If being a “responsible progressive” means backing bad policies out of cheap political calculations, count me out.

The Center for American Progress and Lawrence Korb are feeling some heat for advocating escalation in Afghanistan. The Nation asks

Where is the memo from the Center for American Progress outlining the case against giving the president “a blank check for endless war”?

Korb responds, arguing that “responsible” progressives endorse escalation, while others oppose all war out of naivete.

Hiding behind the President, he makes the good war/dumb war distinction. But the President was referring to the buildup toward war in Iraq - not to an occupation that has lasted more than seven years without clear success. As Bob Herbert says,

The time to go all out in Afghanistan was in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 terror attacks. That time has passed.

The question is not whether Afghanistan is a “good” or “dumb” war, but rather whether escalation will make America safer. Korb’s assertion that “Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity” needs to be evaluated against present national security interests. Korb only identifies three:

First, despite some setbacks, Al Qaeda and its affiliates have regained a strategic safe haven within Afghanistan and Pakistan. Second, a failed Afghanistan would threaten the stability of Pakistan and the region. Finally, Afghanistan’s opium revenues fund regional and international terrorists.

None of these points provides a clear rationale for escalation.

First, the New Republic, of all places, has problematized the idea that we must eliminate safe havens:

The emphasis on destroying “safe havens”…establishes a tricky rationale for our presence in Afghanistan. Even if we succeed in spreading effective governance to southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan, are we then prepared to go to wherever the transnational terror groups relocate? Are we prepared to clear out the Palestinian refugee camps of Lebanon? Or provide governance to the Horn of Africa? The new Obama plan is a dangerous precedent. If the reason we are staying in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda the use of safe havens, where are we going next?

Second, the US military presence is destabilizing, not stabilizing, Pakistan.

Our attempt to seal off Afghanistan undermines [Pakistan's] stability in several ways. First, our favored weapons of choice in Pakistan–Predator drones–kill civilians, devastate communities, and cause popular outrage against the United States. Just as dire, the drone strikes generate rage against the Pakistani government for being unable or unwilling to stop the strikes. The former helps our opponents recruit and expand and find safe haven; the latter destabilizes a fragile civilian government still struggling to bring its military to heel. That in turn drives Pakistani populations to withdraw their support for chasing down the opponents of the U.S. inside their territory.

That’s why Pakistani citizens, journalists, military experts, and leaders vehemently object to American policy in the region.

Third, disrupting terrorist financing and fighting a drug war does not justify or require occupation of a foreign country. The drug war is, moreover, another problem escalation can’t solve. Just ask journalist Scott Wilson about the lessons we can draw from Colombia’s experience. As Lance says,

Although [Scott] balks at rejecting escalation in so many words, reading between the lines we can extract the following; more troops will have a negligible impact; building up state institutions, not killing insurgents, is one of, if not the, most important task; and protection of civilians is paramount.

We can undertake that kind of work, as we do in countries around the world, without injecting more troops.

Given how weak Korb’s arguments are, his attacks on antiwar progressives seem to have more to do with politics than policy. Perhaps Democratic elites think escalation in Afghanistan will prove that Democrats are tough guys too. But the satisfaction of calling antiwar progressives naive will quickly evaporate if escalation fails to bring about a decisive victory in Afghanistan.

But don’t take it from me - I’m just a blogger too ideological to know a “good war” when I see one. Take it from the experts lining up to oppose escalation: former Ambassador Dan Simpson, the Carnegie Endowment’s Gilles Dorronsoro, Andrew Bacevich, NSN’s Les Gelb, Col. Sam Gardiner (ret.), and a growing number of other Americans who demand real responsibility in policymaking.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: