Continuing the topic of partisan (Democratic, Republican, conservative, liberal, realist, idealist, etc.) viewpoints on the US strategy in Afghanistan, here are two different takes on our current policy from within the conservative camp. First is Washington Post journalist George Will, who famously took on a ‘realist’ argument that a large counterinsurgent effort in the country was counterproductive and that Obama administration should withdraw a majority of our troops sooner rather than later. Here’s a short snippet of George Will’s latest argument for withdrawing a majority of American forces out of Afghanistan:
Those Americans who say that Afghanistan is a test of America’s “staying power” are saying that we must stay there because we are there. This is steady work, but it treats perseverance as a virtue regardless of context or consequences and makes futility into a reason for persevering.
Obama has counted on his 2011 run-up to reelection being smoothed by three developments in 2010 — the health-care legislation becoming popular after enactment, job creation accelerating briskly and Afghanistan conditions improving significantly. The first two are not happening. He can decisively influence only the third, and only by adhering to his timetable for disentangling U.S. forces from this misadventure.
Max Boot, a conservative who works for the Council on Foreign Relatiosn and writes for Commentary, has been a staunch proponent of a large American military presence in Afghanistan and believes that
Gen. McChrystal/President Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy can work if given time and enough resources. Here is a short snippet of Max Boot’s latest argument for sticking with a large American presence in Afghanistan:
Will Afghanistan definitely be a success if we will it? Nothing is definite, especially not in the confusing realm of warfare. But I think the odds are good — certainly better than 50% — that a reasonable commitment of time and resources can make Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy (which Andrew helped formulate) to succeed. Population-centric counterinsurgency has worked in countries as diverse as Iraq, Malaya, the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Oman, and Colombia. Historically speaking (and I say this based on research I’m currently doing for a book on the history of guerrilla warfare and terrorism), it is the most successful counterinsurgency strategy there is. Does that mean it will work in every instance? Of course not. But it works more often than not, and I have yet to see any evidence that Afghanistan is uniquely resistant to such an approach.
In my opinion, both make persuasive cases for their side and show that the situation in Afghanistan can cut through conservative/liberal lines fairly easily. Let the great debate continue….
