Comments (0)

By David, January 4, 2010 6:45 pm

There are a lot of Democrats who aren’t at all happy about the President’s decision to commit additional forces to Afghanistan.  They are convinced this is an un-winnable war and can’t help but make that all too easy leap to saying that this will be just another Vietnam.   Respectfully, I think they’re wrong on both counts.  President Obama didn’t make this decision casually.

First of all, Afghanistan is not Iraq.  Iraq, a war, which for all its terrible costs, still makes no sense to me, was fought because of a determined, single minded desire on the part of one administration.  It had no real justification and now, the best we can hope for, is an unsteady peace.

Afghanistan is different.  There is a history that many of us don’t recall.  Or, I suspect, choose not too.  But it’s this history which makes a moral case for why we just can’t pack up and go home.

Just go back in time a little.  Say, to 1973.  Afghanistan wasn’t a war zone in those days, it was actually a rather pretty country, and its economy generated a healthy GDP.  Then that government (a monarchy of sorts) was overthrown and replaced with a Communist regime.  This didn’t alarm the west all that much (after all, who cared about Afghanistan?), but when the communists were toppled in the late 70’s, the Soviet Union invaded.

The Russians were well on their way to subduing the country.  Their primary resistance, sort of a confederation of tribes, traditionalists, and fundamentalists, was called the Mujahideen.   They weren’t necessarily a lovable bunch, but they were, at least in the eyes of the west, tweaking the nose of the “Evil Empire.” That was an attractive notion in the 80’s and slowly but surely, the CIA, with help from supporters in Congress (see Charlie Wilson’s War with Tom Hanks – great movie), started funneling resources in their direction.  The Mujahideen organization became a more disciplined fighting force, supplies flowed through Pakistan, and eventually, they turned the tide and made the Afghan War a major drain on the Soviet Military.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were lots of reasons why, but one of the most notable was Afghanistan.  And, it’s also, at that moment in time, where our involvement in this country came to an abrupt halt.  Afghanistan didn’t really have a government.  Its economy was barely functional, public facilities were almost nonexistent and infrastructure, what there was of it, was badly damaged.  Land mines and explosives, left over by the tens of thousands, were a daily hazard.  But most noteworthy there was now an organized military force, formerly the Mujahideen –  young men, well trained and well armed, with a dangerous cause – and no place to go.  The United States had packed up and gone home and the Soviet Union was history.  We provided no significant aid or nation building.  All that remained were the makings of a very dangerous situation.

The dispossessed warriors of the Mujahideen were ripe targets for international Islamic extremism and the formation of Taliban.  The rest of the story is something we all know pretty well.  But as we debate the future of Afghanistan, we can’t ignore the events that got us to this point.  They didn’t all begin on 9/11.  In a way, through our actions during the Cold War, however justified they seemed at the time, and our inaction following, we played a big part in creating this situation.  Therefore, we can’t, morally, ignore it.

President Bush, to his credit (yes, I said that), had the Taliban on the run, but then, following the invasion of Iraq, turned his attention away from Afghanistan.  However this near criminal neglect of the Afghan Theater allowed the Taliban, and their associated extremists to once again get the upper hand.   It’s hard to tell what the answer may look like in Afghanistan, but the model that General Patraeus has in mind, looks sound.   He wants to stabilize the security of the populated areas and establish some kind of accommodation with the tribal regions.

It would be easy enough to claim that President Obama has taken a wrong course.  That he is going down the road Lyndon Johnson did in 1965.  A lot of progressives have said just that.  And frankly, I understand their anxiety.   Many think we should just leave Afghanistan.  But President Obama knows his history, understands how we got there and most of all feels a moral commitment to the people of this desperate and struggling region.  It’s not war mongering.  There is nothing the U.S. could possibly want in Afghanistan.  Save perhaps to do the right thing.

Comments (1)

By David, December 24, 2009 11:30 pm

The Republican Party, eyeing the 2010 elections, has convinced itself that the Health Care Bill, slowly, but surely progressing through Congress, will be what political experts call, their “wedge issue.”  They are already talking about targeted seats, and pickups in the House, sufficient, or so they claim, to give them back control of the lower chamber.

It is grandiose talk and not unusual posturing for a party desperate for a comeback.  The Democrats are just as good at it.  But this time, in crowing about voter resentment and anxiety surrounding the Health Bill, and what they hope will be a backlash at the polls in 2010, they had better think again.  The new Healthcare Bill, once it’s enacted, may prove far more popular than anyone at the moment can imagine.

It’s happened before.  In 1935, after raucous debate, divided almost entirely on party lines – Democrats for it and Republicans passionately against it – Democrats in Congress succeeded in passing the Social Security Act.  There were dire predictions from the Republicans that the new bill was just one step away from socialism and a direct challenge to our American way of life.  They claimed it was reckless, dangerous, and oh yes, they assured everyone that it would bankrupt the nation.

For awhile, the public, having heard the details of the debate, and the arguments against it, were skeptical about the new program.  However, as they read more, and most importantly in their decision making, eyed their own old age, or that of their parents, they warmed to the idea.   Maybe President Roosevelt, along with leaders of the House and Senate, who had pushed and cajoled the bill through Congress, had a good idea after all.  Maybe, it was even long overdue.

The Republicans had another view.  They were convinced that there was a massive voter backlash brewing that would give them a big boost in the elections the year to follow.  But that’s not the way it turned out.  In the 1936 Presidential election, President Roosevelt won by the largest majority in history and increased, dramatically, his party’s already lopsided majorities in Congress.  The Republicans couldn’t have been more wrong.

But it’s amazing how little politicians, and this year it’s the GOP, learn from history.  When it comes to the Health Care Bill the public has been subjected to bit of misinformation and all the back and forth behind every compromise.  It’s no wonder that they’re a little mystified and even confused by what they’re hearing.  However, that’s not going to last.  So far, the debate has belonged only to the proposal’s detractors.  When this dynamic shifts, and the bill becomes law, that’s going to change.

Several features of the legislation, once they become known and understood, are going to be hard for the Republicans to argue against.  Take preexisting conditions for example.  Millions of Americans, with everything from diabetes and cancer, as well as more obscure conditions, many of which represent little risk, are denied coverage when they change jobs because they have these preexisting conditions.  This cruel practice will come to an end with the new bill.  Then there is the situation, common to parents with young adult children where their kids can’t get insurance because they don’t have work coverage yet or are still in school.  Their parents plans drop them when they turn 18, or in some cases when they’re 21.  The new bill will allow parents to keep them on the family policy until they’re 26.

Finally, through breaking down artificial protections for insurance companies, and allowing more dynamic competition in the insurance industry, as well as mandating coverage (while also providing tax breaks to small businesses to help off set the costs) some 30 million previously uninsured Americans will have health care coverage.  For many Americans, this prospect alone, which haunts so many people, will no longer be the gut wrenching fear it is today.

That’s why I am anxious, when the Republicans take to the stump, to hear them propose, repealing what will probably be one of the most popular pieces of legislation in our history.  The GOP may find, as they did in 1936, that once again, they are on the wrong side of history.