In an interview with the Guardian at the end of a visit to Kabul for the presidential inauguration of Hamid Karzai, the foreign secretary said: “If international forces leave, you can choose a time – five minutes, 24 hours or seven days – but the insurgent forces will overrun those forces that are prepared to put up resistance and we would be back to square one.”
That David Miliband should think that this is an argument for redoubling efforts in Afghanistan says everything about just how hopelessly irrational the policy is and why it is doomed to go the same way as every other Afghan imperial folly. One of the few hopeful signs is that he is repeating the US Afghan Ambassador Eikenberry’s point that the Karzai government wasn’t the reliable partner assumed by McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy, and therefore that the US president shouldn’t increase his commitment by fulfilling McChrystal’s request for more troops.
The thing that I remember being drilled home in Halberstams’ masterful The Best and the Brightest was that the Vietnam campaign was doomed from the outset because the Americans were trying to prop up a corrupt and ineffectual government. That this was the central point in Eikenberry’s opposition to escalation suggests that Miliband and his briefers are woefully inadequate, or cynical, or our ability to think clearly about war and avoid massive cognitive dissonance is nil, or perhaps some combination of all three.
And then I read this from Barbara Ellen in today’s Observer.
Please be seated, as some may find this item disturbing. It would appear that Hillary Clinton fancies David Miliband. True. Hillary told an interviewer that Miliband was worthy of a “big crush” (her emphasis). She continued: “I mean, he’s so vibrant, vital, attractive and smart. He’s really a good guy. And so young.” Heavens above, get a room, Hillary! And kindly have some respect for Dishy Dave’s married status.
The chances of this ending well can’t be good. It seems to hinge on Obama, Biden and Eikenberry. Will that be enough?
They Just Don’t Get It
That David Miliband should think that this is an argument for redoubling efforts in Afghanistan says everything about just how hopelessly irrational the policy is and why it is doomed to go the same way as every other Afghan imperial folly. One of the few hopeful signs is that he is repeating the US Afghan Ambassador Eikenberry’s point that the Karzai government wasn’t the reliable partner assumed by McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy, and therefore that the US president shouldn’t increase his commitment by fulfilling McChrystal’s request for more troops.
The thing that I remember being drilled home in Halberstams’ masterful The Best and the Brightest was that the Vietnam campaign was doomed from the outset because the Americans were trying to prop up a corrupt and ineffectual government. That this was the central point in Eikenberry’s opposition to escalation suggests that Miliband and his briefers are woefully inadequate, or cynical, or our ability to think clearly about war and avoid massive cognitive dissonance is nil, or perhaps some combination of all three.
And then I read this from Barbara Ellen in today’s Observer.
The chances of this ending well can’t be good. It seems to hinge on Obama, Biden and Eikenberry. Will that be enough?