Obama's 'Big Muddy'?

A few days ago Rachel Maddow – recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan – sat down for an interview with Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to talk about the ongoing operation in Afghanistan. Here is the transcript from the first few minutes of that interview:

HOLBROOKE: We`re in Afghanistan because if we fail in Afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us. It will increase al-Qaeda`s worldwide reach. They will come back with the Taliban in all likelihood. And they will gain a worldwide success, which will be very dangerous for our national security interests.

So we have to be clear the American public needs to be clear on why we`re in Afghanistan. This is not Vietnam, a war which I participated in as a State Department civilian when I entered the government. This is not the Balkans. It`s not Iraq. This is quite different. And this one relates directly to our safety at home.

MADDOW: But we tried to do counterinsurgency in Vietnam, too, pretty explicitly. When you look back at those efforts, all those years ago, do you really have confidence that a foreign country can help create a state somewhere else, that we really can stand up an Afghan government?

HOLBROOKE: I think we can, if we do it right. The fundamental difference is the one you and I just have already mentioned. It matters to our homeland security. Vietnam did not, although, at the time, the administrations in power did say it did, but they were wrong. It`s a process which is not easy, and you only embark on it if you decide that it is absolutely critical for the U.S. national interests, which it is.

Is it me or did you notice the continuing reference to Vietnam – the compare and contrast; the Oz-like ‘ignore the man behind the curtain’ plea…”It matters to our homeland security. Vietnam did not, although, at the time, the administrations in power did say it did, but they were wrong.”

And so President Obama would have us believe that fighting the 50 Al Qaida (CIA count) who are in Afghanistan is in our immediate national interest: “…if we fail in Afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us.” Certainly he can’t be wrong. I mean it’s not like there have still been a series of Al Qaida sponsored attacks around the globe since 9-11 and after our invasion of Afghanistan. It’s not like these attacks were planned in other countries; some of which are strong allies to the U.S. No, we must believe that “…if we fail in Afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us.” You know, like Iraq posed an immediate threat to our safety. Oh wait! “… It`s not Iraq. This is quite different. And this one relates directly to our safety at home.”

Are you convinced yet?

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue