Escalation in Afghanistan

by publius

This is why I’m skeptical of the military escalation in Afghanistan.  It’s very easy for me to imagine even more escalation, but very hard to imagine scaling operations down if they’re not going well.  Plus, we don’t really know if we’re doing well because we have no defined exit strategy, benchmarks, or any other concrete metrics of success.

Anyway, today we learn (or I learned anyway) that the military is planning to request an additional 10,000 troops on top of what has already been announced:

Gen. David H. Petraeus disclosed yesterday that American commanders have requested the deployment of an additional 10,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he said the request awaits a final decision by President Obama this fall.

To his credit, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasize that more troops isn’t always the answer.  And I suspect that he personally would prefer not to escalate militarily. 

The problem, though, is that circumstances may overtake his freedom of action.  Let’s imagine this hypothetical.  Obama escalates and we have close to 80,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Things don’t go well – and Republicans start amplifying the rhetoric that he’s losing Afghanistan.  Who knows – maybe it becomes THE issue of the 2010 midterm.

What do you think Obama will do in light of this political pressure?  Withdraw?  You think he’ll say “well, we gave it the ol’ college try, but let’s bring ‘em home”?  No, he’ll have more incentives to further escalate.  That’s where the logic is leading. 

Escalation, coincidentally, was the whole point of the 9/11 attacks.  As I recall from the 9/11 Commission Report, bin Laden wanted to drag us into a quagmire in  Afghanistan, which has been a historical cemetery for foreign armies.

He had the chance to adopt a more minimal strategy, but declined to do so.  Later on, I fear he’ll lack this freedom.  Hope I’m wrong though.

Comments

[Ugh]

This is why I’m skeptical of the military escalation in Afghanistan. It’s very easy for me to imagine even more escalation, but very hard to imagine scaling operations down if they’re not going well.

Well that's unfortunate, it's America's god-given right to bomb, invade, overthrow, torture, escalate, etc., who we want, when we want, and how we want, for any reason or no reason.

[jrudkis]

I think that is always the case, not just in this instance. Had we initially invaded Iraq with 400k soldiers, it would have been much harder to reduce the numbers down to nearly sustainable levels later, so long as violence persisted.

It is why incrementalism is really not that dumb. It gives the politician some cover in that it looks like he is doing something, when in fact he is just buying time for things to sort themselves out (or not, as the case may be).

In this particular instance, I don't think things will sort themselves out, but I would prefer a slow incrementalist approach to a massive growth of troops on the ground since I don't think either will be effective, but disengagement is not politically possible.

[wj]

The cries of those who want victory in Afghanistan would be more convincing if they showed any sign of supporting the most effective policy. Which is, roughly, cripple the enemy by "hitting them in the payroll."

Which is to say, if the U.S. ended the "war on drugs," the financial basis for the Taliban (drug smuggling) would collapse. And so, in short order, would they. But somehow, if any or the vocal supporters of the war has suggested that, it has managed to escape my notice.

[Gary Farber]

"To his credit, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasize that more troops isn’t always the answer."

Is our students learning? :-)

One point from the story: "washingtonpost.com > World > Asia/Pacific
Military Wants More Troops for Afghan War
Request for 10,000 Not Yet Submitted To White House
Gen. David H. Petraeus, right, is shown on a remote monitor testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, right, is shown on a remote monitor testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)
Buy Photo

TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Save/Share +
Share this Article:
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 62 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?
Log In Again?
CLOSE
We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Discussion Policy
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 2, 2009; Page A03

Gen. David H. Petraeus disclosed yesterday that American commanders have requested the deployment of an additional 10,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he said the request awaits a final decision by President Obama this fall.

Petraeus acknowledged that the ratio of coalition and Afghan security forces to the population is projected through 2011 to be significantly lower than the 20 troops per 1,000 people prescribed by the Army counterinsurgency manual he helped write.

"If you assume there is an insurgency throughout the country . . . you need more forces," Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command, said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the Pentagon has not yet forwarded the troop request to the White House.
ad_icon

Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, testified that the new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is based on a plan to concentrate forces in "the insurgency belt in the south and east," rather than throughout Afghanistan.

Obama "doesn't have to make a decision until the fall, so the troops would arrive, as planned, in 2010," she said.

