PDA

View Full Version : Friedman; Don’t Build Up



Laworkerbee
10-30-2009, 03:54 AM
It is crunch time on Afghanistan, so here’s my vote: We need to be thinking about how to reduce our footprint and our goals there in a responsible way, not dig in deeper. We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.

I base this conclusion on three principles. First, when I think back on all the moments of progress in that part of the world — all the times when a key player in the Middle East actually did something that put a smile on my face — all of them have one thing in common: America had nothing to do with it.

America helped build out what they started, but the breakthrough didn’t start with us. We can fan the flames, but the parties themselves have to light the fires of moderation. And whenever we try to do it for them, whenever we want it more than they do, we fail and they languish.

The Camp David peace treaty was not initiated by Jimmy Carter. Rather, the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, went to Jerusalem in 1977 after Israel’s Moshe Dayan held secret talks in Morocco with Sadat aide Hassan Tuhami. Both countries decided that they wanted a separate peace — outside of the Geneva comprehensive framework pushed by Mr. Carter.

The Oslo peace accords started in Oslo — in secret 1992-93 talks between the P.L.O. representative, Ahmed Qurei, and the Israeli professor Yair Hirschfeld. Israelis and Palestinians alone hammered out a broad deal and unveiled it to the Americans in the summer of 1993, much to Washington’s surprise.

The U.S. surge in Iraq was militarily successful because it was preceded by an Iraqi uprising sparked by a Sunni tribal leader, Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who, using his own forces, set out to evict the pro-Al Qaeda thugs who had taken over Sunni towns and were imposing a fundamentalist lifestyle. The U.S. surge gave that movement vital assistance to grow. But the spark was lit by the Iraqis.

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Israeli withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon, the Green Revolution in Iran and the Pakistani decision to finally fight their own Taliban in Waziristan — because those Taliban were threatening the Pakistani middle class — were all examples of moderate, silent majorities acting on their own.

The message: “People do not change when we tell them they should,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. “They change when they tell themselves they must.”

And when the moderate silent majorities take ownership of their own futures, we win. When they won’t, when we want them to compromise more than they do, we lose. The locals sense they have us over a barrel, so they exploit our naïve goodwill and presence to loot their countries and to defeat their internal foes.

That’s how I see Afghanistan today. I see no moderate spark. I see our secretary of state pleading with President Hamid Karzai to re-do an election that he blatantly stole. I also see us begging Israelis to stop building more crazy settlements or Palestinians to come to negotiations. It is time to stop subsidizing their nonsense. Let them all start paying retail for their extremism, not wholesale. Then you’ll see movement.

What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won’t Al Qaeda return, the Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my second principle: In the Middle East, all politics — everything that matters — happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.

And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he’ll get zapped by a drone.

My last guiding principle: We are the world. A strong, healthy and self-confident America is what holds the world together and on a decent path. A weak America would be a disaster for us and the world. China, Russia and Al Qaeda all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan. I don’t.

The U.S. military has given its assessment. It said that stabilizing Afghanistan and removing it as a threat requires rebuilding that whole country. Unfortunately, that is a 20-year project at best, and we can’t afford it. So our political leadership needs to insist on a strategy that will get the most security for less money and less presence. We simply don’t have the surplus we had when we started the war on terrorism after 9/11 — and we desperately need nation-building at home. We have to be smarter. Let’s finish Iraq, because a decent outcome there really could positively impact the whole Arab-Muslim world, and limit our exposure elsewhere. Iraq matters.

Yes, shrinking down in Afghanistan will create new threats, but expanding there will, too. I’d rather deal with the new threats with a stronger America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/28friedman.html?em

Dinges
10-30-2009, 07:40 AM
Good piece. Thanks for posting.

I have always enjoyed the commentary of Thomas Friedman , even if sometimes off at a tangent , still a social commentator that sometimes can really cut through the BS of issues and get to the elephant in the room. Some may dispute his observations as either biased , maligned or loony to the extreme - but that is the purpose of social commentator - to make you think from all perspectives.

commanding
10-30-2009, 08:45 AM
Good piece. Thanks for posting.

I have always enjoyed the commentary of Thomas Friedman , even if sometimes off at a tangent , still a social commentator that sometimes can really cut through the BS of issues and get to the elephant in the room. Some may dispute his observations as either biased , maligned or loony to the extreme - but that is the purpose of social commentator - to make you think from all perspectives.
I agree, I think Friedman is a good social commentator and I agree with his thought process most of the time. He is undoubtably a very intelligent guy...and has his own axe to grind just like every human.
I suspect LAworkerbee, our friend & original poster may agree with Friedman's stance. LAWB and I don't always see eye to eye on everything. I am still "conflicted" on what to do in Afg. I still think our main goal should be to kill OBL an his henchmen, and destroy AQ as much as possible.
As far as making AFG. as western type govt., I just don't think that is going to happen in this century. Maybe I am wrong.
so part of me would like the troop surge, another part would like to withdraw 95% or our military presence and "do the work" with small compact and hard to counter military groups and resources (seals, special forces, contractors, drones, stealth, and secret ops).
The thought behind the last is that smaller forces on our part are harder for the Taliban to target and bleed. In a country as large as AFG. it would be difficult for the taliban to target a force smaller than their own. Whereas now, we are big honkin "targets" for them.

so...long story short, I don't know. but Friedman's take is as good if not better than most of the national commentators.
thanks for posting it LAWB.

Mu-Meson
10-30-2009, 11:25 AM
And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he’ll get zapped by a drone.

And maybe the Taliban will get Pakistans nukes, and maybe they won't? What a moron.

seraosha
10-30-2009, 11:57 AM
Interesting article, food for thought.

pg_ord
10-30-2009, 12:27 PM
What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won’t Al Qaeda return, the Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my second principle: In the Middle East, all politics — everything that matters — happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.
Good point as far as India is concerned. GoI would be least bothered who has the nukes in Pakistan, they are all aimed at India anyways. p-)......

Zarak
10-30-2009, 12:30 PM
I really enjoy suggestions for military strategy from uneducated civilians. Now we know what not to do, its a start.

Laworkerbee
10-30-2009, 01:54 PM
I suspect LAworkerbee, our friend & original poster may agree with Friedman's stance. LAWB and I don't always see eye to eye on everything.

I'm not sure where I stand, I still can't get a feel for how most of our military people who have served and are serving there feel about the place, it's people and the chance that it might succeed or fail.

That the conflict has become politicized is what I personally find most troubling.


Finally, If everyone agreed with everyone else about everything the world would be a pretty boring place, I've argued with almost everyone who has posted in this thread yet it doesn't mean we couldn't have beers and share some laughs. p-)


I really enjoy suggestions for military strategy from uneducated civilians. Now we know what not to do, its a start.

Say what you want about Friedman but please do not call the man uneducated.

Podman
10-30-2009, 02:06 PM
Tom Friedman used to be an awesome writer/commentator. His book From Beirut to Jerusalem was fantastic. Unfortunately, with his success he's gotten more arrogant and just plain goofy. This is from an Op-Ed in September:

"There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century."

He's off his rocker. He seems to forget that if he lived in China he wouldn't be able to make his living writing as he does. He also forgets that the ChiComs did try to impose "important policies" in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It led to tens of millions of deaths in the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Then of course there Tiananmen.

I don't think anyone questions Friedman anymore so he just spews stuff out. It's too bad; he used to be brilliant.

Zarak
10-30-2009, 02:09 PM
Say what you want about Friedman but please do not call the man uneducated.

As far as military strategy goes, he's uneducated, period. Being a journalist doesn't make him an expert in military strategy, far from it.

Laworkerbee
10-30-2009, 02:14 PM
"There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

Funny, I totally agree with that statement. I'm starting to believe voting for any particular candidate is simple an illusion of choice.

Gleipnir
10-30-2009, 02:16 PM
Interesting article, thanks for posting that LAWB-

I just read an interview with Ahmed Rashid (Pakistani journalist, also author of a NY Times best-seller, 'Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia') in a Belgian newspaper today where he expresses the opposite- He believes that it would be a disaster if the US and NATO would start withdrawing from Afghanistan. He claims that the Taliban is currently speculating a huge NATO troop withdrawal and have plans to immediately fill that resulting 'vacuum'.

He pleads that it is also in especially in Europe's self-interest not to withdraw, considering that if the 'vacuum' is filled, it would provide a fertile training ground for those extremists living in Europe.

He also thinks that the withdrawal would create a new playing field for India, China, Iran and Russia who would eventually use the resulting power vacuum for their own aims. He alludes that this would be less than direct though.

