The Real Stakes in Afghanistan | Conservative Heritage Times

Andrew Bacevich has an excellent column up at the Boston Globe on what the Afghanistan “surge” debate is really all about. Bacevich is not quite Ron Paul on foreign policy, but he is the closest thing we have to a non-interventionist in the foreign policy community.

Implementing the McChrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding fundamentals of US national security policy: maintaining a global military presence, configuring US forces for global power projection, and employing those forces to intervene on a global basis. The McChrystal plan modestly updates these fundamentals to account for the lessons of 9/11 and Iraq, cultural awareness and sensitivity nudging aside advanced technology as the signature of American military power, for example. Yet at its core, the McChrystal plan aims to avert change. Its purpose – despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq – is to preserve the status quo.

Hawks understand this. That’s why they are intent on framing the debate so narrowly – it’s either give McChrystal what he wants or accept abject defeat. It’s also why they insist that Obama needs to decide immediately.

HT: Jim Antle at American Spectator