NYT on the Afghanistan Decision

[fclbrokle]

A really fascinating article on the process that the White House used to make the decision to go into Afghanistan. Two thoughts:

1) Having been through long, arduous, difficult strategy decision processes with Learning Unlimited (the nonprofit I am starting), I understand what went into this much better-the difficulties, the openness, the strong

Comments

[theojf]

> I have to wonder if the NYT writer didn't realize what that stands for, or if they included it with that phrasing just to be amusing.

The NYT is famously prudish about publishing words that they think someone might find obscene. See e.g. these posts at Language Log.

[fclbrokle]

Fair enough. :)

[theojf]

And, true to form, LL's brief comment.

[fclbrokle]

Heh, yup.

[leech]

Frankly, I'm no longer willing to swallow the line about the government having better access to information and better decision-making processes, and therefore more qualified to decide how much more warmongering to do. That was what they told us in 2003.

Right now, all I can see is that everyone I trust thinks this is a stupid, doomed plan.

[fclbrokle]

While I accept that you're not willing to swallow that line, it's not like I trust myself (or, frankly, you) to make those decisions either; thus my continued difficulty with voting on issues like this

[theojf]

... unless, for no particular reason, the Obama administration created an elaborate fiction about the details of his deliberation, ...

I have no doubt that they thought hard about what to do. This was hinted at in other articles, e.g. the NYTimes piece on VP Biden.

On the flip side, I think it's very clear the White House encouraged the Times to write the article. So the sources are probably very high-placed and know what they're talking about, with the deal being that the Times would help convince the public that they're thinking about what they're doing. I think this is suggested in the tone of the article itself. But mostly the giveaway is the almost identical WaPo article.

[leech]

I find Kristof much more credible than you do. For one thing, he really is an expert on this sort of society-building; for another, none of the problems you cite are likely to be solved by 30,000 more troops. But I have no particular knowledge about its feasibility, so this is entirely based on trust.

Juan Cole's point is the one I have seen repeated by virtually every media source I trust: far more troops and more time would be needed in order to accomplish anything of merit in Afghanistan. He calls Obama's plan "wrong in key respects" and "a set of serious missteps"; I think that's a polite way to say stupid and doomed when you're writing in Slate.

And your criticism of Greenwald plays exactly into my main point. What does it matter that Obama spent months deliberating if he refused to even consider withdrawing from Afghanistan?

From the article you linked to:Mr. Biden asked tough questions about whether there was any intelligence showing that the Taliban posed a threat to American territory. But Mr. Obama also firmly closed

[meep]

To help in the future [re: decision-making] - I highly recommend this set of lectures:
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=5932

I checked it out via the library system in Westchester, gave me lots of good ideas.

[and the NYT writer almost definitely knows what WTF means]

[fclbrokle]

That looks quite interesting. Is there a big advantage to the videos over audio, which would be more convenient for me?

[meep]

I checked out the CDs and had no problem following the lectures via audio only.

It comes with "course notes", which are almost perfect transcriptions of what the lecturer says [in addition to condensed outlines for summary]