I'm sure this isn't a new outlook to most of you here, just thought it may be of interest in consideration of a perspective from within Pakistan.

If anyone is interested, the article is here:
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20091029_085
It is in Flemish, mind you.

GregHJ
10-30-2009, 02:17 PM
Although I understand Friedman's side of the argument, I still have to disagree. al Qaeda should be our top priority, and we should be using special forces as much as we can. Afghanistan needs a scalpel, not a broadsword. However, we need the regular troops on the ground for security and to build up Afghanistan's infrastructure. Right now we're spending too much money having the regular troops fight the Taliban without success and not enough on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, many of whom see us as occupiers of their country. If we spent more on building up the infrastructure; giving them schools, hospitals, clean water, and jobs, it will greatly reduce the Taliban threat. Most of them aren't the die-hard religious fanatics that the top leaders are. Many join the Taliban out of fear or for money. However, the Taliban are not only a threat to the Afghan people, but also the wider world. It was the Taliban who made Afghanistan a safe haven for al Qaeda.

One thing would agree with Friedman on is that imposing a western-style democracy in Afghanistan is nonsensical. They have never had such a government in their entire history, so it certainly won't work now. What would be better is a federation of the different tribes and ethnic groups with a loose central government to maintain an army and to keep themselves from fighting each other.

Podman
10-30-2009, 02:25 PM
Funny, I totally agree with that statement. I'm starting to believe voting for any particular candidate is simple an illusion of choice.

I doubt you'd agree if you were one of the millions of Chinese in the Laogai, their version of the gulag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai

That's what makes Friedman's comment (and yours :)) so silly. It's fun to complain, but we don't ship millions of people to work camps every year for expressing an opinion, i.e. doing what Friedman does for a living.

Laworkerbee
10-30-2009, 02:42 PM
That's what makes Friedman's comment (and yours :)) so silly.

I think you're taking it a little bit too deep, what he is saying, or at least my take on it is, is that there is no real difference between Repubs and Dem's, they are all full of **** and are basically the same party.

At least, that was my take.

Gleipnir
10-30-2009, 02:48 PM
Found this article, by Ahmed Rashid, where he elaborates on the same points given in the interview.
This is in English.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22320


The proposal by some Americans to reduce the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and instead fight al-Qaeda with drone-fired missiles would only push this vast strategic region swiftly into chaos. Moreover, such thinking still does not address how to get at the leadership of al-Qaeda and the various Taliban movements—all of whom are sitting in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan. The Pakistani military has not been persuaded to turn its ship around and develop a clear policy that does not differentiate between the pro-Pakistan Taliban and the “bad” Taliban.

Ultimately the choices are stark. Either the United States and Europe abandon the region to the forces of violence, extremism, poverty and the danger of loose nukes—with all its consequences—or they remain committed and prepare to carry out both counterinsurgency and nation building. Afghanistan, Pakistan and central Asia are on the cusp of a critical historical moment on which the region’s future stability depends. Only U.S. leadership alongside that of the international community can assure that the region does not fall to extremists or other vicissitudes.

Podman
10-30-2009, 03:11 PM
Fair enough.

I took it to be that he'd like to be emperor in order to enact the environmental laws he is so enamored with. Regardless of the cost in human terms.

But I'll leave it at that, I saw what you did to the guy in the gang banger thread.

<<backing away slowly>>

seraosha
10-30-2009, 03:12 PM
I think you're taking it a little bit too deep, what he is saying, or at least my take on it is, is that there is no real difference between Repubs and Dem's, they are all full of **** and are basically the same party.

At least, that was my take.

This is becoming more and more apparent as time goes by.
Sorry to add to the derail, but it bears comment on our political malaise.

Laworkerbee
10-30-2009, 03:12 PM
LOL'z! C'mon man I'm not a bad guy.

seraosha
10-30-2009, 03:32 PM
LOL'z! C'mon man I'm not a bad guy.

You quit cigarettes yet?

Podman
10-30-2009, 03:33 PM
LOL'z! C'mon man I'm not a bad guy.

"village idiot in Central Serbia who doesn't know **** all"

Had me in stitches...

Laworkerbee
10-30-2009, 03:34 PM
You quit cigarettes yet?

I failed and am smoking again which has had a direct affect on me NOT being a bad guy p-)