Comments on: “Lebanon’s legacy in Afghanistan”

By: newrouter

newrouter — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:15:15 +0000

the body count under president obama’s bus does not give me any optimism as to his actions regarding the situation in afghanistan

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:27:39 +0000

I used to think that Glick was alarmist. Her written tone is sometimes a bit shrill. However, since I started reading her columns some years ago her analyses of big issues have held up well. I think she is reasonable in this case.

One’s views on our involvement in Afghanistan tend to reflect one’s views on the West’s fight against radical Islam. Those of us who see the struggle as urgent, global and existential tend to see our long-term involvement in Afghanistan, and in other countries as well, as necessary parts of an overall strategy. At the other extreme, Americans who think that the “Afghan war” is about getting Bin Laden or similar limited goals are more likely to be impatient with our continued involvement there.

One of the main problems with Obama’s strategy is that it appears to be based mainly on domestic political concerns. Why else announce a withdrawal timetable. He may be doing it to assuage his leftist base, but our enemies and friends abroad will interpret it as lack of resolve, which it is. This was Glick’s main point, and I don’t think it’s assailable. The imperfections of the Afghans are secondary to our need to remain in their country to defend our interests.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:54:34 +0000

“The path that Obama has now embarked upon in Afghanistan … . This posture of weakness and helplessness … .”

I yield to no one in my dislike of Mr. Obama as a politician and leader. But this is hysteria.

Obama is ramping up the military effort. He has to keep political support for the war at home, something every war president has to do, and his “withdrawal date” is a gesture to his own base that is in reality not much of a deadline. Further, the Afghans need to understand that we won’t defend them forever and they need to step up, or lose and die. It is not up to us to fight there forever or with unlimited means and at unlimited cost. It would have been wrong for him to make Churchillian verbal gestures for a limited war of limited value. Churchill was Churchill when it was 1940 and utter defeat stared them in the face. He did not make grand speeches about sending punitive expeditions into Afghanistan. It would have been worse than pointless, it would have inflated the thing beyond its worth. Obama’s handling of it has been tolerable given the constraints.

Gen. McChrystal says he can do it with what he has been given. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I’ll believe him.