The U.S. military has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan, and the number is projected to rise to 68,000 with deployments scheduled for this year. Those deployments include a 4,000-strong contingent of trainers from the 4th brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, 17,000 other combat troops, a 2,800-strong combat aviation brigade and thousands of support forces whose placement was not publicly announced, the Pentagon said.

If approved, the additional 10,000 troops -- including a combat brigade of about 4,000 troops and a division headquarters of about 2,000 -- would bring the total approved for next year to 78,000, officials say.

In a television interview Sunday, Obama voiced some skepticism about further troop increases, saying he had "resourced properly" the strategy. Asked how he would handle requests from commanders for more troops, he said: "What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation. . . . There may be a point of diminishing returns."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned why Obama did not announce the additional 10,000 while unveiling the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. 'To dribble out these decisions, I think, can create the impression of incrementalism,' he said."

Among the reasons is that the troops are either still in Iraq or in turn-around for retraining, etc. McCain always speaks as if we had some infinite number of combat troops hidden somewhere.

I'm sure we could come up with 10,000 more combat troops immediately if we wanted to further break the Army, or send in troops that are ill-trained in what we'd send them to do, but that's no answer.

Setting aside any other reasons for not just throwing more troops at the problem.

[Gary Farber]

Aw, crap, I accidentally cut and pasted a whole lot I didn't mean to. Please delete that comment. Here's all I meant to post:

"To his credit, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasize that more troops isn’t always the answer."

Is our students learning? :-)

From the story: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned why Obama did not announce the additional 10,000 while unveiling the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. 'To dribble out these decisions, I think, can create the impression of incrementalism,' he said."

Among the reasons is that the troops are either still in Iraq or in turn-around for retraining, etc. McCain always speaks as if we had some infinite number of combat troops hidden somewhere.

I'm sure we could come up with 10,000 more combat troops immediately if we wanted to further break the Army, or send in troops that are ill-trained in what we'd send them to do, but that's no answer.

Setting aside any other reasons for not just throwing more troops at the problem.

[Slartibartfast]

Esclation in Afghanistan

Might want to change the spelling on that, if you can.

Unless you meant to do that, in which case: nevermind.

[A.J.]

Which is to say, if the U.S. ended the "war on drugs," the financial basis for the Taliban (drug smuggling) would collapse. And so, in short order, would they. But somehow, if any or the vocal supporters of the war has suggested that, it has managed to escape my notice.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of Afghanistan's economy is based on exporting drugs to first world black markets? I'm in favor of a sensible drug policy here in the US -- the current one lies somewhere between insanely stupid and horribly inhumane -- but I do wonder what the short term effects on, say, Afghanistan's or Columbia's economy would be if we changed our policies in a way that made drug prices crater.

[Gary Farber]

"...but I do wonder what the short term effects on, say, Afghanistan's or Columbia's economy would be if we changed our policies in a way that made drug prices crater."

I doubt it would affect the university much at all.

[publius]

thx slart - typepad doesn't indicate typos in the title box, unfortunately

[hairshirthedonist]

I doubt it would affect the university much at all.

O, I get it.

[Gary Farber]

"thx slart - typepad doesn't indicate typos in the title box, unfortunately"

One can actually look at one's post after posting, I suggest.

[Gary Farber]

The only reliable spotter of typographical errors, punctuational errors, grammar errors, etc., after all, is one's eye.

One should never use so-called spell-checkers, because they inevitably lead to spelling mistakes. It's guaranteed. (If someone has sight problems, that's another story.)

[Gary Farber]

The only reliable spotter of typographical errors, punctuational errors, grammar errors, etc., after all, is one's eye.

One should never use so-called spell-checkers, because they inevitably lead to spelling mistakes. It's guaranteed. (If someone has sight problems, that's another story.)

[tgirsch]

Gary:

You make proofreading sound a lot easier than it actually is. It's actually quite difficult for many people to proof their own writing, because they're too close to the material. They know what they meant to write, and if what's actually on the page is reasonably close, the brain often passes right over it without even noticing. That's why editors are (or used to be) so invaluable. Having a second set of eyes looking at something really makes a world of difference. With blogging, that's often impractical.

As a side note, I got my start blogging by editing another blogger's blog posts, which were often prone to typos and spelling errors that drove me nuts. But when I type or blog, I still make mistakes which, when they're pointed out to me later, drive me even MORE nuts.

Finally, the guy who just pasted in half of the Washington Post doesn't have a lot of room to lecture others about being more careful. ;)

[Eric Martin]

You make proofreading sound a lot easier than it actually is. It's actually quite difficult for many people to proof their own writing, because they're too close to the material. They know what they meant to write, and if what's actually on the page is reasonably close, the brain often passes right over it without even noticing.

Seriously.

[Jesurgislac]

tgirsch: It's actually quite difficult for many people to proof their own writing, because they're too close to the material. They know what they meant to write, and if what's actually on the page is reasonably close, the brain often passes right over it without even noticing.

*nods*

When I have to proof my own writing, I always print it out and read through it on paper, slowly, line by line. I cannot do this onscreen, and I make more mistakes the faster I try to proof the print-out.

Yet I can proofread other people's writing fast and well...

[publius]

what tgirsch said

[Turbulence]

One should never use so-called spell-checkers, because they inevitably lead to spelling mistakes. It's guaranteed. (If someone has sight problems, that's another story.)

This makes no sense. If you do not use a spell checker, you will inevitably make spelling mistakes. It is guaranteed. Therefore, the real question is whether one will make more or fewer errors with a spell checker than without. Merely asserting a truism (humans make mistakes under some condition) does nothing to address this question.

[tgirsch]

Sorry to have started a Farber pile-on...

At the risk of getting back on topic, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with our involvement in Afghanistan. I frankly fail to see what long-term good can come from our continued presence there. I'm with E-Mart on this one: even if we take away one safe haven, we merely establish the precedent that we'll chase around the world on expensive (in terms of both blood and treasure) nation-building exercises, and not actually accomplish much useful on the counter-terror front.

[Gary Farber]

"If you do not use a spell checker, you will inevitably make spelling mistakes. It is guaranteed."

This simply isn't true.

The reason it's guaranteed that you'll make mistakes if you rely on a spell-checker is because spell-checkers miss all the otherwise obvious homonym errors, errors of "its" for "it's," and all other punctuational errors, as well.

You can only catch such efforts via human proof-reading. And using a spell-checker makes people think they can rely on the spell-checker, when they can't. The best a spell-checker can do is pick up the same mistakes you'd make when proofreading, and miss all the rest of the mistakes you'd pick up on proofreading.

To be sure, I was a bit overstating: besides people with sight problems, people who are dyslexic, or are simply otherwise incapable for some reason of proofreading at all decently will benefit to some degree from a spell-checker.

But after a certain not large amount of text typed, they'll inevitably wind up with errors. Guaranteed.

Anyway, sorry for getting off-track on the thread. Long-held opinion spelling out since publius brought up lack of ability to use a spell-checker as a reason for typos in the headings. (And, of course, we all make typos, and few of us proofread with great care when rushing through a blog comment, where it doesn't matter all that much; I certainly make plenty of typos, phrasing errors, solecisms, errors of forgetting to close a parenthesis) and so forth, in blog comments.

[Gary Farber]

"Long-held opinion spelling out since publius brought up lack of ability to use a spell-checker as a reason for typos in the headings."

See, there was my mandated typo: should have been "spilling out."

[J. Michael Neal]

Which is to say, if the U.S. ended the "war on drugs," the financial basis for the Taliban (drug smuggling) would collapse. And so, in short order, would they. But somehow, if any or the vocal supporters of the war has suggested that, it has managed to escape my notice.

Not a hugely vocal supporter of the war, but James Wimberley has made what I think is far and away the best suggestion
on this. He points out that there is a worldwide shortage of morphine for pain relief. We should buy the whole opium crop, make it into pain killers, and distribute it around the world. Yes, there are logistical issues, particularly around preventing it from leaking into the black market, but this seems to kill three birds at once.

[Gary Farber]

"but James Wimberley has made what I think is far and away the best suggestion on this"

I keep pointing out that I've been arguing for this for years.

[Andrew R.]

Publius, I have a question for you (and the other leftist/liberal commenters). Is there any option in Afghanistan short of full withdrawal yesterday that you *would* approve of?

