Too Late for the Cut-and-Run Slur

After all the sacrifice, America’s next move is in Afghan hands.

In handout image released by the Afghan Presidents Office, US President Barack Obama (L) exchanges documents with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai (R), during their meeting on May 2, 2012 in Kabul, Afghanistan.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
Feb. 26, 2014, 3:34 a.m.

Pres­id­ent Ham­id Kar­zai’s cor­rupt and ir­re­spons­ible lead­er­ship has cre­ated a de­bate between U.S. hawks who don’t want to “cut and run” and war-weary Amer­ic­ans who want out. Pres­id­ent Obama can do both.

Pull out. Don’t cut and run.

The case for with­draw­al was made by Obama in his two pres­id­en­tial cam­paigns and sup­por­ted by most voters. Nearly 13 years after Afgh­anistan nes­ted the 9/11 at­tack­ers, it’s time to stop the loss of Amer­ic­an life and treas­ure while at­tempt­ing to stay rel­ev­ant enough in the re­gion to pro­tect dir­ect na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests.

Obama wants to con­struct a lim­ited mis­sion fo­cused on train­ing, ad­vising, and as­sist­ing Afghan forces ““ and at­tack­ing rem­nants of al-Qaida. The United States had reached an agree­ment with the Afghan gov­ern­ment on such a mis­sion, but Kar­zai reneged on the pact and re­fuses to sign it.

Obama re­spon­ded as he should, telling Kar­zai in a phone call Tues­day that he had ordered the U.S. mil­it­ary to be­gin plan­ning for a com­plete with­draw­al of U.S. troops. The only way to pre­vent full re­treat, Obama sug­ges­ted, was for Kar­zai or his re­place­ment to ap­prove the lim­ited-mis­sion ac­cord.

New York Times re­port­ers Mark Land­ler and Helene Cooper, cit­ing a seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial, re­por­ted that Obama “was send­ing a mes­sage to Mr. Kar­zai that there would be a cost to fur­ther delays, both in the rising chance that the United States might go down to zero troops and in the more lim­ited size and scope of a re­sid­ual force.”

At the same time, Obama re­treated from its earli­er in­sist­ence that the Afghan gov­ern­ment sign the ac­cord be­fore the na­tion’s April elec­tions. The pres­id­ent hopes his man­euv­er­ing might have nudged Kar­zai’s suc­cessor to em­brace the agree­ment. The chances of that hap­pen­ing are in­cal­cul­able giv­en Afghan’s un­pre­dict­able polit­ic­al sys­tem.

The choice now lies with Afgh­anistan: Co­oper­ate on a lim­ited mis­sion or kiss U.S. forces good­bye. Time to take your coun­try back. We need to fo­cus on ours.

Olivi­er Knox of Ya­hoo News re­minded me today of a Decem­ber 2008 press con­fer­ence in which Kar­zai, stand­ing with Bush, de­scribed the re­la­tion­ship between Wash­ing­ton and Ka­bul in the most cyn­ic­al of terms:

“Afgh­anistan will not al­low the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity [to] leave it be­fore we are fully on our feet,” Kar­zai said, “be­fore we are strong enough to de­fend our coun­try, be­fore we are power­ful enough to have a good eco­nomy, and be­fore we have taken from Pres­id­ent Bush and the next ad­min­is­tra­tion bil­lions and bil­lions of more dol­lars — no way that they can let you go.”

Yes we can, sir. Yes we can.

Why not “cut and run”? Be­cause, no mat­ter what Obama does, it’s too late to use that slur against the United States, a coun­try that has already sac­ri­ficed the lives of more than 2,000 mil­it­ary per­son­nel, with an­oth­er 17,000-plus wounded in ac­tion, dur­ing more than a dozen years of fight­ing in Afgh­anistan. The war will ul­ti­mately cost between $4 tril­lion and $6 tril­lion, a huge bur­den on a U.S. treas­ury swamped in red ink. Some con­text: Years ago, Lawrence Lind­sey was kicked out of Pres­id­ent George W. Bush’s Cab­in­et for es­tim­at­ing that the Ir­aq war would cost between $100 bil­lion and $200 bil­lion. That fig­ure, called wildly in­flated at the time, now looks like chump change.

If this is “cut­ting and run­ning,” our biggest mis­take may be in not re­treat­ing soon­er.

COR­REC­TION: Ini­tial ver­sion of this story did not make clear that Lind­sey was re­fer­ring to Ir­aq.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×