Advertisers:
advertise on this site

Steve Clemons interviews Eli Pariser

Former Executive Director of MoveOn.org, Eli Pariser discusses his new book "The Filter Bubble" and how the architecture of the internet is evolving to match our interests and filtering out information that might challenge our opinions.

Steve Clemons on Obama's Approach to Libya

Steve Clemons argues that in addittion to being ineffectual militarily, a no-fly zone will change the narrative of the Libyan uprising and shift the focus from the decisions of the Libyan rebels to the actions of Western nations.

Ian Bremmer On the War Between States and Corporations

Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer discusses the political and economic impacts of the economic recession, as well as rising economic powers.

More videos are available on the Video Archives Page

The Washington Note is now a member of the Political Insiders advertising network:
Find out more...

VA Loan and VA Refinance
Information from VA Mortgage Center

Support The Washington Note

Using PayPal

We Can't Afford a "No Matter the Cost" Approach to Afghanistan

Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Mar 17 2009, 12:32PM

CLOSE

SOCIAL WEBSITES

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/a_quick_follow/&title=We Can't Afford a "No Matter the Cost" Approach to Afghanistan&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

A quick follow up to my last post on Afghanistan.

Frederick Kagan penned an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in October 2007 called "Spend Whatever It Takes to Win the War on Terror."

Unless his views have changed over the past year and a half, Kagan seems to think that the "war on terror" - defined as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - must be "won" no matter the cost.

This kind of Bush-era strategic laziness has got to go. Containing international terrorism needs to be recast as a high priority among several in our national security strategy, rather than George W. Bush's "defining ideological struggle of the 21st century" or Senator McCain's phrase, "transcendent challenge."

Those of us who question whether throwing more troops, money, and political capital into Afghanistan makes sense need to point out the opportunity costs of an escalation and we need to challenge folks like Frederick Kagan and others to explain how much their plan will cost and why it is worth spending our limited resources in Afghanistan instead of addressing our other interests at home and around the globe.

-- Ben Katcher

« Previous Article - Alexander Hamilton's Scorn: Reflecting on AIG, Goldman, Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin
» Next Article - Guest Post by Katherine Tiedemann: A Quick Case for Maintaining a Presence in Afghanistan

Reader Comments (3) - post a comment

Posted by ..., Mar 17 2009, 1:24PM - Link

are the chinese okay with the usa spending its borrowed money into tinpot status? probably... move over usa, here comes china...

Posted by liz, Mar 17 2009, 8:21PM - Link

Aren't Frederick Kagan, his brother, Robert, and their father, Donald, all signers of the PNAC manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" back in 2000? And such a coincidence, isn't it, all this PNAC master "planning" came about conveniently before 9/11.

Do the Kagans or any of their immediate family members own stock or consult for any defense contractors? I'm just asking!

I wouldn't call this stategic "laziness", it needs a much more accurate, detailed term.

imo, anyone calling for a foreign policy that calls for an Afghan war from now until eternity is working extra hard to bankrupt this nation faster than AIG, Paulsen, Rubin, etc.

I'm not asking any Kagan what their war would cost in money, lives and political capital. If they like the PNAC scriblings, it probably was already thought out in great details years ago.

Posted by Andy, Jan 19 2011, 9:42PM - Link

wouldn't call this stategic "laziness", it needs a much more accurate, detailed term.