Saturday, March 14, 2009
Did Joe Biden call for "scaling back" in Afghanistan?
I had missed this story from the middle of the week, but it seems significant:
Can someone explain this to me?
Despite the administration's call for more troop contributions from its allies, Biden avoided making specific requests for increased deployments. This is a tender subject, since several European governments have already said they are unwilling to contribute more soldiers.
Obama recently decided to send an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to join the 38,000-strong U.S. force in Afghanistan. He made it clear he is seeking similar additions to the 25,000-member contingent of non-U.S. forces in Afghanistan, many of whom are engaged in noncombat missions, along with increased commitments in money and supplies for the rebuilding effort that many experts say is just as important as the military campaign.
But Biden indicated at the news conference that the Obama administration is also willing to listen to European suggestions that Western goals in Afghanistan should be scaled back, saying they must be "clear and achievable."
So the Vice President goes to Europe (wasn't Secretary Clinton just there a week ago, by the way?), and with Afghanistan in dire need of a better U.S. and NATO policy, with 17,000 more Americans headed to fight there, with less than a month to go before the NATO Summit, and with presumably even less time before the "Af-Pak" policy review makes its prescriptions, Biden not only doesn't ask our allies to contribute more forces; he goes out of his way to solicit their views on how we can lower our sights and invite failure.
Commentary
Our "traditional allies" will certainly like us more if we do not ask them to do anything (but, c.f. the claims from the Bush-haters that we alienated them in 2001 by not asking them to do enough), but then how useful are they as allies?
So far, it seems as if the cultivation of our traditional allies involves inviting them to do less in Afghanistan and us (along with China) bearing most of the burden of stimulating the world's economy out of this deep and global recession. Oh, and unnecessarily dissing the Brits. Is this the change we were to believe in?
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 14, 09:10:00 AM:
"Change is not reform!" -- John Randolph of Roanoke, quoted in Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Mar 14, 11:03:00 AM:
"Biden not only doesn't ask our allies to contribute more forces"
We did ask. The answer , by and large (excepting I think the French), was 'no.'
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 11:27:00 AM:
My view on everything that Biden says is that the only purpose of his words is to attract customers to his son's firm which will sell perceived influence on every phrase to company's/groups whose interests are negatively effected by the drivel uttered by VP Biden.
By Elise, at
Sat Mar 14, 01:59:00 PM:
I'm not sure this is worth worrying about unless someone other than Biden says the same thing. He seems like a pleasant enough man but I'm not sure he's really the right guy for any endeavor that wants to be seen as reality-based.
By MainStreet, at
Sat Mar 14, 02:41:00 PM:
I thought we had the greatest Secty of State in history in Hillary. I guess she didn't get the job done on her trip.
It is easy to let Europe and other allies off the hook, but a little harder to get them to help, but, then again, candidate Obama said he was the man to do it.
Let us send Biden to do it. He has a whole list of international accomplishments on his resume.
Hillary, Biden and Obama; I have as much diplomatic experience as they do between them. (NONE)
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 08:22:00 PM:
Does Biden have any role in foreign policy? Are his trial balloons gaffes, or real possibilities? Of course it's always possible the Obamanoids use him in this way precisely because of his inherent deniability. It's easy to say, "Oh, that Joe..."
