In other words, while Obama may have last night “charted a path toward ending large-scale U.S. combat operations in Central Asia,” as the Los Angeles Times put it, America will likely be engaged in “hostilities”—to borrow a phrase—in the region for the indefinite future.
Beyond reporting that fact plainly, what does that mean for the press? There’s clearly a role for journalists to examine the soundness of the strategy, as Ackerman does when he asks how Obama expects to combine peace talks with the Taliban and a “forever war” based out of Afghanistan.
More fundamentally, it means simply continuing to cover the story, even after the president declares “mission accomplished.” The American public is clearly ready to be done with the war in Afghanistan. As our regular troops retreat from harm’s way, and the fighting is done more and more by “drones and commandos,” it will be easy to let it drop into semi-obscurity, like our not-quite-covert war in Yemen, especially if there is no resistance from Congress.
But as long as the “forever war” is being waged, we need the press not to forget—and not to let us forget—what our government is doing in our name around the world.
Geez, @Greg. I do agree with you that "[t]here’s clearly a role for journalists to examine the soundness of the strategy."
Sanger's piece is quite excellent, and Ambinder had an interesting piece as well. But of all the excellent writing out there today, you link to the less-than-credible hot-shit-blogger Spencer effin' Ackerman??? I mean, what qualification or expertise does *he* have with respect to foreign policy and the military that we should be enamored of his opinion on this?
And you adopt his little conceit "forever war" -- what exactly does that phrase mean to you, @Greg? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to expand on your understanding of that interesting little phrase. Is it just an uber-liberal dog whistle, there? Is it just an inflammatory phrasing to jack up the uber-liberal firebagger outrage? Because I think that's why Ackerman uses it.
Not helpful, and not a good example of your premise on the role of the press in analyzing and explaining Afghanistan policy to the general audience. We need less of what Ackerman dishes out, not more. My opinion.
Or, please explain -- in your opinion -- why I should be interested in Ackerman's opinion on this issue, @Greg.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 04:13 PM
Why send drones to Afghanistan ... why not send a badass like Spencer Ackerman. I’m sure he could find the Taliban and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Ramadan card to let the Taliban know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 04:45 PM
Nice to see agreement on both sides of the aisle - Ackerman is pretty much toxic waste. Amazing that anyone still employs him, even more so that CJR feels he's worth listening to.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 05:40 PM
Terming a fellow human being "toxic waste" does not provide positive evidence for JLD;s integration in western culture....that apart, those of us old enough to remember the events in Vietnam in 1975 question the inevitabiity of the permanence of a US military presence in Afghanistan (or in Pakistan.)
#4 Posted by Norman Birnbaum, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 02:08 PM
"But as long as the “forever war” is being waged, we need the press not to forget—and not to let us forget—what our government is doing in our name around the world."
Nuff said. America is either ridiculed due to the infantile antics of the U.S. gov't and/or despised because whatever country it hasn't bombed yet, it will.
There is nothing great about a country that doesn't care who is killed or maimed in the name of building empire and also obviously doesn't give a damn about its own citizens.
#5 Posted by dianne, CJR on Sun 3 Jul 2011 at 09:18 PM