SUNDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2010
Our best chance in Afghanistan
BY FREDERICKW. KAGAN AND KIMBERLY KAGAN
N
ow that President Obama has authorized Gen. David Petraeus to continue to execute the current strategy inAfghanistan, theques-
tionis:CantheU.S. strategy succeed? The adminis- tration’s review of its policy identified areas of progress but noted that “the challenge remains to make our gains durable and sustainable.” We are confident this ispossible. Military progress in Afghanistan this year is
undeniable. The campaign in Afghanistan has cor- rectly aimed at eliminating insurgent and terrorist havens and creating conditions that will prevent their reestablishment. Coalition forces have elimi- nated the most important Taliban havens in Hel- mand and Kandahar provinces, places that had gone unchallenged for years. Military operations have disrupted a concerted Taliban campaign to launch spectacular attacks within Kabul. The dra- matic increase in American, allied and Afghan special forces operations against insurgent leaders and facilitators has damaged enemy networks. Co- alition forces have seized unprecedented amounts of explosives, narcotics and other weapons, reduc- ingtheir supplyandsteeplyraisingthepriceofakey ingredient in explosives. These gains are far more consequential than the very limited expansion of Taliban activity in the north, towhich coalition and Afghanforces are inany case responding. Progress has beenmuchmore limited, however,
in addressing the problem posed by insurgent ha- vens in Pakistan. The Obama administration has been too generous in its assessment of some efforts of the government in Islamabad. Pakistan has con- fined itsmilitary operations strictly to those groups that target Pakistan. Its army has three divisions in QuettaandWaziristan, theprincipal sanctuaries for Afghan Taliban, Haqqani militants, al-Qaeda lead- ersandotherTaliban-affiliatedgroups. If Islamabad wanted to act against those groups, it would have done so. More dialogue will not solve this problem. The
Pakistanis knowwhatwewant themto do andwhy, and they are choosing not to do it despite long conversations and enormous amounts of financial aid.OnlyincreasedpressureonPakistan’sproxies in Afghanistan can fundamentally alter Islamabad’s strategic
calculus.Simplyput, theUnitedStatesand its allies must convince the Taliban, Pakistan and Afghanistan that we will win. The president’s re- newed commitment to long-term engagement, in- cluding a long-term military presence in Afghani- stan, is important.But it ismore important tomake good on hiswords toAmerican soldiers inAfghani- stanlastmonth: “Wewillprevail.” Wecancontinuetomakeprogress inAfghanistan
while the insurgents retain their Pakistani sanctu- aries soas longasour comprehensive counterinsur- gency efforts continue. Gen. James E. Cartwright noted Thursday that “we have the advantage in Afghanistan of having boots on the ground” so that we can “defeat” rather than “disrupt” our most dangerous enemies there—a sharp contrast to our situation in Pakistan. As our strategy evolves we must avoid becoming so focused on problems we cannot readilysolve, suchasPakistan’spolicies, that we lose sight of the toolswe can use in Afghanistan to change the overall situationto our advantage. The administration has been clear about its
desire to avoid expanding our goals andmission in Afghanistan beyond what our vital national inter- ests require.We must also avoid focusing too nar- rowlyonconductingasmoothtransitionof security responsibilities from U.S. to Afghan forces. Presi- dent Obamamustmake clear that our objective in Afghanistan is success and not just transition and withdrawal. “Durable and sustainable” success re- quires more than simply expanding the size and capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces while reducing the enemy’s capabilities. We must consider the stability and legitimacy of the political order inanyprovince ordistrict, too,whenhanding
oversecurityresponsibilitiestoAfghans.Premature transitions risk our long-termgoals. Thecornerstoneof theadministration’s long-term
strategy to prevent the reemergence of al-Qaeda havens in the region is a strong partnership with a stable, functional, unitaryAfghan state. Such a state must be accepted by all of Afghanistan’s ethnic groups. For Pashtuns, the state must become more compatible with local traditions of representation, decisionmakingandgovernance.Tajiks,Uzbeks and Hazaras require an absolute guarantee that the Tali-
banwillnotreturntopowerinanyform.Afghanistan hasalonghistoryof centralgovernmentbalancedby local arrangements that satisfy its various ethnic groups. Current efforts to address the shortcomings of Afghan central and local governance—including corruption that fuels the insurgency—are not “mis- sioncreep,”assomehaveargued,butarenecessaryto restore that balance in support of the overall ap- proachtheadministrationhasoutlined. This strategy, like any good counterinsurgency
strategy, is not partible. Separating direct strikes against terrorist and insurgent leaders fromefforts to reduce popular support and tolerance for their presencewill leadtofailure.Abalancedapproachto these challenges, as we are pursuing, is by far the most likely to succeed.
