Defining victory downwards in Afghanistan? Not yet.
Newsweek called Afghanistan Obama’s Vietnam. Conservatives made the argument for victory.
Barack Obama made a significant decision and chose to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. I won’t call it a hard decision, but it was certainly the right one, so the President deserves credit for that.
Still, the President cautioned the dispatch of additional troops would not prejudice the outcome of the comprehensive strategic review being conducted by his administration. Then, last night, Richard Holbrooke refused to say that Obama’s goals were any different from Bush’s:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Ambassador, the Bush administration’s stated goal in Afghanistan was roughly to keep al-Qaida out and to try to build a democratic government. How is the Obama administration goal in Afghanistan different?RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Well, broadly stated, the way you defined it, it falls within the same framework as any American government would do, particularly one inheriting the very difficult situation which President Obama inherited in the last month.
It took a lot more words than necessary, but the basic message is that the goals are the same. I hope it stays that way.
Weekly Podcast
"Inside Washington Weekly"
Upcoming Events
Who We Are
How We Roll
- @TAC
- AmSpecBlog
- Andrew Sullivan
- Ann Althouse
- Brendan Conway – The 20% Risk
- Culture11
- Daniel Larison
- David Frum
- Democracy in America
- Deputy Dog
- Ezra Klein
- FP Passport
- John Schwenkler
- Julian Sanchez
- Kerry Howley
- Marc Andreesen
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Yglesias
- Megan McArdle
- Polaris
- Postmodern Conservative
- Pundit Kitchen
- Rod Dreher – BeliefNet
- Ross Douthat
- Shadow Government
- Splice Today
- The American Scene
- The Becker-Posner Blog
- The Confabulum
- The Debatable Land
- The Plank
- The Washington Realist
- Washington Post Capitol Briefing
- Why Boys Fail
- Will Wilkinson
- xkcd
2 Comments - add your own
David Donadio — February 20, 2009 at 2:09 am
What representative of the U.S. government would have answered Woodruff’s question any differently?
David Adesnik — February 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
If Obama’s objectives are actually the same as Bush’s, then no one would’ve answered differently. But if the administration were simply hedging while it conducts its internal review, a generic spokesman could’ve answered: “The difference between our policy and our predecessor’s policy is crystal clear. We are seriously committed to diplomacy, instead of thinking only in terms of military solutions. We will pursue a regional solution instead of pretending that the problem can be solved by fighting in Afghanistan alone. That is how we will put an end to the threat from Al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11.”
It sounds tough. It says nothing about democracy. And it makes no actual commitments that could be contradicted by later decisions. Perfect for a spokesman. (It seems I learned some of the wrong things by working on a presidential campaign.)