Cold War's End -- The Wall Comes Down
It must be a little hard to understand, for anyone reading this under the age of about 30 or so, the significance of the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. Because one event has become historical shorthand for an immense change in the dynamics of not just our country, but the entire world. We've all seen the pictures of an exuberant crowd at the Brandenburg Gate (or "Checkpoint Charlie"), seemingly tearing The Wall down with their bare hands. But it wasn't just one wall, or one city, or even one country that the events in Berlin were changing -- it was the entire political makeup of the planet. Because the fall of The Wall signified the fall of the Soviet Union, and an end to the Cold War. And while this was of enormous historical import, I fear that future generations won't really pay much attention to it. Truth be told, I can already feel it slipping away in the American consciousness. Which, while I understand the impulse, I still think is a shame. Because as the Cold War is forgotten, passing into the dusty pages of children's history books, we run the risk of forgetting some of its lessons.
The Cold War was a war of shadows. It only erupted into outright (or "hot") wars in limited ways and limited areas (Korea, Vietnam, various Central American and African skirmishes). The history books do a fine job of marking these flareups (since they have concrete facts like battles and dates), distilling them into a couple of paragraphs for bored schoolchildren to read. But these are mere trees; the forest left unseen was the national fear which every sane man, woman, and child felt for almost half a century -- the fear of instant and total annihilation from a massive nuclear strike. And that is the lesson which is in danger of being forgotten, at least in my humble opinion.
The single-most stunning political prophecy which has even been written in American history was written by a Frenchman. In the 1830s -- when the United States of America was barely a half-century old itself, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, as the final words to the first volume of Democracy In America (it sold so well, he went back and wrote a sequel later; at the urging of his publisher, no doubt) a fairly accurate description of the Cold War -- over one hundred years before it happened. What Tocqueville wrote, in the time of Andrew Jackson:
There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans.
Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world's attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant.
All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing. All the others have halted or advanced only through great exertions; they alone march easily and quickly forward along a path whose end no eye can yet see.
The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America's conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia's with the sword.
To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals.
The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man.
One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude.
Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.
As you can see, this is a fairly accurate description of the latter half of the twentieth century, given the limitations Tocqueville faced in making such a prediction (he did not, you'll notice, foresee the rise of communism and overthrow of the czars). But his last sentence stands as the absolute gold standard of political prediction, for this country's history at least.
Because that was what the Cold War was all about. It was seen as a global struggle for territory, and for hearts and minds, between two "super" powers. Democracy and Communism were in the mightiest struggle this planet has ever seen, each competing to gain enough strength to destroy the other. And each side had nuclear weapons. Lots of them. Lots and lots and lots of them. Thousands and thousands of A-bombs and H-bombs. Back then the term "ground zero" held only one meaning -- the point directly under a nuclear explosion. Not to be disrespectful, but it never would have entered our minds back then to cheapen this frightening term by applying it to anything less, no matter how horrifying.
All of America (and, one assumes without having too much data, all of the Soviet Union as well) lived with the constant fear that these bombs could drop at any time. The college I attended had, just to remind you (in those anti-nuke-movement days), little arrows painted here and there stating "9.2 miles to ground zero," since we had an Air Force base nearby. But virtually nowhere in America (where anybody actually lived) was truly deemed safe. Everywhere was a potential target for an atom bomb, for one reason or another. And, again, the bombs could have dropped any day during that time.
It's tough for younger readers who were not exposed to this mindset to understand what this meant in terms of daily life. I came of age in the later parts of the Cold War, and didn't even see the craziness of the early parts (the McCarthy era, the backyard bomb shelter craze, the Civil Defense air raid drills, and all the rest of it). By the time I came on the scene, most of these had faded. But the background anxiety remained. The Emergency Broadcast System was just beginning to be used for natural disasters, when I was growing up. It was created, of course, to warn us all that the bombs were coming. And it was tested frequently ("bee-eee-eee-eee-eep"), so you'd remember it was there. Likewise, the first of the month at noon the local neighborhood air raid sirens would be tested. And the knowledge that everything around you could be incinerated in a flash was always present.