TheU.S.presenceinAfghanistanisdrivenalsoby
our struggle with al-Qaeda senior leadership and the future of Pakistan. International forces sta- tioned along the Durand Line are about 30 miles from many of the most dangerous centers of Isla- mist
terrorisminPakistan.Fromthosepositions,we can understandwhat is happening in Pakistan and, occasionally, take action.We should never underes- timate the importance of this positional advan- tage. Itcannotbereplacedbytechnology,discussion with Islamabad or anything else. Fromthe Afghan border we have a unique vantage point on the groups that most directly threaten the American homeland and the stability of the entire nuclear- armedsubcontinent. The ultimate goal of American strategy in the
region must be ensuring that Afghanistan is suffi- ciently stable and friendly so that we canmake the best use of that vantage point. The president’s strategy givesus the best chance ofdoing that.
FrederickW.Kagan is director of theCritical Threats Project at the American Enterprise
Institute.Kimberly Kagan is president of the Institute for the Study ofWar. They are independentmilitary analystswho have conducted research for commanders in Afghanistan.
KLMNO
Straight talk about
tuition What parents and colleges need to know about the real costs of higher education
BY DANIELLE ALLEN
outrage. But the object of their anger is illusory: Tuition is no lon- ger a meaningful number. If colleges are ever to bring down
E
costs, we have to be honest about what the costs are. If families are to understand the financial implica- tions of a college education, greater transparency is needed. And achieving these goals will require a fundamental change inour vocabu- lary.
First, tuition rates are meaning-
less as an indicator of the actual cost of college education. At many pri- vate colleges with endowments, the actual annual cost of educating a student is higher than the figure indicated by the price tag.Let’s take, say, Ivy College
asanexample.AtIvy, tuition plus room and boardmay be about $50,000. But the actual amount spent by Ivy per student per year is probably more like $75,000 or upward. This explains why tuition rises so
much each year; colleges are trying to make up ground on costs that already significantly outstrip tuition. But these increases narrow the gap very modestly. Colleges generallymake up thedifferencefromtheirendowments andfundraising. Second, tuitionismeaninglessasa
guide to affordability. At institutions with endowments and healthy fund- raising activities, those endowed funds and gifts commonly provide financial aid to students. The sticker price for Ivy may be $50,000, but dealermarkdowns bring the average price paid to something more like $30,
000.Many students pay far less. But when a young person is explor- ing colleges, the relationship be- tweenstickerpriceandwhat families can expect to pay is not at all clear. Congress passed legislation in
2008requiring all colleges topublish a “net price calculator” to help fami- lies figure out exactly what the rela- tionship is between sticker price and what they can expect to pay. These “net price” calculators should be in place by 2011, and they should help. But they are not enough. Instead of “tuition and fees” and
“financial aid,” we should talk about the “total cost” of a year at college, the “student contribution” toward that cost and the “match,” or the amount a college or universi- ty contributes toward the annual cost of educating a student.
KATHLEENPARKER
Washington’s weasel words W
ordsmatter. Just ask Google, which has arranged for anyone to
search millions of books online and track how many times a particular word has been used through the ages, thus suggesting how much we think about (and, by inference, value) cer- tain things. Or askWikiLeaker Julian Assange,
now free from prison and enjoying “mansion arrest,” who gained notori- ety as well as accolades for exposing the private words of diplomats and untold others. While some leaked cables highlight both the good and the bad that humans do, others could reveal secrets told by peoplewhomay not enjoy the protections of free- speech-minded democracies. Or ask the Republican Party, some
of whose members sought to elimi- nate certain words from a report by the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inqui- ry Commission, including “deregula- tion,” “shadow banking,” “intercon- nection” and even “Wall Street.” When Democratic members de-
clined to participate in such selective wordplay, the GOP members issued their own report without the words that might have caused sensitive readers to recoil or that might have implicated parties Republicans wished not to be implicated. Between weaselly obfuscation and
absolute transparency, we find our- selves troubled by our vast power to know and the tyranny of others whose demands for transparency in- fringe on our rights to not be known and to not know. Spare me your absolute truth, and
I’ll spare youmine. Privacy as we once knew it is dead,
we’ve reluctantly come to accept. We will adapt accordingly and, perhaps, keep more of our thoughts to our- selves. This would not be a bad
development, though I entertain no hope that Twitter will fall into disuse. Sharing is so . . . special. More concerning than the limits
of sharing or the boundaries of transparency are the intentionalma- nipulations of language to obscure truth. Totalitarians throughout his- tory have relied on writing and speaking badly — that is, without clarity — to keep the masses con- fused and captive. Clarity, the enemy of deceit, is anathema to authoritari- ans everywhere.
