Be Like Bush | The Atlantic (August 31, 2009) - Robert Kaplan

I believe there are in fact good reasons why America is in Afghanistan: the future of a stable, nuclearized Pakistan, as well as of Central Asia, depends upon it. It is also important for containing Iran. Defeat would constitute a moral victory for Islamic terrorists worldwide, and would demoralize our own armed forces. Obama needs to make these points and more. To build the semblance of a stable Afghanistan, he needs to be all in on the issue, and to publicly communicate as much. He can't finesse Afghanistan: doing so would mean returning war policy to the same degree of ambivalence it held under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when we were not fully committed to the fight in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even as our troops were being killed daily. Returning to the Rumsfeld era would be a supreme irony for Obama, yet that could be the direction we are headed.

The path before the President is hard. To make his way, he will need to truly commit himself - even if that means taking a cue from his predecessor.

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

good General.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs

Sadly Kaplan is taking Obama's own words as his cue. We've been talking about this for 2 - 3 years and the reality hasn't changed in that time, in fact the more we look at it, the more hopeless it looks.

But Kaplan is right. Withdrawal sends all the wrong messages unless the can find a new way to say "Peace with honour".

keep to the Fen Causeway

But not in the direction of withdrawal.

What I suspect Will really is doing with his column is the opposite of what it seems. I think he attempting to shift the Overton window and support sending more troops.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

No longer "inconceivable" since Will has floated the trial balloon. Combine this with two articles in today's newspapers.

NY Times: Groundwork Is Laid for New Troops in Afghanistan

McClatchy: Pentagon worried about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan<

Throw in Cheney from this weekend:

The Hill: Cheney calls the Dems soft on defense

And what you have is Republican 101 trying to Johnsonize Obama's commitment to endless war, setting the stage for the right's next Nixon.

Instead he is calling on Obama to escalate the use of airstrikes which kill Afghan and Pakistani civilians. This is not getting out of Afghanistan.

America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan...

In particular, reducing the use of airstrikes is precisely the opposite of Obama and his generals stated goals in Afghanistan.

Will is calling for more bombs, more Afghan civilian casualties, and undoubtedly more chaos in the region... just in time for 2012 elections when the next Nixon can offer a secret plan to end the war.