[Nell]

@Andrew R.: Publius can speak for himself, and I doubt very much that it's fair to attribute to him the view that full withdrawal yesterday is his desired policy.

It's mine, though. I opposed the invasion in October 2001, I opposed leaving troops there once the Taliban had been overthrown, and I have advocated withdrawal ever since.

I believed in 2001 and I believe now that we could have done far more to hold those responsible for the September 11 attacks accountable, and to prevent further terrorist attacks, had we treated it as a criminal matter rather than a military one.

We had the world with us. We pissed away the opportunity.

Now the current administration is buying into the fundamentals of the lies and bogosity that keep us embroiled in these wars/occupations (including that more than a tiny fraction of the prisoners we're holding have eff-all to do with past or future terror attacks against the U.S.).

The impossibility of the criminal vs. war scenario is a political impossibility having to do with the U.S. public. A choice by the U.S. government to do the smart, strategic, and effective thing would have changed life for the better in the U.K. as well. But now we're yoked in a permanent global 'war' that, in the British case, is increasingly taking place in the home country.

[tgirsch]

Gary:

While I agree that over-reliance on spell-checkers is a bad thing, that doesn't mean that they're inherently a bad thing. They're a tool, like a calculator, to make certain things easier. And yes, you can over-rely on calculators, too, which is part of why I can no longer remember how to figure out square roots longhand.

Next, publius listed lack of a spell checker as a reason he missed the typo, not the reason he missed it. You act as if he argued that a spell-checker would forever protect him from any and all typos, when he argued no such thing. You also assume that he simply didn't proofread at all because of his unquestioning trust of spell checkers, another fact not in evidence. The possibility that he did, in fact, proofread, and simply missed the error, doesn't seem to have occurred to you.

And, of course, your entire argument is undermined by the fact that publius did miss the obvious typo, quite probably for the reasons I listed above (and which you did not address), whereas a spell checker would have caught it.

Next, Turbulence's point, which you seem to have missed, was that typos and spelling errors are inevitable irrespective of whether one uses a spell checker. Typos and misspellings didn't suddenly appear from nowhere the day the spell checker was invented. Misspellings been around as long as we've had written alphabetic language, and typos as long as we've had movable type.

Finally, frankly, the "blog comments are held to a lower standard" line of reasoning sounds to me like excuse-making.

All of the above in short form: A little bit of humility, coupled with a little less judgment, would be prudent in such matters. I know, because I used to be a bit of a typo bigot, and my own mistakes -- of which there are many -- taught me humility. (Especially since, as I learned the hard way, when you make it a point to gleefully point out everyone else's minor errors, you open yourself to being piled on when YOU inevitably make one.)

[hilzoy]

"Publius, I have a question for you (and the other leftist/liberal commenters) Is there any option in Afghanistan short of full withdrawal yesterday that you *would* approve of?"

I'm not publius, but: I really don't think I have a clear enough picture of what's going on in Afghanistan to say what I think should happen. I worry a lot, though, that we might have let things go too far to turn it around easily. In general, I think Americans tend to think it's possible to just get a do-over when they screw up more often than it actually is, in foreign policy.

I certainly supported the invasion, though, and my worry until about three years ago was that we were not doing enough.

***

In other news: sorry I've been away; I was first grading, and then got the flu or some such thing.

Also: I think spell-checkers are useful so long as you don't rely on them. I had a student once who turned in a paper in which she referred, several times, to "the porpoise of human life". (Flipper!!!) I blame reliance on spell-check.

[Gary Farber]

What Hilzoy said about Afghanistan.

Sorry about your flu (or some such thing), Hilzoy! Hope you're feeling better.

"I blame reliance on spell-check."

See also Yglesias, Matthew.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"It's actually quite difficult for many people to proof their own writing, because they're too close to the material. They know what they meant to write, and if what's actually on the page is reasonably close, the brain often passes right over it without even noticing. That's why editors are (or used to be) so invaluable. Having a second set of eyes looking at something really makes a world of difference."

I've enjoyed the spell-check back-and-forth. Just wanted to say tgirsch made me finally realize why I can proofread my stuff over and over and still not pick up something obvious.

Re: Afghanistan -- Nell, at 7:21 pm, was insightful and eloquent.