AGOPafraid to say ‘Wall Street,’ and a Democratic myth on debt and taxes.
Thus, when Republicans refuse to
use certain words as potentially too upsetting, they are choosing a dark path for citizens to follow. By any other name, it is dishonest. Most understand that Wall Street played a role in the financial crisis, as did unregulated “shadow banks,” non- banks that nonetheless had lending powers and abused them. Democrats are equally guilty of
obfuscation through language distor- tion.Howmany times throughout the tax bill debate have you heard some variation of the following? Giving tax breaks to the rich will add to the deficit. Pardon?How doesmoney in some-
one’s own pocket add to another’s debt? This sort of logic is possible, of course, only under confiscatory rules of wealth redistribution.
very year, college tuition goes up faster than inflation, and public figures respond with
RK STUDIO/KATIE HUISMAN/GETTY IMAGES Right now, if you visit Ivy’sWeb site, you are likely to find language like this:
IVY COLLEGE: TUITION AND FEES FOR 2010-11 When we calculate an aid award, we use a student expense budget that includes both direct charges and out-of-pocket expenses. The budget includes: Tuition, room and board: $50,000 Other student fees (co-curricular programs): $1,000 Health insurance: $1,000 Books and supplies: $1,000 Personal expenses: $1,000 Travel: $1,000 Cost of attendance: $55,000 The college’s actual cost of educating a student at Ivy exceeds the annual tuition- room-and-board charge bymore than 50 percent.However, income fromour endowment and gifts help subsidize that amount significantly, even for studentswho do not receive financial aid.
A more honest alternative would look like this:
IVY COLLEGE: TOTAL ANNUAL COST, STUDENT CONTRIBUTIONANDCOLLEGE MATCHFOR2010-11 The total cost to educate a student at Ivy College in 2010-11 is $80,000. For each student, this cost ismet through a contribution provided by a student and his or her family and by amatch fromthe college. The size of the collegematch is determined by the financial need of the student and his or her family. For 2010-11 the student contribution ranges from $0-$55,000. For 2010-11 the college match ranges from $25,000-$80,000. The breakdown on the total cost of $80,000: Instruction: $50,000 Room and board: $20,000 Other student fees (co-curricular programs): $6,000 Health insurance: $1,000 Books and supplies: $1,000 Personal expenses: $1,000 Travel: $1,000
Our current approach to tuition
— reflecting neither actual costs norwhat students pay—has signif- icant negative consequences. Stu- dents and families are not equipped to think effectively about the financial burden of college or what they are getting for their money (which is generally more than they are paying for). And college administrations and facul- ties themselves don’t have the clearest frameworks for decision making. For instance, while the funds di-
rected by colleges toward helping families meet the burden of tuition are designated as “financial aid,” the funds that generally subsidize the difference between the published tuition and the actual cost are not. This means that when colleges weigh decisions about financial aid policy—say, about whether to rein-
state loans — only one type of financial aid is guaranteed total protection: the aid provided by means of the general subsidy to thosewhocan afford to pay the total cost. Perhaps college endowments and fundraising should be used to subsidize every student who at- tends, but to make that judgment and others about cost-control and budgetary priorities, we need an honest, straightforward vocabulary. Given both the expense of educat-
ing a young person and the de- mandsplaced on students and fami- lies to contribute to paying for that expense, students, families, facul- ties and the public all deserve that straight talk.
The writer is the UPS Foundation professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J.