Children today, thankfully, grow up largely without this awareness (even though the danger still does indeed exist, America and Russia have largely buried the hatchet -- at least for now -- so the danger is not viewed as imminent). They don't do "duck and cover" drills in elementary schools anymore, in other words. Truth be told, by the time I was in school, people had mostly figured out the ludicrousness of hiding under your desk when the whole building was likely to be vaporized in an attack, so I never experienced such drills myself.
America has so rarely been directly attacked on our own territory that such overreaction is understandable. There was 9/11, of course. There was Pearl Harbor and a few Aleutian islands during World War II -- back when Hawai'i and Alaska weren't even states, merely territories. And there was the War of 1812, when the British burned the original White House. But that's about it, not counting the Civil War (since it didn't directly involve foreigners). During World War II, both the East and West Coasts of America prepared for attacks and invasions, but thankfully they never came. We simply didn't have to go through anything akin to the Blitz in London.
Americans, to put it bluntly, are not used to having bombs dropped on us. And with the arms race which took place during the Cold War, all of a sudden one bomb could obliterate an entire city. And thousands of those bombs were in the hands of people we considered downright unstable, if not outright insane. The threat of a "first strike" was the biggest fear, because we, as a nation, demonized the Soviets until they were barely recognizable as human beings. This happens in any war, I should mention -- cold or hot. But these "evil monsters" were capable of such widespread and massive destruction that it literally changed the psychology of our entire country for almost 50 years.
And when the Berlin Wall came down, it symbolized the end of that era. The Soviet Union's disintegration meant America could finally take a deep breath and heave an enormous sigh of relief. We had won the long battle of wits. The Cold War was over.
That is what The Wall coming down meant. That is why it was important, beyond the boundaries of one city in Europe. It was the end of an era for the entire planet.
My personal Berlin Wall story, such as it is: I was in Berlin about eleven months after The Wall came down, in 1990. I visited Brandenburg Gate, but didn't see the statue of the horses on top, because they had taken them down to be cleaned. Oh, well. But on the site was an open-air bazaar of East Germans selling anything they thought the tourists would buy. You could buy as big -- and as graffitied -- a chuck of The Wall as you could afford. You could also buy all sorts of other things. The military mementos were simply stunning. I could have, for a hundred bucks or so, bought a full East German general's dress uniform -- although the medals would have run me a little extra. Because I couldn't really see a use for such a thing for myself, I took a pass. But I did buy one of those fuzzy Russian hats with the ear flaps, which were standard issue for their militaries. It had a big metal star on it (red, of course), with a hammer-and-sickle icon in the middle. Being a Californian, I don't have a lot of use for such a hat, but I did wear it recently (minus the big red star, I wasn't making any sort of political statement, just keeping my ears from freezing off) to Barack Obama's inauguration.
But back to Berlin. Being eleven months late for the party, we found no Wall at Brandenburg Gate. We got some advice, headed off on the U-bahn, and got off were we had been directed. It was a very strange place. Imagine, if you will, a city park. This park is long, but rather narrow, as it stretches and curves off into the distance. It seems like a grassy place where soccer fields should be, until you notice the oddity of the enormous light poles dotting the landscape. The Wall was gone -- but its ghost remained. You could easily see where it had been, and which side had wanted to keep an eye on it (in West Berlin, it ran right up to buildings and streets, because nobody cared how close to it you got in the West -- the dogs, the mines, the snipers, the floodlights and all the rest were all on the East side). We followed a line of other tourists, to a section of the Wall which hadn't been torn down yet. When we got there, we paid a few marks to some enterprising Ossies (who were much better at the whole capitalism game than the sad former soldiers at Brandenburg, selling off their former glory). They had little hammers and chisels, which they would rent to you (until you got tired), for a few marks.
So not only did I get to see the actual Wall, I got to chip off my own little chunks and flakes of it. I brought enough back from my trip to give one out to all the members of my extended family who were younger than I. All the cousins and nieces and nephews opened their holiday presents from me that December... and were likely profoundly disappointed in what they saw. A little flake of concrete, with a dash of paint on it. "This is what Chris is giving out this year?" I could almost hear them collectively say. I don't even know if any of them kept them, truth be told. But I wanted them to own a little piece of history, so they might understand a little bit of what all the kids who grew up before them had to live through. At the very least, I hope they got some "show and tell" points at school with them.
