The increasing calls for significant reevaluation of America's Af/Pak policy has revealed some odd actors. The trope between "wars of necessity" and "wars of choice" has shown up recently in a number of critiques of American involvement in Afghanistan, arguing that American involvement is now a function of inertia rather than wise policy. Oddly, the most vocal voices of such critiques seem to be the same people who were saying a few years back that we should be in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, citing (a) that was where the terrorists were actually based that attacked us, and (b) "we broke it, we bought it".
Yet now, as Iraq appears to be winding down (or, at least, our attention directed elsewhere), and our gaze turns to Afghanistan, these critics aren't changing their argument, even as they get what they asked for. Specific policy critiques of prior Afghanistan policy often cited Afghanistan's far larger land mass, higher overall population, and lower population density all as reasons why the troops we had in Iraq were needed in Afghanistan. In the interim between then (say, 2004 or 2007) and now, Afghanistan didn't change much, as near as I can tell. It's only been in the last 9 months or so, that Afghanistan has gotten appreciably more dangerous. Furthermore, all indicators are that the shifts in strategy, be it in the Pentagon, the White House, or by the theater commander, are all direct reactions to a war that has ground on for years without resolution. The changes in force allocations, political capitol, and strategy are all in line with what a lot of critics of Bush-era policy sought. Yet they remain critics.
Now, the easy, pithy reply is to say that their role is that of critic first, scion of national policy second. The left finds its comfort zone in opposition, a desirable quality when in genuine opposition, less desirable when your party is in power. Critical theory, political marginalization, and I suspect a decent dose of contrarianism combine to make criticism feel more natural than support or involvement, and criticism is best done outside the government, from think-tanks, academia, and public organization. Of course, the left is far from along in having a long roster of prominent individuals more comfortable outside looking in, but I gig the left explicitly here because it is my general impression that the criticism and impatience towards Obama's policies is most coming from the left, from the very people whose commentary years ago is being realized.
Which brings up the question of dissent. Dissent is of unquestionable utility, and without dissent, changes like Petraeus or the Surge would not have been possible. Groups like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, have never been less than absolutely upfront about their opposition to any and all war, regardless of reason. Regardless of your agreement with their position, their opposition to Afghanistan creates no cognitive dissonance. But for the rest of the party, and for the moderates who clamored for a refocus on Afghanistan during the dark years on grounds anywhere from moral imperatives, strategic necessity or simple retributive justice, such opposition is troubling. It suggests either that these critics still haven't adjusted to being power and are still more comfortable on their soap box than in active support, or that these critics are closeted Code Pink, which is fairly disingenuous, and a hindrance to further debate on the merits of policy if one can't be sure who they represent.
And, at this stage, full-throated debate is needed. Some things are starting to change, but demanding a coherent articulation of the Administration's goals and objectives is eminently reasonable. AM's notation that career public servants are asking the same question as politicians should rightly serve as a warning bell that even the people charged with implementing the policy aren't sure how or why they are performing their jobs. Acting the loyal opposition because your habit is first to criticize, then solve, undercuts whatever effort goes forth because the criticism won't stop once the ship changes direction. But acting the opposition because you sense a void could be filled with your questions gives voice to the questions others didn't know they wanted to ask, and provides direction, guidance, and metrics to progress. Know your motives.
No comments:
Post a Comment