Khazei at Harvard - Afghanistan Plan

The plan (0.00 / 0)

1. Return to mission of destroying Al Qaeda
2. Set timetable for transfer to Afghani armed forces
3. Encourage Abdullah Abdullah et al. so that their voices are heard.
4. Insist corruption be weeded out.
5. Push Karzai to allow an opposition
6. Don't impose a Western-style democracy.
7. Support economic development
8. Focus on Al Qaeda globally.
9. Refocus on Pakistan
10. Support our veterans

---

I'm not terribly impressed. First it's really a six point plan as points 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 have nothing to do with Afghanistan. So let's focus on points 2-7.

In points 3 and 5, Khazei pushes for a Western style-democracy's notion of an opposition party but then in 6 tells us no western-style democracy.

In 2, he wants the central Afghan state to become stronger but won't 4 weaken it (unfortunately)?

If Karzai doesn't allow opposition and doesn't weed out corruption, what then? Karzai shows no eagerness for either.

If corruption is not removed and if the central government lacks legitimacy, economic development is going to be tough.

---

by: KBusch @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 19:40:47 PM CST

Wait a sec... (0.00 / 0)

Point 1 is "First, we should go back to our original mission of destroying Al Qaeda and ensuring that Afghanistan not become a haven for terrorists.  Thus, we do not need to send more troops to Afghanistan but can draw down troops and bring them home."  How is that not related to Afghanistan?

Point 7 is "Seventh, we need to support economic development.  That means building more roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and micro-enterprise as an alternative to selling opium."  How is that not related to Afghanistan?

Points 8-10 are not directly related to Afghanistan, but are clearly an outgrowth of the other points.

Do you really think it's inconsistent to (a) insist that Karzai try to get rid of corruption within his government, and try to encourage alternate voices besides that of the Karzai government; and also (b) consider a Loya Jirga as opposed to a western-style plebiscite?  They don't seem inconsistent to me.

---

by: David @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 20:02:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Correction and amplification (6.00 / 2)

Yes, I goofed re point 7. Note, though, I said focus on 2-7.

This plan (Oh how want to use scare quotes!) seems like a collection of hopes. Despite his enormous unpopularity, Karzai got re-elected in part by making alliances with some rather unsavory politicians/warlords. Since he is politically weak, alienating those on whom he depends would seem to undermine the central government.

Further, I don't understand how "insisting" Karzai root out opposition roots out corruption. Can he replace the entire police force?

---

by: KBusch @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:18:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How does this makes sense? (0.00 / 0)

We've lost our way, strayed from our mission, and now we are asking our troops to build a nation in a place that is laden with corruption and has never had a strong central government. This isn't in our interest as a nation, and it's not fair to our troops.

We need to set a timetable whereby we transition counter insurgency operations from American and International forces to the Afghan government.

How do we transition counter insurgency operations to a corrupt and weak government?

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 19:43:13 PM CST

Did you continue reading? (0.00 / 0)

I started quoting the speech, only to realize there would be more text than I wanted.  Read the entire speech, not just the first few paragraphs.

Those quotes would seemingly be contradictory if he didn't lay out planes to battle corruption in the government.

Proverbs 10:14

---

by: AlexSWill @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 20:41:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Details only sort of matter in this context, of course (6.00 / 1)

I read the speech and like what he has to say, but does it matter?

his 10-point plan actually presents a plan and tells voters what they'll actually be getting if they elect Alan as the next U.S. Senator.

I'm reluctant to give too much credit to a candidate for more detailed plans than another, when it can only speak to his/her vision, and not be a blueprint for "what I will do when I'm your Senator".  

For one thing, the Senate seat in question will be 100th out of 100 in seniority.  He'll be holding the door for the likes of Sessions, Baucus, and Lieberman, not shaping our military strategy.

For another, we could elect one senator with the right vision, but you need 60 before that vision becomes policy. Because it's not true that a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, the party picked up as many seats as anyone could have imagined, only to find us a year later in abject stalemate.