I did keep one chunk for myself, though. I have it here on my desk. I was extremely late to the party, as I said, but I like to think that I did my own tiny, tiny bit -- with a little rock collector's hammer and chisel, rented from a former communist -- striking my own little blow for freedom.
[Note: I couldn't really find a way to work this in to the story, as it would have been a distraction, but if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend Roger Waters' live performance of Pink Floyd's The Wall, which was staged and filmed at the Brandenburg Gate site the same year I was there (no, I didn't get to see it). It is the most surreal overlap of art and reality (which is imitating which?) I have ever seen, complete with East German military displays (as part of the staging), as well as cameos from a seriously eclectic group of artists (the only time, I would warrant, that Joni Mitchell, Cyndi Lauper, and Tim Curry ever shared a stage -- to name but three). If you've heard the album before, but never seen this "concert flick," I would urge you to do so as soon as possible.]
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
The live Wall was among the first DVDs my girlfriend made me watch.
As far as forgetting the Cold War and what it meant, by 2001 we'd already done that. The complete annihilation of mankind was a statistical abstraction, but retail terrorism on live TV scared the pants off us. I just find it ironic that Americans would forget the shadow of Damocles in 12 short years.
As a kid, I actually got very interested in nuclear weaponry and devoured every source I could find. My mother actually had to reassure my 5th grade teacher that my interest was only academic; I wouldn't shut up about missile throw weights and MIRV warheads.
That fascination translated into a love of apocalyptic fiction. I used to collect them all, from the very scary BBC movie Threads to the Russian Letters From a Dead Man. Remember George Peppard in Damnation Alley? Strangely, the passing of the Cold War has left me rather leery of modern apocalypses, especially ones with terrorism themes. I've got a weird sense of superiority at the movie theater, like I want to stand up and shout: "ALL YOU PUNKS DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO EXPECT THE END OF THE WORLD! WHY, BACK IN MY DAY, WE HAD 40,000 WARHEADS AIMED AT US AND WE WEREN'T EVEN SCARED!"
Fact: one Trident nuclear submarine carried enough warheads to annihilate every major political, military, and industrial target in the Soviet Union. At any given time, three to four dozen such payloads were at sea and within striking range of the USSR. For nuclear planning, the watchword was "overkill."
Heard a fascinating story on NPR today about a meeting between Thatcher and Gorbachev.
Apparently, Thatcher tried to talk Gorbachev into stopping the reunification of Germany. Quite a different story than much of what was going out to the public at the time.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6829735.ece
Important parallels that have great relevance today run through your essay, just below the surface, like the powerful currents of a rip tide. Lessons learned from the demise of the Soviet Union have a lot to say about America's global leadership role and what should be the greatest international fear of our time - nuclear terrorism.
When the Berlin wall came down, it may have symbolized the end of an era defined by the struggle between Communism and Democracy but, it ushered in a new era focused on an equally mammoth struggle between Democracy and violent Islamist extremism. The Cold War is replaced with the similarly shadowy Long War.
I had hoped that the lessons of nearly half a century of Cold War would be instructive in how we deal with the challenge of terrorism and how to prevent the worlds most dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of the worlds most dangerous people. But, it appears that these lessons have not resonated well enough to prevent a new American president from making a fateful decision that could alter the course of the Long War in ways that will make us all decidedly less safe.
It appears that President Obama is on the verge of announcing a new strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan and the wider region that will include an escalation of 40,000 troops, give or take, into Afghanistan that may define and doom his presidency and, more importantly, severely set back our struggle against violent Islamist extremism.
I’m hoping against hope that media reports of an imminent military escalation are - true to the nature of the media - completely erroneous and that the president understands that more troops in Afghanistan is counterproductive. In fact, the time may have come for a responsible withdrawal of the bulk of US/NATO forces and a muscular push for an inclusive Afghan-led process for political reconciliation.
And, on a lighter note...I think I’m gonna have to figure out how to print that inaugural photo with the...ahem...hat...and frame it, or something! :)
And while this was of enormous historical import, I fear that future generations won't really pay much attention to it. Truth be told, I can already feel it slipping away in the American consciousness.
You know it's fading away when the President Of The United States is "too busy" to attend the anniversary celebration.
