'The moral component of politicking a war'

Sullivan, on Beinart's must-read Afghanistan piece:

The moral component of politicking a war is acute here. But we shouldn't attribute magical foresight to the president. I see little here that is more troubling than the surge in Iraq. That too was effectively a face-saving strategy to stabilize the country enough to get out.

And then comes the emotional gut-punch:

This is Obama at his coldest. Which is very, very cold.

Yet I would reiterate what I wrote yesterday:

[A]n early-2009 withdrawal would have brought eruptions of "political consequences [that] might have been brutal"; and those eruptions might have been so violently burrowing as to doom Obama's presidency, and his reelection. Today we might have been facing a quite different fait accompli: a Mitt Romney--or some other neocon--presidency, brimming with imperially muscular imbecilities and, ultimately, far more than 1,300 American deaths, in some other godforsaken wasteland.

This reading of Obama's decision takes some of the chill out, I think. Strong presidents have historically made decisions that to you and me seem cold--very cold--but in the long run (which happens to be Obama's specialty) morph as not merely wise, but more "feeling" than anyone imagined at the time. One thinks, for instance, of FDR's "Germany First" decision, rendered in the immediate face of Japan's treachery; or, certainly, Lincoln's willingness to countenance what can only be described as Grant's tactical atrocities.

"The moral component of politicking a war" was indeed "acute" in those instances--as well as virtually undetectable, at the time.

Comments

[Peter G]

I am inclined to accept these analyses with but one caveat. It is entirely possible that Obama may have accepted the awesomely ineffective counter insurgency strategy as the way to go in the full knowledge that anyone claiming to be an expert on the subject put the timeline on its success as measured in decades but that it was the last thing that could be tried. And reluctantly he tried it.

[brave captain of industry]

There is another theory of Obama that fits will just about all of his actions: he prefers that whatever action entrenched interests prefer be taken first, to prove efficacy or failure, at which point he can then act or not act as the case may be.

That habit is one of basic coservatism, because he is a conservative person.

Willard wants to do it Willard's way first, and that's because he is a liberal person, comfortable with risk and change costs (since it's usually not him paying).

Obama and the word CHANGE is another great historic irony...

[Robert Lipscomb]

I have always supporting the presented rationale for the Afghanistan War, beginning in 2002, to destroy as much of Al Qaeda as possible. This was obama's stated reason for drawing down troops and deploying them to Afghanistan - and it worked.

The counter-insurgency to minimize internal hostilities was always an action taken in support of the primary objective. Creating a peaceful socety was never our primary goal, any more than we had a goal of establishingsoftware industry in Iraq.

For the sake of all the innocent people in Afghanistan, I wish they did have peace. But, failure to convert Afghanistan into a peaceful place is no failure at all - except by the people who lead Afghanistan.

Another primary consideration was that in 2009 the American public wanted to pursue some kind of "victory" in Afghanistan. As I have just described, there was a valid reason for that. so, yes there would have been a political price to pay - and rightly so.

We can discuss whether to cost to us and Afghan civillians was worth the benefit derived, but our premise for this war is hardly questioned by anyone. Even the afghans don't seem to have a hard time understanding why we are even - even though they might want us out of there.

This is not a case of a politician implementing a war only for political benefit.