Michael Cohen has a smart take on how the Left has been laying low on Afghanistan, noting that "The American Prospect, along with Salon, has devoted enormous and laudable energy to covering civil liberties issues related to the U.S. war on terror, but has run only one major article on Afghanistan since Obama's December speech at West Point."I'm pretty sure Cohen is referring to my February story, "The Ultimate Test Case," which did not turn out as well as I or my editors would have liked, but it serves as a useful example of what Cohen is writing about: While the piece is skeptical of the administration's strategy, it doesn't outright condemn it. That's because It was hard to find alternative policies that were really credible. It's not just a hurdle I ran into: Many progressive security experts -- Brian Katulis, for instance -- have raised important questions about the administration's policy but, lacking the answers, have yet to offer a defined alternative. Some alternatives I mentioned in the piece -- including those touted by Gilles Dorronsoro -- are looking increasingly attractive as the Obama team's strategy plods forward.
Michael articulates the dangers of this predicament:
But when he took office, President Obama wasn't able to look to the liberal media and think tanks either for help in figuring out what to do in Afghanistan or for political support in exploring approaches different from what the military was proposing. If the strategy he adopted for Afghanistan falters, Obama may once again find himself with limited options from his base of supporters on how to salvage the conflict. That's a dangerous prospect and it could affect more than just the war in Afghanistan: it could do real damage to Obama's presidency and the aspirations of his progressive supporters.
For a response to Cohen from someone who is more bullish on the current strategy, see Abu Muqawama.
-- Tim Fernholz