He can go to Oslo for an unsuccessful bid to get his home town the Olympics.
But he can't go to Germany to celebrate THE defining event of a generation.
What Tocqueville wrote, in the time of Andrew Jackson:
WOW... That's a powerful piece of prognostication.
The threat of a "first strike" was the biggest fear, because we, as a nation, demonized the Soviets until they were barely recognizable as human beings.
Reminds me of an old Sci Fi Anthology episode. Futuristic soldiers fighting an "alien" and "monstrous" enemy are given "field stims" to combat radiation. Turns out the stims are hallucinogenic (try spelling THAT without a spell checker!! :D) and it forces those who take them to see the enemy as alien monsters when they are, in fact, simply humans. The ironic twist is, the enemy are ALSO taking the stims and they see OUR troops as alien monsters.
One of those kewl twist endings that are old hat now, but in their day.... :D
That is what The Wall coming down meant. That is why it was important, beyond the boundaries of one city in Europe. It was the end of an era for the entire planet.
Completely and 1000% unequivocal agreement.. Very well said.
Michale.....
As a kid, I actually got very interested in nuclear weaponry and devoured every source I could find. My mother actually had to reassure my 5th grade teacher that my interest was only academic; I wouldn't shut up about missile throw weights and MIRV warheads.
Shades of THE MANHATTAN PROJECT.. :D
"Son, did you build a nuclear bomb?"
"Only a little one."
:D
A thoroughly kewl movie..
Fact: one Trident nuclear submarine carried enough warheads to annihilate every major political, military, and industrial target in the Soviet Union. At any given time, three to four dozen such payloads were at sea and within striking range of the USSR. For nuclear planning, the watchword was "overkill."
At the time, the three most powerful men in the entire world were the President Of The United States, The General Secretary Of The Soviet Union and the Captain of a Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine.
Liz,
It appears that President Obama is on the verge of announcing a new strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan and the wider region that will include an escalation of 40,000 troops, give or take, into Afghanistan that may define and doom his presidency and, more importantly, severely set back our struggle against violent Islamist extremism.
How so??
Apparently, talking does little. Obama et al has talked and talked and talked and talked and what is there to show for it?
Zilch, Zero, Nada, Nuttin'...
Terrorists don't understand things like compassion, civility, principles and the like. Never have, never will.
The way the British handled the IRA is the exact model to follow when dealing with terrorists and terrorism. You put them into a position where they only have two alternatives.
Negotiate or die.
Michale.....
Michale,
Have you had a chance to read General McChrystal’s report? What he wants to do would require hundreds of thousands of troops, for extended periods - and, that’s assuming that conditions throughout Afghanistan are ripe for a massive COIN operation...which they are not.
But, if you can explain to me precisely how 40,000 to 80,000 more troops are going to get done what the General wants done (protection of the population, improved governance from top to bottom, nation-building royale, etc. etc.), then I may change my mind about this pending escalation.
As for your comments about fighting terrorists...I’m not sure how that applies to what is happening in Afghanistan. I mean, that mission has already been pretty much accomplished, for all intents and purposes. And, a more focused CT approach in the region will finish off that particular menace and it certainly won’t require another 40,000 troops to get the job done.
In fact, the larger point here is that an escalation of troops into Afghanistan would be detrimental to the CT effort for reasons that should be quite obvious...suffice to say that an increased US military footprint in Afghanistan will produce more hardened terrorists, not to mention insurgents ( and there IS a difference!), than the CT mission will destroy. Do the math!
Have you had a chance to read General McChrystal’s report? What he wants to do would require hundreds of thousands of troops, for extended periods - and, that’s assuming that conditions throughout Afghanistan are ripe for a massive COIN operation…which they are not.
Actually, if Obama does the smart thing and gives McChrystal what he wants, McChrystal WILL have a hundred thousand troops.
As for extended periods... Well, war is hell.
I mean, that mission has already been pretty much accomplished, for all intents and purposes. And, a more focused CT approach in the region will finish off that particular menace and it certainly won’t require another 40,000 troops to get the job done.
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", eh Liz?? :D
The mission in Afghanistan was to eliminate Al-Qaeda, cripple the Taliban and prevent either from ever being a threat again.
