Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Arianna Huffington, formerly a Republican, credits her shift in political views to colleagues Al Franken and Robert Scheer. Before her change in ...
Read more about By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services.
Arianna Huffington, formerly a Republican, credits her shift in political views to colleagues Al Franken and Robert Scheer. Before her change in ...
Read more about By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services.
Why Joe Biden Should Resign
By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services
Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus Wednesday morning
to talk about Afghanistan -- an issue that has pushed the vice
president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest
I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.
The centerpiece of
The piece, by Holly Bailey and Evan Thomas, opens with details of a Sept. 13 national security meeting at the White House.
"Joe Biden had a question. . . . . 'Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?' Someone provided the figure: $65 billion . 'And how much will we spend on Pakistan?' Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion . 'Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al-Qaida is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?' The White House Situation Room fell silent."
Being Greek, I'm partial to Biden's classic use of the Socratic method -- skillfully eliciting facts in a way that lets people connect the dots that show how misguided our involvement in Afghanistan has become.
It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there -- The
What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: After the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "What were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.
Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time -- when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security -- and what issue is more important than that? -- it's simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.
Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.
The number of those on both sides of the political spectrum who share Biden's skepticism is growing. At the beginning of September, George Will called for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan and "do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent Special Forces units."
Former Bush State Department official and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas argued in The
In "Rethink Afghanistan," Robert Greenwald's powerful look at the war (and a film Joe Biden should see right away), Robert Baer, a former CIA field operative says, "The notion that we're in Afghanistan to make our country safer is just complete bulls--t. . . . What it's doing is causing us greater danger, no question about it. Because . . . the more we fight in Afghanistan, the more the conflict is pushed across the border into Pakistan, the more we destabilize Pakistan, the more likely it is that a fundamentalist government will take over the army . . . and we'll have al-Qaida-like groups with nuclear weapons."
And former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam vet and Biden confidant, told
And doing so, as we've seen, usually means losing more and more of that "investment": Each of the last six years of the Afghanistan war has been more deadly than the one before.
Both sides of the Afghanistan debate were represented on this Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., offered up a few rationales for why Obama should rubberstamp Gen. McChrystal's wishes. First, she said, "There has to be a process of finding out which of these people can we work with and which can we not." Really? Seven years in and we still haven't checked that one off our to-do list?
Feinstein then broke out the latest trendy, new-for-fall reason why we need to up the ante in Afghanistan -- it's all about the women. "I particularly worry about women in Afghanistan," Feinstein said, "acid in the face of children, girl children who go to school, women who can't work when they're widowed, huddled on the streets, begging, women beaten and shot in stadiums, you know, sharia law with all of its violence."
This is indeed very tragic, and I share her concern. But missing from the discussion was the fact that "sharia law with all of its violence" has just been made the law of the land by President Karzai -- you know, our man in Kabul. The Sharia Personal Status Law, signed by Karzai, became operational in July. Among its provisions: Custody rights are granted to fathers and grandfathers, women can work only with the permission of their husbands, and husbands can withhold food from wives who don't want to have sex with them. On the plus side, if a man rapes a child, he must pay a fine.
Of course, even with America standing guard, only 4 percent of girls in Afghanistan make it to the 10th grade, and up to 80 percent of Afghan women are subjected to domestic violence. As one of the Afghan women interviewed in "Rethink Afghanistan" sums up the current situation: "The cases of violence against women are more now than in the Taliban time."
So can we please put to rest the nonsensical rationalization that we're there for women's rights? And don't be surprised if that reason is soon replaced by another -- those pushing for escalation in Afghanistan seem to have learned the Bush administration's old tactic of constantly moving the goal posts. Don't like this reason? Fine, here's another one.
Countering Feinstein on "Stephanopoulos" was Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who has taken the lead on this issue in Congress, introducing a bill calling for an exit strategy in Afghanistan.
"I think adding more American forces to Afghanistan would be a mistake," he said. "I think it would be counterproductive. And I think there's a strong case to be made that the larger our military footprint, the more difficult it is to achieve reconciliation."
