Debating Afghanistan
An interesting sidebar to the debate sparked by the leak of General McChrystal’s Afghanistan strategy review is the question of how such debates should take place to begin with.
Peter Feaver complains that the president has been rushed by leaks. Pat Lang is irked by the fact that the likely leaker wore a military uniform, possibly even a general’s stars.
Meanwhile, Marc Lynch thinks the “strategy review” was conducted by people without the proper expertise precisely for the purpose of reaching the conclusions it did and Andrew Exum complains that the war’s critics aren’t offering similarly serious analyses.
In my New Atlanticist piece “Debating Afghanistan: Beyond the McChrystal Leak,” I examine all these arguments and more, concluding,
Yes, one might prefer that debate take place according to a set of rules from a fabled age of civility, where politics stopped at the water’s edge, generals were unfailingly deferential to civilian political leadership, and nothing was ever leaked to the press. But, alas, it will take place in the real world.
Much more at the link.
Photo: Scoop44.
People don’t get it. Hussein ran on a platform of destroying our country and handing it over to evildoers.
If it takes a “leak” to try and stop Hussein’s plan, then so be it.
If we stand here and take it, we will soon be speaking Kenyan and wearing burkas as we are forced to study in Madrassas before being placed before death panels wherein we will be killed by being force fed arugula until we die.
…and start with my back pocket.
Obama said that now he has to get the assessment of other agencies. Then I read they have had the DOD assessment for a month.
So I am assuming you have already stopped using those darned roads the government built in protest of Uncle Sugar…
“So I am assuming you have already stopped using those darned roads the government built in protest of Uncle Sugar…”
?
It never too late to start ignoring anjin, Davod. He stopped making sense years ago.
PS: If Anjin was referring to the Federal funds used to create the interstate highway system, the highways were considered integral to the defense of the USA.
It’s hard to tell what he means Davod. We don’t expect much of him here. He seems to be mostly bent on spreading FUDs.
Umm yea. In the 50’s. We still spend money on them you know. Perhaps people who drive to tea bag parties on federally funded roads are convinced that our highway system is somehow keeping the islamofascisits at bay.
Most, if not all, drugs that make sale in the U.S. are trafficked by use of the Interstate Highway System. Weren’t we told that drugs fund terrorism?