The Afghanistan mission is far from accomplished.
In fact, the larger point here is that an escalation of troops into Afghanistan would be detrimental to the CT effort for reasons that should be quite obvious…suffice to say that an increased US military footprint in Afghanistan will produce more hardened terrorists, not to mention insurgents ( and there IS a difference!), than the CT mission will destroy. Do the math!
Ahh, the old "If we leave them alone, there won't be any more terrorists produced" argument. An argument for which there is absolutely NO evidence to support.
Let me ask you something, Liz.. Let's go Biden's way and concentrate strictly on Al-Qaeda and CT ops.. What about the Taliban insurgents?? Are they
simply going to stand by and let us take down AQ??
You simply CANNOT have successful CT operations in the middle of a warzone. It's not possible. You must address both enemies simultaneously or your own defeat is inevitable.
To go Biden's way would guarantee that the Taliban will take back Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda would, once again, have a safe haven to flourish.
McChrystal's surge in Afghanistan will work just as successfully as Patreus's surge worked in Iraq.
The Left was against the surge in Iraq. The Left were wrong.
What makes you think that the Left isn't wrong on Afghanistan as well??
Michale....
Michale,
War is Hell, indeed. And, if Obama escalates in Afghanistan war will also be continuous and never-endeing and extend well beyond Afghanistan and the region with NO tangible results for the effort. Surely that is not what you're after!
And, did I say "mission accomplished in Afghanistan"...NO! I did not! Did I say leave Afghanistan alone? No! I did not!You keep insisting on putting words in my mouth. Shoot down my arguments if you must but don't intentionally misinterpret every bloody thing I say. Please!
You have no idea what Biden's way is - he hasn't said word one about it and given his position, I doubt he will. And, that is unfortunate beyond words.
Finally, it is up to the Afghan people what role the Taliban will play in the governance of Afghanistan - not yours, not mine and not US/NATO or the UN. That is not to say, however, that all those mentioned and others will have a role to play in promoting and supporting political reconciliation in this completely traumatized country.
Once again, Iraq is not Afghanistan - not by a long shot and, more than that, the success of the surge in Iraq had little to do with an increase in US troops on the ground. There were many far more important factors at work there and I know you know that!
I couldn't care less about the left, the right or any other part of the political spectrum, on or off the scale. I just don't.
War is Hell, indeed. And, if Obama escalates in Afghanistan war will also be continuous and never-endeing and extend well beyond Afghanistan and the region with NO tangible results for the effort. Surely that is not what you're after!
Many said the same things about the Iraq War and the surge that ended it.
Please do not take offense at this, but military matters are best left to the military professionals. Bush finally realized this, which is exactly why the Iraq conflict is winding down.
Obama is making the EXACT same mistakes that Bush made. Let's hope that Obama shows some of Bush's wisdom and let the military commanders call the shots.
And, did I say "mission accomplished in Afghanistan"…NO! I did not! Did I say leave Afghanistan alone? No! I did not!You keep insisting on putting words in my mouth. Shoot down my arguments if you must but don't intentionally misinterpret every bloody thing I say. Please!
"I mean, that mission has already been pretty much accomplished, for all intents and purposes.
I just take your words and comment on them. Surely the "pretty much" qualifier does not negate the concept.
You have no idea what Biden's way is - he hasn't said word one about it and given his position, I doubt he will. And, that is unfortunate beyond words.
Yea, he has been muzzled by Obama, that much is true. Probably for his own good.. :D
But let's face facts. As one pundit stated, "When has Biden been right about anything??"
You can bet that if the MSM has mis-stated Biden's position on the Afghanistan conflict, Biden would have yelled loud and long to set the record straight. Muzzling by Obama be damned...
Once again, Iraq is not Afghanistan - not by a long shot and, more than that, the success of the surge in Iraq had little to do with an increase in US troops on the ground. There were many far more important factors at work there and I know you know that!
No, but an insurgency is an insurgency is an insurgency. And the US has proven it can successfully fight and defeat an insurgency. Strictly from a military standpoint, what worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan.
Once again, it harkens back to leaving military matters to the military professionals..
If the history since WWII has taught us anything, it showed us that whenever US politicians try to micro-manage a conflict, disaster occurs..