How someone would vote on legislation that may or may not still be pending when the seat is filled, and where Congress will produce legislation (e.g., health care, energy bills, DOMA, etc.) is fair game.  Beyond that, in areas of policy where there is no legislative solution, you risk exploiting voters' naivete about the process.  This is what makes me uncomfortable with Khazei.

Obama faces a problem now because people make the mistake of thinking a clear vision of what the world should be is a promise of action.  If the President can't wave his magic wand and make things happen, then no freshman senator can.  

To be fair, Khazei talks about his vision in the context of what he would say on the Senate floor.  But his campaign uses language that blurs the reality of how much influence he'll really have.

Each of us running for Senate in Massachusetts has a responsibility to share our views and our plans on what must be done.

Views, yes; but plans?  As in, "When I am the freshman with the absolute least seniority in the Senate, and am able to grab the reins from the President and the Pentagon, and unilaterally and single-handedly implement my solution, this is what I will do"?

I'm sorry, but even if he says all the right things, trying to gain leverage on the basis of "I have a more detailed plan" -- especially in areas where Congress has very limited power, or unless you are running for omnipotent dictator instead of U.S. Senator -- is borderline bullshit.

Eschewing obfuscation since 1955.

---

by: shiltone @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 20:28:50 PM CST

Hm. (6.00 / 1)

So what should a Senator running for office say?  Every candidate is running on what their plan for issue x or y is.  If they're all "borderline bullshit," what's the point?

---

by: David @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 20:41:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How about a little more honesty... (6.00 / 1)

...about the difference between "this is my vision" and "what I will deliver"?  Or about areas for which Congress has legislative responsibility, as opposed to areas where appropriations are all Congress has to influence policy?  That's the gist of what I'm saying.

The discussion about health care and the "Stupitts" amendment is totally legit; that's on the table.  Whose side a venture capitalist is on when it comes down to legislation protecting workers and regulating financial markets is fair game.  Although Congress won't legislate the death penalty, I want to know where someone stands on that anyway, mainly because that signals other progressive bona fides.  But there are positions that, while not completely moot, don't call for more detail than will ever actually come into play, and it doesn't cut any ice with me to provide detail for detail's sake.

Eschewing obfuscation since 1955.

---

by: shiltone @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:18:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ehhh... (0.00 / 0)

I prefer outlining plans with detail and concrete steps than candidates who run away from making any declarations of substance and debate to protect some kind of advantage that would be compromised by taking an actual stand.

Thanks Josh for the overview; it woulud have been cool to have been there.  Darn work.  

---

by: Apricot @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:22:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes it matters! (0.00 / 0)

Taking the stance that whoever gets elected will have little to no influence because of their newness seems pessimistic and not relevant to choosing the best candidate.

Alan's greatest strength is his ability to inspire. On this point, I am speaking from the experience of a City Year alumni. Whatever his seniority status, Alan inspires. He also does his homework. He is guided by sound research and historical perspective rather than gut feelings and knee jerk reactions. This is what will make him influential in the Senate.

---

by: aebbeson @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 06:42:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Now earth-shattering (6.00 / 2)

Khazei's plan is common sense.  However, Karzai is corrupt -- nearly any possible head of government there is corrupt, if not an outright murderer, and the system will corrupt anyone who isn't.  Asking him to please stop or trying to find an alternative isn't a plan.  It's filler.

That said, I'm glad Khazei is clearly in the "declare victory and get out now" camp rather than the "stay for years, then smarten up, declare victory and get out".  That's all I needed to see.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:24:36 AM CST

Support the troops. Bring 'em home. (6.00 / 1)

This is a good time to go to the Boston Public Library and visit their time machine.  The microfilmed newspapers.  Check out the 1964 papers.  Richard Nixon (unemployed at the time) says that if the present, 1964, policy continues, the U.S. can look forward to "four more years of war".  (We got eleven.)

Now the powers that be tell us five more years.

I'll save my vote for the politician that wants to get us out now.  I don't want my grandchildren, should I get any, getting maimed or killed for the glory of the opium crop.

---

by: Howland Lew Natick @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:54:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]