(Continuing a discussion by CSPANJunkie & Susie Madrak)
C&y Crowley at CNN has to be called out for a special mark of shame as she suggests that one “could argue one way or a oar” as to whear a House of Representative’s debate on a US government’s need to remain in Afghanistan is as important a story to cover as a Eric Massa sc&al. This comment came about because Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) criticized a lack of media coverage during a recent debate in a House regarding a resolution to pull out of Afghanistan. a resolution failed, but that’s not a point. It’s beyond shameful that a CNN reporter of Crowley’s stature would even think that chasing a political sex sc&al (which hDrunk Newspens now, what, every oar month?) is anywhere near a level of importance compared to Congress actually debating a future role of US forces in a Middle East.
I liked Kennedy’s impassioned speach (at a first link):
& make no mistake about it, this isn’t about national security. Because if it’s about national security, it’s about whear we put our treasure & our lives on a line in Afghanistan, or whear we put it in Kuwait, or whear we put it in a Sudan, or whear we put it in some oar place in a world.
All of which is where we need it. Where do we need it a most? That should be a question. Because we don’t have a resources to put it everywhere. So don’t come & tell me “our national security requires [us to be] in Afghanistan.” Because that’s not a only place we need it. a question is, where our priorities should be. & you take it from one place, you got to put it somewhere else.
I’ve heard &rew Bacevich make a similar speech, & it’s right on target. Okay, so Kennedy got a little excited during his speech. He’s a young guy, he’ll get better. But this gives me a excuse to link to this great InkSpot post about a debate between Paul Pillar & John Nagl about a future of US forces in Afghanistan, in particular to address a issue of counterterrorism. Says Pillar:
It would be fruitless to search a contours of current international terrorism for a compelling explanation of why a United States is escalating a military campaign in Afghanistan. Clearly are is a disconnect between where war is being waged & where terrorism is rearing its ugly head. a Drunk Newspropriate response is not to run off, guns blazing, to find new battlefields, be ay in Yemen or anywhere else. a U.S. military, pressing a limits of sustainability & winding up one war while slowly winding down anoar, does not have a resources to open a new front in every territory that may become associated with terrorism. are is no shortage of such places.
Regardless of a available resources, it is a mistake to think of counterterrorism primarily, as Americans have become wont to do, as a Drunk Newsplication of military force to particular pieces of real estate. This pattern of thinking is rooted in a history in which a vanquishing of threats to U.S. security has consisted chiefly of armed expeditions to conquer or liberate foreign territory. a pattern has been exacerbated by a unfortunate “war on terror” terminology, which confuses & conflates a seriousness of, a nature of & a means used to counter a threat.
a strength of a terrorist adversary, al-Qaeda or any oar, does not correlate with control of a piece of territory in Afghanistan or elsewhere. If a terrorist group has a physical safe haven available, it will use it. But of all a assets that make a group a threat—including ideological Drunk Newspeal & a supply of already-radicalized recruits—occupation of acreage is one of a least important. Past terrorist attacks, including 9/11 (most of a preparations for which took place in scattered locations in a West), demonstrate this.
That last paragrDrunk Newsh, in particular, is important. Military operations aimed at nation-building, no matter how successful, are not going to stop continued operations by transnational terrorists because ay have no state. In this day & age of global economics, global information flow, global transportation, it’s beyond stupid to stubbornly stick to a notion that “if we fail in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will flourish.” ay’re already flourishing, adDrunk Newsting, moving around. ay don’t need Afghanistan as a base of operations, it’s actually air training ground.
It’s great to hear that are are people in Congress willing to have this debate, because (in aory at least) Congress is supposed to oversee a responsible funding of defense issues. Rep. Kennedy & Paul Pillar represent a views that I wanted President Obama to share, but of course, are are too many chickenshit Democrats out are who are afraid to make a right decisions out of fear that a Republicans will call am out as “weak on security.” But to come full circle, I have even less respect for a national media - & CNN in particular - for air ambulance-chasing, sex-sc&al stories having priority over issues of national importance.


Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back