Korea, Vietnam, Second Gulf War and now Afghanistan. All perfect examples of how politicians totally frack things up when they try to micro-manage things they are completely clueless about.
First Gulf War.. Greneda.. Panama.. Perfect examples of successful campaigns. Campaigns where the politicians defined objectives and left it to the military professionals on how to best achieve those objectives.
Obama biggest problem in Afghanistan now is he is letting his base dictate policy. Ironically enough, his base will probably STILL be PO'ed that he (Obama) is committing ANY more troops. He appears to be adopting Clinton's "triangulation" method and is using it with the same disastrous results that Clinton got.
Michale.....
Michale,
No, you don't comment on my words - at all. You present my words out of context and use them to suit your own purposes here.
As you know, the mission that I said was pretty much accomplished was that having to do with “fighting terrorists†of which only a small number remain in Afghanistan. And, while you weren't looking, the concept of al-Qaeda itself has morphed into something altogether different since 9/11. Afghanistan, as base for their collective terrorist activity, has lost the bulk of its relevance and importance. Al-Qaeda has become a diffuse group of extremists who can operate throughout the world. In fact, that’s one thing that has arguably not changed! Consider 9/11 - a group of Saudi and Egyptian extremists who were able to plan their operation in major world cities in countries like Germany and the United States!
I find it incredible that you would think that the situation in Iraq is comparable to Afghanistan when it comes to the governance of the country. The political landscapes - a critical component of any COIN operation, as you know - in Afghanistan and Iraq are about as different as night and day. Therefore, you cannot say, with any credibility, that one insurgency is like any other or that "strictly from a military standpoint, what worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan." That is simply not credible.
Having read General McChrystal's report, I can say that it is extremely hard to imagine that there is anyone more clueless about what is needed in Afghanistan and I find it difficult to believe that even General McChrystal believes the fantasy that he has laid out for the options to move forward in Afghanistan.
Actually, I'm very disappointed. You haven't even tried to persuade me why you think that an escalation in Afghanistan makes sense, militarily and politically. How do you see an increase in troops being anything but counterproductive, given the situation that currently exists in Afghanistan?
After eight years, what can you tell me about the progress in training up the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police and how effective those entities can be, given the traditions, culture, politics and history of Afghanistan?
I hope you know that I can be persuaded but you have to at least make the effort!
Look at what you are saying.
A 4-Star General, Obama's hand picked General for the Afghanistan campaign, a campaign that Obama himself has stated (rightly) is a necessary war. A former NATO commander in Afghanistan... Special Forces, JSOC, commander of the unit that captured Saddam Hussein..
That is the man that you refer to as "clueless"..
Can I ask you one simple question?
What experience, training or expertise do you have that would allow me to believe that your judgment of General McChrystal is an accurate one?
I mean, seriously. That's like me telling Bill Gates that he is "clueless" about Windows Software.
Now, based on MY real experience, training and expertise, I can tell you with complete authority and accuracy that the insurgency itself in Afghanistan is no different than the insurgency that was defeated in Iraq. To defeat ANY insurgency, overwhelming boots-on-the-ground superiority is what is required. Of course, there will be minor differences. An Iraqi insurgent says "TOE-MAY-TOE" and a Taliban insurgent says, "TOE-MAA-TOE".. But when it comes down to it, they are both the same and defeating them requires boots on the ground.
You can bet that if President Obama doesn't give the General the troops and support he needs, the stench of failure in Afghanistan will paint Obama and the Democrats for decades to come.
I am a military man, first and foremost. I could try to persuade you that my position is the accurate one. But it would be futile, as we have no common frame of reference.
By way of analogy, it would be like a brilliant neurosurgeon trying to persuade a plumber that a specific surgical technique would be the best way to proceed.
We cannot ignore the Taliban while we pursue a limited and narrow-minded strategy against Al-Qaeda.
It's really THAT simple and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
And I am sure President Obama is getting the EXACT same advice.. Let's hope he has the wisdom to listen to it.
Michale.....
Michale,
Well, if that's your best shot, I remain unconvinced that an escalation in Afghanistan is the best way to meet the essential US/NATO objectives in this country and the wider region.
