Paris
- Dean Woodley Ball
- Eddie A
- Ellie
- G.Johnson
- Greg Hyman
- Holly
- Ian Thresher
- Joseph Anderson
- Josh Yates
- Julia G
- Katie Donlevie
- Kelsey
- Kevin Prior
- Kevin Tutasig
- Knute
- Kristin Schwam
- Kye
- Latasha
- Maggie
- Matt Billet
- Megan
- Mia Cakebread
- Michael Koester
- ND
- NH Dem
- Olivia W.
- PBM
- PL
- Ross Perot
- Roxy
- Sam Reider
- Sanjana Nafday
- Scott Milne
- Shaan
- Steve LaRochelle
- Sydney Proze
- TJE
- TMB
- Test_Email
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Victor Banor
- Walter Cronkite
- Wenxi
- Will Bardeen
- Will McCurry
- ZAG
- Zoe Aldrich
- alexrued
- charliewarzel
- gslayen
- heckler
- jwhitney
- kstill
- njDylan
- wrusche
15 comments:
This would be a good analogy-- except for the fact that *after* what was called a complete review of strategy, Obama hand picked McChrystal to implement that strategy.
The article is talking more about, as I see it, the dangers of the deference we give to military commanders on strategic matters - when their purview is really mostly tactical.
But Obama removed the former commander and replaced him with McChrystal precisely to implement the *President's strategy* after what he called the "completion" of a strategic review.
The strategic discussion is currently underway, though, isn't it? We have guys like Biden advocating a limited counterterrorism role, while others are advocating a full court press counterinsurgency strategy.
"On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."
Isn't a strategy review happening again? McChrystal wants to go all-out COIN, and that's giving some people a bad feeling about our approach. If the May strategy now calls for an additional 60,000 or 80,000 troops - 40 to 60 thousand on top of the 20,000 already sent--and that was unforseen at the time, why shouldn't we re-evaluate and see if it's really worth committing that much of a presence there? An unexpected change in human and/or material costs definitely should call for a review of strategy.
Perhaps, but I thought you (and the linked article) were faulting McChrystal. Not sure it's fair to fault the world best counterinsurgency general for trying to do the job that the President appointed him to do six months ago. As for new, new review I think I agree with Charles Krauthammer that I have more trust in the military judgment of Generals Petraous and McChrystal than Generals Biden and Emmanuel.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/09/young_hamlets_agony_98640.html
I have full confidence in our generals' abilities to follow their orders and perform their assigned tasks admirably.
But it's up to the Secretary of Defense and the President's advisers as to how best approach the issue. McChrystal said that if we're going to do a COIN strategy, it will require 60,000 troops. Biden doesn't want to do a COIN strategy. I don't think Biden's input is somehow less relevant simply because he's not in the military. It's a strategic judgment.
The article faulted the response to MacArthur's firing for creating a situation in which our generals are treated as better suited for strategy than they actually are. I agree with that sentiment. I don't doubt McChrystal's ability to execute a counterinsurgency strategy that works extremely well. But it isn't McChrystal's role to say whether or not we should continue a counterinsurgency strategy (and to his credit, he hasn't opined on that.)
But POTUS adopted a counterinsurgency strategy six months ago after a careful review, presumably including VPOTUS. Is six months enough time to assess that strategy. Or is the "good war" no longer the "good war."
Obviously some people feel that the decision they made in May was misinformed or wrong. I don't know if it was or if it wasn't. But I really like seeing people think critically about these problems as they are today, not just accepting a past decision as the end of the discussion.
Critical thinking or bowing to pressure from the left flank?
Could easily be both, I dunno.
Are you agreeing with Charles K?
Evan, I always learn something from our exchanges, and you always force me to sharpen my thinking. You might find this op-ed interesting
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459552088369672.html
I definitely agree--it's always good to have an engaging debate, especially about important policy issues. And it's good to be sort of forced to see the other side; a survey on one's own is never quite good enough.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with Krauthammer, but I think it would be silly rule political considerations out of this...it certainly could be an issue. But I also think there's an overarching strategic concern of just turning Afghanistan into another Iraq--with the specter of Vietnam always overhead.
That article is interesting, and raises good points about overall regional security. I don't think anyone is arguing that you can achieve the same level of stability with surgical strikes as you can with a large-scale ground presence. Heintz does not really address whether this protected us from al Qaeda directly--it's certainly an effective way to gain intelligence, but is it the only way? Is it even the most effective?
I think a major issue in Afghanistan is that we still don't really know why we're there anymore. Is it to keep the Taliban from coming back? To eradicate al Qaeda? To prevent an unstable Afghanistan from spilling over and destabilizing the nuclear Pakistan? Obviously the initial goal of the operation was to dismantle the Taliban, kill Osama bin Laden, and remove the "safe havens" of al Quaeda in the AfPak region. But we've long since moved past 1, forgotten about 2, and 3 is a long-term continuing process that may never really end. Meanwhile, we're pouring thousands of troops and billions of dollars in there, escalating a war to attain a victory we really can't define.
I think that if our strategic goal is to make Afghanistan a stable state, or a loosely aligned coalition of states (somewhat akin to early Swiss cantons), in order to prevent an extremist Taliban from rising again, we should say so. That sounds like it's the goal of Heintz. And that's a noble goal. The country has been ravaged by years of war, and pouring in relatively small amounts of money would have a huge impact in the wellbeing of its citizens...but I'm not sure that's the path we've chosen.
The solution to this issue is, to steal a phrase from Obama, above my pay grade, I think.
Post a Comment