Escalation Advocates Can't Agree On Real Af/Pak Mission

By Steve Hynd

Alex Thurston gets it exactly right at The Seminal today: "The question is not whether Afghanistan is a “good” or “dumb” war, but rather whether escalation will make America safer." After all, we're not falling for those interventionist ideological traps like a bunch of neocons, right?

Steven Walt has really put the cat among the pigeons today by questioning the accepted wisdom that making America safer means escalation of a costly, long-term engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama has characterised the mission as disrupting Al Qaeda's plans by denying them safe havens, yet safe havens are not needed for decentralised self-starter networks to carry out large terrorist attacks.

Walt's argument leads three major progressive backers of Obama's strategy to give fairly contradictory responses. Patrick Barry at Democracy Arsenal says that the safe havens in Pakistan really do matter. Matt Yglesias says they don't and that "the mission" is really about stopping nuke-armed Pakistan becoming a failed state. Neither really explains why, in that case, all America's armed might is in the country next door or how armed might actually helps. Spencer Ackerman conflates Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban as he argues the safe havens matter after all - to the extent of giving AQ credit for Baitullah Mesood's assassination of Bhutto and Islamabad Marriot bombing, just as if he were a 2004 neocon conflating the various Iraq insurgencies into just being all AQI's fault. But Spencer ends up saying the real mission is discrediting al-Qaeda with Muslims without explaining how continuing to bomb wedding parties, shore up puppet governments and ignore national sovereignty are going to do that.

None really deal with the internal contradictions of Obama's continuation of Bush's strategy rather than looking towards a strategy of withdrawal, aid and containment - which would seem to hold far more hope of actually attaining those three different missions.

All of which leaves the really real mission unsaid - back to Alex Thurston at The Seminal:

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.

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

* Edited to correctly identify Alex as the author of The Seminal piece. Thanks to Jason for putting me right.