Surging in Afghanistan

Some reactions to Obama's speech:

1. At the beginning of the speech, as he summed up how we got into this jam and the nature of it, he looked alternately angry and disgusted. There's nothing like having to clean up someone else's pile of poo, but then again, he asked for this job, and he got what he asked for.
2. I thought that his attempt to put the best face on a possibly stolen election in Afghanistan fell flat. And doesn't that call into serious question this counter-insurgency strategy? Doesn't a successful counter-insurgency depend on the government that you're trying to prop up having legitimacy in the eyes of its people?
3. I was very glad to hear him set a deadline. A high school graduate who enlisted in the Army this summer was ten years old when this war started. Our fifth graders on 9/11 are now fighting in Afghanistan. Enough is enough.
4. I was also very glad to hear him say in effect, "We can't afford this war." Because we can't. A trillion dollars in "supplemental appropriations" for two wars is why we are broke. It's not the stimulus, and its not even the bank bailouts. For people wringing their hands about all the debt we're running up this year, the takeaway lesson is, Don't borrow money in good times to fight a war of choice, not of necessity, because when the bad times return, they'll bite you in the butt.
5. I was most pleased to hear the President commit to moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. A Jack Bauer guided fantasy on torturing a terrorist who knows where the suitcase containing the loose nuke is great, but you know what would be even greater? Living "under your own vines and fig frees, unafraid" and untroubled by certain apocalyptic anxieties because nuclear weapons no longer exist. And what we've learned in this decade is that preventive war is a lousy way to work toward a nuclear free world. The more mundane work of negotiating treaties, verifying them, and vigorous law enforcement is what will get the job done.
6. As I said in the previous post,I don't think any President would have enough political capital to walk away from a war in which the enemy is ascendant. And because the enemy is on the march, the status quo is unacceptable. One last effort to pacify the country before we get out is thus our only viable option. It seems to have worked in Iraq, much better than I thought it would in late 2006. 
7. But given the corruption in #2, and the failure of the Iraqis thus far to take advantage of the improved security and forge a political reconciliation, doesn't this mean that both surges are more about finding a face-saving way to get out than victory?
8. It was sobering to see an audience full of pimply guys in gray cadet uniforms. Some of them will surely be killed before they live long enough to clear up their acne.That's not right.
9. If it's not right then why aren't you more vigorously opposed to this escalation, Marvin? I suppose the answer is, I think that some mixture of sin, history and even Providence have brought us to this ugly point of no good alternatives and no real alternatives at all other than the path outlined last night, and "opposing" the policy makes as much sense as opposing the tide coming in. I think a better question is, Are we learning anything from this slow motion disaster?
10. In Advent we dare to hope for peace on earth and good will toward men, but we also hear John the Baptist's contempt for pious hopes that aren't backed by repentance. Beating swords into plowshares isn't a mandate only for the bad guys.

Comments

[Jonathan Marlowe]

Just a few weeks after September 11, 2001, you bravely declared in the pages of the Charlotte Observer that you opposed the war in Afghanistan for specifically dogmatic reasons. It now seems you have completed your journey from Hauerwasian to Walter Winkian to complete Niebuhrian. Interesting.

[Danny]

I think that there are pros and cons of the withdrawal date. The obvious pro is that we have something solid to set our hats on. We have hope, and hope can never be underestimated, but in the same way, that hope is also the hope of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and whoever else dislikes the American occupation. The hope is that 2012 will be the end of the American occupation and the return to "business as usual." Anyone who thinks that an occupation can make any kind of difference by 2011 is crazy. It takes years and years for anyone from the west to gain acceptance in the Middle East. Over there, it is about friendship over business, and we seem to be all about business, and withdrawals, etc., and I don't think it will translate well to an Arab audience.

I agree with you though that this is probably the best of bad solutions. My contention, however, is that he either needs to set in for the long haul or get out now. Waiting a year is just, as you say, saving face for an unwinnable war.

[Marvin]

Well I did find myself thinking about the Serenity Prayer while posting this...

My thinking on violence is muddled, as you can tell. Remembering the categories in John Howard Yoder's Nevertheless, I think I am a conscience pacifist (which, as I recall, is not a very good type of pacifist because it doesn't know how to make a public witness).

I do recognize that most people see war differently, and it may not be the case that they're all wrong, and I'm right. I think that even pacifists have an interest in seeing that non-pacifists use violence sparingly and judiciously. But in the case of Afghanistan, any decision will directly result in violent deaths. There does seem to be no good option, and given the dynamics, no real option for the President to do otherwise than what he did. "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change."

Mostly, I would say that I have a lot more sympathy than I used to for people who think that they have no other alternative than violence. I think this has a lot to do with living with an autistic child, and having experienced many episodes of complete chaos, a complete loss of control on my son's part and a near loss of control on my part, and general feelings of hopelessness and despair.

You know, order is not a value that is highly prized in mainline theological education. It's all about challenging the status quo, letting justice roll down like waters, and turning over the money changer tables. But I've experienced enough chaos to appreciate order, appreciate those who maintain order, and appreciate the craving for order and the sense of desperation that drives individuals and societies to do whatever it takes to restore some semblance of order to their lives.

Like I said, I am a conscience pacifist. I can't kill in good conscience. My personal commitment to non-violence hasn't changed, although I have had only mixed success in living up to my commitments. All my failures to live peaceably and forgive and seek forgiveness owe themselves to a lack of spiritual vigilance on my part and a failure of imagination--a failure to see alternatives. I think that's true, writ large, when nations go to war. It's about fear and greed, of course, but also about spiritual torpor, a lack of imagination and "weak resignation to the evils we deplore" (Harry Emerson Fosdick would be the proper counterpoint to the Serenity Prayer, I suppose.

But even if it's it own fault that society can't see any other alternatives, societies still can only choose within the range of alternatives they have. War may be the only responsible choice given the options, although the fact that the options are limited is nobody's fault but their own.

And that's basically what I think, as of right now...

[Monica]

Indeed, it's best to exit now rather than wait one more year which will do nothing but increase the death toll of soldiers