But, it looks like we are about to find out if 40,000 more troops will be counterproductive or not. Perhaps President Obama can do a better job of persuding me and the majority of the American people when he evenually stands before us to lay out his strategy and why it should be supported.
Osborne -
You're right about us forgetting the Cold War after 2001, although the memory was already fading fast by that point.
I remember a story about a kid in a Virginia high school (this was back in Reagan's time, I believe) who entered as a school science fair project an atomic bomb. He even had mockups of the dynamite to set it off, which caused a mini-panic until it was proven they weren't real. The AEC actually went out, during the panic, and took a look at it, after which they stated that the bomb, if armed with real dynamite and real fissionable material, would likely have worked. His father helped on the project a bit (I forget exactly what his father did, but it was related to nukes somehow), but the kid did most of the work. Made a splash in the papers at the time. So tell your mom there were other kids out there even worse!
Did you ever read "We" the anti-utopian Russian novel (kind of a Russian "1984")? Just curious.
akadjian -
The reunification of Germany was HUGE, especially economically. Imagine the USA absorbing Mexico, with all its problems, and that comes pretty close to what the West Germans had to deal with. That's an interesting Thatcher story... you're right, not exactly what was public back then!
Elizabeth -
I have been impressed with Obama's prioritizing the problem of loose nukes, myself. You're right -- it's a terrifying thing to think of one of them getting into the wrong hands.
Michale -
Yeah, that Tocqueville quote has always simply floored me. Given how little data he had to make such a sweeping prediction, it's just stunning how right he turned out to be.
I've read a similar story about future wars and taking hallucinogens, although I think it was slightly diffent. Maybe it was in the book "The Forever War," not sure...
As for Afghanistan, you say:
Apparently, talking does little. Obama et al has talked and talked and talked and talked and what is there to show for it?
But you're forgetting Obama has already sent 31,000 more troops there this year. Far more than either he or McCain ever talked about on the campaign trail (Obama talked 10,000-15,000, McCain talked 5,000). So "what is there to show for it" is a DOUBLING of our troop commitment there so far. The next step Obama is mulling over is whether to TRIPLE what was there when he took office. Let's put it in perspective.
Elizabeth has a point -- by the Army's official book, we should have 600,000 soldiers there to do counterinsurgency properly. But nobody's talking about those kind of numbers.
As for the "surge" the equivalent in Afghanistan would be us paying off the Taliban so they don't shoot at us any more, and working with Karzai so they are politically folded into the government. That's what the Sunni Awakening was all about, and it came down to paying people not to shoot at us. Whether this is a good thing or not morally I leave for others to consider. Whether it works or not is the question to really ask. It worked in Iraq, short term, and from news reports I've seen it appears we're already doing this in Afghanistan -- paying off some parts of the Taliban to leave our supply lines alone, for instance. Whether this is smart or whether it could work or not is an open question, to me at least.
Whether this would be acceptible politically here at home is also an open question. It seemed to fly largely under the radar while we were paying the Sunni groups, but the Taliban is a little different, I think, in the American public's perception.
And both of you, I'm actually happy Biden isn't being heard from. Because what is important is that Obama is hearing from Biden, and all the rest of his advisers, and I'm sure he is. There have been precious few leaks over Obama's Afghanistan strategy meetings, and most of them have seemed to come from the Pentagon, and not the White House. I'm willing to give them all some elbow room until they are ready to tell the American people what they've decided.
One final comment to you both -- the American Ambassador to Afghanistan, a retired military man himself, just came out against more troops. There are differences of opinion within the military, just like in civilian politics.
-CW
As for the "surge" the equivalent in Afghanistan would be us paying off the Taliban so they don't shoot at us any more, and working with Karzai so they are politically folded into the government.
That simply will not work in Afghanistan. The Taliban have been in bed with Al Qaeda a LOT longer than the Iraqi insurgency has.
One final comment to you both — the American Ambassador to Afghanistan, a retired military man himself, just came out against more troops. There are differences of opinion within the military, just like in civilian politics.
You said it correctly the first time. "The American Ambassador to Afghanistan"...
He is now a politician, not a military man. He has to be concerned with the political side of things, both in Afghanistan and here at home.