McGovern then amplified Biden's concern that the real threat is elsewhere:
"When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after al-Qaida. That was our enemy. And al-Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of al-Qaida left in Afghanistan . . . . So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of al-Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy."
Or, as Biden put it, "Does that make strategic sense?"
In June, Gen. Jones, the president's national security adviser, was at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, meeting with U.S. commanders there. This was shortly after the arrival of the 21,000 additional troops President Obama had sent over. Jones raised the question of what the president's reaction would be if he were asked for even more troops. Well, Jones said, answering his own question, if that happened, the president would probably have a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." In other words, wtf?
Well, Obama has gotten that request, but it wasn't a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment" for him after all. Sadly,
I have no doubt that Joe Biden is a loyal guy -- the question is who deserves his loyalty most? His "team" isn't the White House, but the whole country. And if it becomes clear in the coming days that his loyalty to these two teams is in conflict, he should do the right thing. And quit.
Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could be more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure -- and America's national security? Now that would be a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for the McChrystal crowd -- one that would be a lot more significant than some lame, after-the-fact apology delivered in a too-late-to-matter book.
========
Arianna Huffington's e-mail address is arianna@huffingtonpost.com.
(c) 2008 Arianna Huffington. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.
This news arrived on: 10/14/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
10-20-2009 04:36
JCE wrote:
Catharyne
All the things you say we should have done, our country never did. So as JK so eloquently points out, since the Bush invasion, since we have never done what needed to be done, and we haven't brought the troops home, lives are being lost, and wasted.
10-19-2009 15:41
JK wrote:
For some reason Obama cant make up his mind and time means lives lost. Eather do whats needed to win or bring the troops home.
10-19-2009 00:10
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
If a country is going to go to war you have to be at the very least as committed to the cause as the enemies you are fighting . You have to put your best foot forward and throw everything you got at it , or you have no business engaging in a Military action . Dragging a conflict out by piece mealing equipment and personnel only costs more in terms of money and lives . No one has yet other than the Taliban have thrown everything they got into this conflict .
PM Gordon Brown is now facing a huge political back lash for his petty politics concerning requisitions for helicopters so better strategies could be implemented and also cutting funding for training programs for the British soldiers .
Joe Biden could very easily be in the same boat as PM Gordon Brown of England right now . Many people in England are calling for a non confidence vote because of this .
PM Gordon Brown is now facing a huge political back lash for his petty politics concerning requisitions for helicopters so better strategies could be implemented and also cutting funding for training programs for the British soldiers .
Joe Biden could very easily be in the same boat as PM Gordon Brown of England right now . Many people in England are calling for a non confidence vote because of this .
10-18-2009 22:52
JCE wrote:
The generals would have to be right. And there is reason to believe that a few of them are wrong. They want to fight, they want a military solution, and at least one has political aspirations. And at least one has become to vociferous, to political, and generals shouldn't do that. Many presidents would have fired generals for less. Whether or not Biden is right, there has been a lot over there that has been a waste. A waste of lives, and money. Whether or not we should have even gone into Iraq is questionable, but having done so, we should have finished the job. We never should have gone into Iraq, only Haliburton and the mercenaries benefited from that, and some corrupt Iraqi leaders. Cheney was the power behind the throne, vociferous in his desire for military action, and torture, and support for the big corporations. If that was ok, then what is wrong with Biden being vociferous in the opposite way? He does represent a great deal of the American public.
10-18-2009 13:52
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to go against the advice of the Generals then all the efforts and costs both in terms of money and lives, has been for not . If he feels that he knows more than what these experts in Military strategies do and the situation in Afghanistan then perhaps he should follow through and see what his own expert opinion brings . I seriously doubt anything positive would happen .
When politicians send their Generals to war then play petty politics about equipment and personnel requirements so that their Generals and their military can not function properly then they have effectively caused the whole effort to be lost .
When politicians send their Generals to war then play petty politics about equipment and personnel requirements so that their Generals and their military can not function properly then they have effectively caused the whole effort to be lost .
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Arianna Huffington ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
