The Corner

Eikenberry on Afghanistan

The leaking of U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Gen. (ret.) Karl Eikenberry’s opposition to Gen. McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan is the latest development in President Obama’s back-and-forth discussions of the way forward in Afghanistan. And certainly Eikenberry’s concerns about corruption in the Karzai administration are real. So too is the need for security, if development efforts are to have any effect.

Washington-based journalists love reporting on dissension within any administration; leaks are their bread-and-butter. But that doesn’t excuse dereliction of journalistic duties. What journalists frame as a numbers game is, in reality, a debate about how to win in Afghanistan. It is seldom, when journalists discuss a figure, they press the source to explain how that number of troops can bring victory. Perhaps journalists reporting on other plans besides McChrystal’s can start asking “How will this plan lead to U.S. victory?” Presumably, any person objecting to McChrystal’s request, or putting forward their own plan, will have designed their plan to bring victory. So why not hear it? The difference between playing politics and more serious debate lies in the answer to the question, “How to win?” That assumes, of course, that that is our goal in facing the Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan.

Michael Rubin — Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Civil-Military Relations, and a senior editor of the Middle East ...

Most Popular

PC Culture

The New, New Anti-Semitism

The old anti-Semitism was mostly, but not exclusively, a tribal prejudice expressed in America up until the mid 20th century most intensely on the right. It manifested itself from the silk-stocking country club and corporation (“gentlemen’s agreement”) to the rawer regions of the Ku Klux Klan’s lunatic ... Read More

The Left, the Wall, the Truth

Democrats and others on the left offer three reasons for their opposition to building a wall on America's southern border. 1. A wall is ineffective. 2. A wall is too expensive. 3. A wall is immoral. Each one is false, so false as to constitute lies. So, the only question is: Do Democrats and others on ... Read More