General McChrystal has only one task. The mission that President Obama assigned him. And McChrystal has told his CnC what he needs now to accomplish the mission.
But Obama would rather listen to his political base and other politicians who are utterly clueless about anything but the next opinion polls.
Obama owns Afghanistan now. You can bet that if he (Obama) fails in Afghanistan (as he will if he continues to ignore McChrystal and, instead listens to the likes of Biden et al) the GOP will never let the American Public forget who failed in Afghanistan. No one will remember Bush's ignoring Afghanistan in favor of the Iraq war. All the American Public will hear about is how Obama would not give his own chosen general the forces he needed and that is why Afghanistan became another Vietnam.
Rightly or wrongly, fairly or not, that is how a failure in Afghanistan will be spun by the GOP..
I said it before and I'll say it again. History has PROVEN that, whenever politicians try to run a conflict, rather than simply providing objectives, disaster happens.
President Obama should be smart enough to realize this. But he has made bonehead move after bonehead move. So much so that I really question his intelligence.
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I honestly hope that *I* am wrong. Because, when it is shown that I am right, it will be over the dead bodies of thousands of American service men and women.
Michale...
Michale -
You seem to be forgetting a big part of the equation. The president SETS the mission. Obama is now, if you believe the leaks, concerned with redefining the mission, and including an exit strategy in any mission he decides upon. How is that a bad thing?
Come to think of it, what boneheaded moves has Obama made on Afghanistan? I wasn't aware of any. So far, the only thing he's really done is double the troops. Since that's what you appear to be arguing for now (more troops), how is that a bad thing? You can argue that it hasn't worked as well as the generals said it would, but that doesn't exactly make it "boneheaded" does it? Or were you speaking in a larger sense, including other non-Afghan-related boneheaded moves?
-CW
You seem to be forgetting a big part of the equation. The president SETS the mission. Obama is now, if you believe the leaks, concerned with redefining the mission, and including an exit strategy in any mission he decides upon. How is that a bad thing?
It's a bad thing because Obama is re-defining the mission NOT based on battlefield information, but rather on domestic politics at home. Obama's base is dictating the change in the mission and that is as bad a thing as can possibly be.
In other words, it's not Obama the American President that is making these decisions. It is Obama the leader of the Democratic Party that is calling the shots..
Come to think of it, what boneheaded moves has Obama made on Afghanistan? I wasn't aware of any. So far, the only thing he's really done is double the troops. Since that's what you appear to be arguing for now (more troops), how is that a bad thing? You can argue that it hasn't worked as well as the generals said it would, but that doesn't exactly make it "boneheaded" does it? Or were you speaking in a larger sense, including other non-Afghan-related boneheaded moves?
I was speaking more generically of Obama's bone head moves... Of which there are plenty.. :D
But speaking specifically to Afghanistan, yes.. It was a bonehead move by Obama to not immediately send the troops requested by McChrystal. I mean, seriously... Didn't Obama learn ANYTHING from the Bush/Iraq debacle??
When your military is ass deep in alligators, you don't question your hand-picked Commander's request to drain the fracking swamp!! :D
Let me put it this way.
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that General McChrystal has an "ulterior" motive in requesting more troops??
I mean, there cannot be any question of General McChrystal's competence, as he was hand-picked by The One...
So, since the General's competence is not in question, and his loyalty and patriotism is not in question, then what makes Obama thinks that HE knows more about the situation on the ground than McChrystal??
The ONLY question in the here and now is does the Obama Administration have the "testicular fortitude" to do the right thing for the country, rather than doing the right thing for the Democratic Party??
And the answer to that question to date has been a resounding NO...
Hopefully, that will change..
But I kinda doubt it...
Michale.....
Michale,
How's the weather in your alternate universe? Seriously.
"I may live in my own little world, but it's OK.. They know me here."
-Sharon
:D
Seriously, the world I live in is the reality of that which we all live in. A reality where bad things DO happen and sometimes war is necessary and/or inevitable.
Peace at ANY cost is tantamount to slavery.
Those who desire peace must be prepared for war.
Choose your platitude...
Michale.....
That's OK, Michale...I don't even attempt any of that fancy schmancy stuff.
By the way, I hope you're not implying that I'm a pacifist because I would have to really seriously fight you on that one. :)