By Peter Feaver
The eyes, mouths, and digits of the punditocracy are understandably focused on the
fate of Obamacare. Over here in Shadow Government, we serve the country
best by focusing on most everything else.
In that spirit, I was struck by Jane Harman's op-ed, "It's the Corruption,
Stupid," in today's Washington Times. Congresswoman Harman is a moderate
Democrat on foreign policy and fairly hawkish on national security questions
(full disclosure: she is also a friend and fellow Aspen Strategy Group member).
She was part of a group of Democrats that the Bush administration
considered to be critics especially worth consulting. They were sharply
critical of our Iraq, Afghanistan, GWOT, or what-have-you policy, but having
enough expertise to be able to offer constructive suggections and sharing
enough common ground with us to be willing to do so.
Bottom line: if you were going to build a bulwark within the Democratic House
in support of General McChrystal's request for a ramped up military effort, you
would probably begin with Congresswoman Harman.
She may still be part of that bulwark, but I interpret her op-ed as signaling
something very different, something very ominous for the Obama Administration.
Her argument is that neither increasing nor decreasing coalition troops
in Afghanistan makes sense until we have fixed the endemic problem of
government corruption. In case you miss the implication, the Washington
Times editors spell it out with their subtitle: "Raising U.S. Troop Levels is
the Wrong Move." That subtitle might be slightly misleading since, as I
read the op-ed, Harman caveats that recommendation with a proviso: "unless or
until you fix corruption in Afghanistan."
However, fixing corruption in Afghanistan is the work of a generation, if not
more. Indeed, one could argue that you cannot fix corruption in
Afghanistan until you have fixed every other problem including ending the drug
trade, raising literacy and health standards, ending the influence of tribes,
etc., etc. There are vast armies of well-paid bureaucrats in the World
Bank and elsewhere who have cushy life-time employment working on corruption
issues in societies with far rosier horizons than Afghanistan.
The stipulation that we can not and must not raise troop levels in Afghanistan
until we have fixed corruption is tantamount to a stipulation that we can not
and must not raise troop levels in Afghanistan, ever. Indeed, that does
seem to be Harman's basic argument because she goes on to note, correctly, that
once the corruption problem is fixed then it is likely that the Afghan
government itself can provide all the additional forces they might need.
That is a principled position, of course, but it is not the one you want in the
floor leader defending an urgent Obama administration request for more troops
now.
As I understand it, the recommendation coming from Generals Petraeus and
McChrystal involve increased troop levels concurrent with increased efforts
aimed at corruption and all the other Afghan problems. Congresswoman
Harman appears to be giving that recommendation a clear thumbs-down.
If I am right about this, then President Obama's political problem on
Afghanistan is much more thorny than I thought even a few weeks ago.
One final point: in the last couple weeks I have had numerous conversations
with journalists all writing some variant of the "Obama administration and
national security in wartime" story. I have asked each of them the same
question: "Based on your reporting and access to the White House, what do you
think is President Obama's gut-level resolve on Afghanistan?" The answer
I have gotten back from every one of them, including journalists who are famous
for their favorable coverage of Obama, is "I have no idea." That, I believe,
may turn out to be one of the most consequential differences between this
Commander-in-Chief and his predecessor.
How the administration responds to the signals sent by Congresswoman Harman and
others will help clarify this question.
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE