While visiting Afghanistan in July, I met a U.S. diplomat in Helmand Province who told me this story: He had served in Anbar, in Iraq, and one day a Marine officer came to him, after carrying a wounded buddy off the battlefield on his back, and said to him, “The policy had better match the sacrifice.”
In Iraq, for way too long, our policy did not match the sacrifice of our soldiers. It was badly planned and under-resourced. Before we proceed with this new strategy in Afghanistan we have to give our generals a chance to make their case, we also have to insist that Congress debate it anew, hear other experts, and, if Congress decides to go ahead, to formally authorize it. Like Iraq, it would involve a long struggle, and we can’t ask our soldiers to start something we have no stomach to finish.
In short, President Obama has to be as committed to any surge in Afghanistan as President Bush was in Iraq, because Mr. Obama will have to endure a lot of bad news before things ”” might ”” get better.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told an American Legion convention about Afghanistan: “Let’s take a good hard look at this fight we’re in, what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. I’d rather see us as a nation argue about the war, struggling to get it right, than ignore it. Because each time I go to Dover to see the return of someone’s father, brother, mother, or sister, I want to know that collectively we’ve done all we can to make sure that sacrifice isn’t in vain.”
One trip to Afganistan and Thomas Friedman is a freaking military strategist. Amazing! I have news for you buddy; policy has not kept up with sacrifice since Korea! It was pitiful in Vietnam and then a whole host of no name battles after that. Even the vaunted blitzkrieg in Iran (Desert Storm), stupidly stopped at the gates of Bahgdad to let the messiah of Iraq live for another day and 4000 more US and coalition lives.
After WWII we totally forgot how to be a nation that seeks peace yet is ready to defend itself with lightning and brutal consequences for those willing to challange our freedom and liberty on the field of battle.
Thomas, you should confine yourself to writing insightful pieces about politicians……..whoops, that hasn’t worked out so well either, has it?
For the life of me, I don’t understand why anyone listens to this guy. His column range from the banal to the revolting and rarely reflect anything but the most hackneyed conventional wisdom. I will say a recent lamented emission of Friedman’s did manage to break new grounds in the area of slavish adoration of totalitarian government, but that’s the first time he’s had an original idea in decades.
Thank you, thank you #s1 and 2, for saying what needed saying, and saving me trying to do so and not as well as you’ve done.
Mea culp……Desert Storm was Irag part 1. My mind goes faster than my thumbs………..
I’m not a fan of Friedman’s pop analysis, as Jeffersonian says and this article definitely falls under the category of “banal.” In my opinion it’s a little late in the game for figuring out why we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan and it’s way too late for congressional debate about a strategy. If we don’t know, or things have changed or we can’t remember why we’re there, we should just get the heck out with no fanfare. If we’re staying, we need clear, cogent statements from leadership (i.e. the President) about what we’re doing there and why it’s important to sacrifice our people and our resources.
Hey, at least he’s not batting his eyes at a totalitarian, murderous government this week. I’ll take banal every time over dreams of having the jackboot shoved into the American people’s throats, just this one time, so we can do the “right” thing our country is too stupid to adopt through democratic processes.
The portion of Friedman’s article in the post seems to have little to do with the comments. I’m not sure that he is saying anything that the commenters would (or should) substantively disagree with if the read the entire piece.
apologies: “the” in last line of previous comment should read “they”