EZ RE
A21 GEORGEF.WILL
No Labels, but lots of sanctimony
illustrated why the group’s premise is preposterousanditspretenseiscloying. The premise, obscured by gaseous rhet- oric, is that political heat is inherently disproportionate. The complacent pre- tense is that it is virtuous to transcend the vice ofpartisanship. No Labels purports to represent a
A
supposedly disaffected middle of the ideological spectrum. Some No Labels enthusiasts speakofeliminating“politi- cal retribution,” presumably meaning voters defeating candidateswithwhose positions they disagree. No Labels promises to police the political speech of the intemperate. That would not include the scrupu-
louslymeasuredrulingofHenryE.Hud- son,afederal judge inVirginia.He says: The Constitution’s commerce clause
empowers Congress “to regulate com- merce . . . among the several states.” If this clause permits Congress to punish the inactivity of not engaging in com- merce—refusing to purchase health in- surance — then Congress can regulate anything, making a mockery of the Americanprojectof limitedgovernment. Eventually, the Supreme Court’s
opinion about Obamacare will be dis-
positive.Meanwhile, considerHudson’s judgment—that liberty and the crux of the Constitution are at issue — when examining the pieties of No Labels, whichsays itspurpose is: To achieve a government of “the vital
center” that “makes the necessary choices” and “commonsense solutions” to putAmerica “on a viable, sound path going forward,” with “free and open markets, tempered by sensible regula- tion,” a government that “empowers people” with “world-class education” and “affordable health care—provided that it does so ina fiscally prudentway,” andwith“fact-baseddiscussions.” The perpetrators of this mush pur-
port to speak for people who want to instruct everyone else about how to speak about politics. Granted, there al- waysarepeoplewhospeakextravagant- ly, and modern technologies — televi- sion, the Internet — have multiplied their megaphones. But blowhards, al- though unattractive, are easy to avoid. Andspeaking of theunattractive: Although the people promising to
makeNoLabelsintoanationalscoldare dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with them- selves. If self-approvalwere butter, they couldspreaditacrossAmerica, if itwere bread. They might cover the country withsanctimonyas they “overthrowthe tyranny of hyper-partisanship.” But aside fromNo Labels’ policy bromides, and its banalities about playing nicely together, howmight “nonpartisan” dis- cussion proceed concerning complex and consequential matters such as thosepreoccupying JudgeHudson? “Hyper-partisanship” is deplorable,
Yet we have become quite accus-
tomed through the repetition of this idea that the rich are somehow hurting the poor and disrupting the proper functioning of an engorged and profligate government. Permit me to reword the issue just
a tad. Let’s say Joe is $100 in the hole and yet continues to spend money like a drunken fool. Mary has five bucks, which she declines to share because she has to buy food. Joe is insistent. His debt will get worse if Mary doesn’t help out. This may be true, but Mary isn’t convinced that helping Joe pay down his debtwill do any good as long as he continues to spend. She’s betting that Joe will just dig a deeper hole, and she will have less security of her own. You see the problem. It isn’t the
money. It’s the dishonesty of the argument. Allowingwealthier Ameri- cans to keep the amount of money they are now getting isn’t adding to the debt. Yet, the effect of this oft-re- peated trope has been to demonize “the wealthy,” as if they somehow have wronged their fellow citizens by working hard and achieving what everyone else wants. Wordsmatter, and I suspect that if
the good folks in Washington would speak with greater clarity, steering away fromthe sort of heated rhetoric that stokes classwarfare and demon- izes the doers who create jobs for others, most Americans gladly would do the necessary things, in- cluding willingly helping Joe dig out of debt. But first Joe has to be honest about
his role in this predicament. Blaming the rich forWashington’s problems is a distortion by dishonest brokers. And they wonder why Americans don’t trust them enough to fork over more of theirmoney?
kathleenparker@washpost.com
butpartisanshipispolitics.Whatwould itmeantohavea“nonpartisan”position on the issue with which Hudson has dealt? People have different political sensibilities; they cluster and the clus- ters are called parties. They have dis- tinctiveunderstandings of themeaning and relative importance of liberty, equality and other matters. Politics is givenweight,andmotionis impartedto democracy, by intensely interested fac- tionscomposedofpeoplewhoareparti- sans of various causes. Often in the year before the year
before the year divisible by four, a few political people theatrically recoil from partisanship. Recently, this ritual has involved speculation about whether New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might squander a few of his billions to improveAmericabyfailingtobeelected president. But Bloomberg, addressing the No
Labels confabulation, spoke truth to powerlessness: “It’s not clear that the average person feels themselves disen- franchised or wants a lot of the things we are advocating.” Just so. Whatever their defects,America’s political parties aremarvelously sensitivemarketmech- anisms,measuring every tremor of the electorate’smoods. Appearing with Bloomberg, who in
the past decade has labeled himself a Democrat,aRepublicanandanindepen- dent, was Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, an ideological chameleon who recently la- beledhimself “a true-blueReaganiteRe- publican” and then an independent — one with no discernible difference with Democrats. Labels are not, however, ri- diculous because ridiculous people treat them as disguises, or as flags of conve- nience for dinghy candidacies sailing withoutanyballastof convictions. NoLabels, its earnestness subverting
its grammar, says: “We do not ask any political leader to ever give up their label—merely put it aside.” But adopt- ing a political label should be an act of civic candor. When people label them- selves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning importantmatters, such as Hudson’s ruling. The label “conserva- tive” conveys much useful information about people who adopt it. So does the label “liberal,” which is whymost liber- als have abandoned it, preferring “pro- gressive,”until theydiscredit it, too.
georgewill@washpost.com
s the new political group No La- bels convened in Manhattan, a judge was issuing a decision that
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160