# Obama to announce Afghanistan policy in speech Tuesday 12/01/09 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552 "2009-12-01T03:00:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/141 "2009-12-02T21:11:10Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I guess I consider it waffling because I feel like he _knew_ he was going to commit more troops. This whole ‘decision making process’ of his reeks of political maneuvering and that is why I feel disappointed. Seemed more genuine to me than say Bush’s solonic pondering over limiting stem cell research. _That_ was a foregone conclusion. Obama has always seemed a little more analytical to me. [Spock agrees:](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5go20xcTPrEZXBJ1DYpDGT_ogBjTwD9CAA6Q80) > [@](#): > > “I guess it’s somewhat unusual for a politician to be so precise, logical, in his thought process,” actor Leonard Nimoy, who has portrayed Spock for more than 40 years, told The Associated Press in an e-mail interview. “The comparison to Spock is, in my opinion, a compliment to him and to the character.” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/142 "2009-12-02T21:18:19Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Someone has their Presidents mixed-up. > > [**Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex**](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY) My mistake. So noting Truman’s involvement in two wars, **gonzomax** , when did he stand up for peace? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/143 "2009-12-02T21:52:14Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I don’t mind him committing more troops, but I do mind him doing something half assed. He is changing an assessment by his generals and turning it on tail. Is he also going to take the fall when the troop count gets added to again at a later date? > > Someone upthread mentioned something about being ‘all in or all out’ and that is exactly how I feel. You don’t nickel and dime when it comes to people’s lives. This is a fraudulent characterization of the decision. Just because he didn’t give McChrystal everything he asked for doesn’t mean he’s taking a half-measure or that he’s not all in. McChrystal was asking for too much. Generals always ask for more than they think they can get. Calling the escalation “half-assed” or “nickle and dime” is nonsense and is based on a purely specious presumption that only sending exactly as many as McChrystal asked for would constitute a full measure. That’s partisan demamgoguery and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/144 "2009-12-02T21:54:32Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Seemed more genuine to me than say Bush’s solonic pondering over limiting stem cell research. _That_ was a foregone conclusion. Obama has always seemed a little more analytical to me. > [Spock agrees:](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5go20xcTPrEZXBJ1DYpDGT_ogBjTwD9CAA6Q80) Well, Obama does have those ears. Could there be a Vulcan birth certificate floating around somewhere. It would make a lot of sense. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/145 "2009-12-02T23:55:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK. We got (A) Obama’s plan, we got (B) “give up and go home”. What’s Plan C? Nuke the site from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/146 "2009-12-02T23:57:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, the elephant in the room is Pakistan. We can do whatever we want in Afghanistan, and that doesn’t change things one bit Pakistan. And that’s the real source of trouble. If we remember our history, it was Pakistan that enabled the Taliban to take over in Afghanistan in the first place. > > So, how do we solve a problem like Pakistan? That’s the REAL question. As for an answer… sure beats me. I haven’t a clue. And here we have it, in a nutshell. I assume Obama and his cabinet have included Pakistan in their discussions; but what their diplomatic angle is in terms of how it affects the mission in Afghanistan has not been disclosed. I can’t imagine thy’re ignoring it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/147 "2009-12-03T00:08:28Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > And here we have it, in a nutshell. I assume Obama and his cabinet have included Pakistan in their discussions; but what their diplomatic angle is in terms of how it affects the mission in Afghanistan has not been disclosed. I can’t imagine thy’re ignoring it. I can’t imagine they’re ignoring it, either. But I also can’t imagine that they have any realistic options of doing much about it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/148 "2009-12-03T03:30:58Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Someone has their Presidents mixed-up. > > [**Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex**](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY) Nope he fired MacArthur. He stood up to the military and it was a t great political risk. [http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/09/truman-firing-of-macarthur-hurt-approval-rating-but-saved-war-with-red-china.html](http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/09/truman-firing-of-macarthur-hurt-approval-rating-but-saved-war-with-red-china.html) Who has the guts to stand up to the generals as they push for endless war. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/149 "2009-12-03T04:25:36Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Hopefully, all this means we can have a reasonable, substantive discussion of the Afghanistan conflict, as devoid of partisanship as possible. Hear, hear. Too many (including our elected leaders) are trying to use this issue as a means to score points against one side or the other. I hate that. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/150 "2009-12-03T04:36:36Z")
[President McCain Speaks:](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578807,00.html) > [@](#): > > We can succeed if we base our conditions for withdrawal on when we win. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/151 "2009-12-03T04:42:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t imagine they’re ignoring it, either. But I also can’t imagine that they have any realistic options of doing much about it. Greetings, **John** , long time no talk. Trust all is well by you. As to the issue at hand, almost needless to say it is quite complicated – though we seem to agree that Pakistan’s involvement is of the essense. Bone-tired as I feel after so many years making my case agaisnt the existing status quo vis-a-vis US policy in the ME, we seem to agree that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the turning point of the current pitch – and like you, I have no definitive answers to give. That said I am not onboard with Obama’s undertaking for as you well note – not sure in which thread as there are a number of them on this topic – The Taliban is by and large is driven by ideology/religious fanatism, not reason. Thus you both have/will be fighting on faith not facts; hard to impossible to “win” with such nebulous guidelines in place. While I am totally against indoctrination, in my opinion that is precisely what drives this war on all sides side by side with their quest for power. Because The Taliban are not the only ones guilty of acting that way. If interested, you might want to read the following take from an Indian newspaper: [**Obama’s silence on Pak disappoints**](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obamas-silence-on-Pak-disappoints/articleshow/5294281.cms) Except: [While US government background information says that the past three months’ review has focused on Pakistan, the speech was remarkable for its gloss over the fundamental fact that the extremist “cancer” as Obama calls it, **originates in Pakistan** , not Afghanistan](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obamas-silence-on-Pak-disappoints/articleshow/5294281.cms).-- my bolding. Nota bene, it’s not that I agree with their predictions but rather that I find them more realistic than the ongoing (dual and fruitless – at the very least cost-wise,never mind what’s happened to the real victims, mentally or physically. Someties it is hard to tell the difference as to whom is worse off) occupation. So yes, I am totally on board with you that there needs to be some serious “outside the box” thinking as to what should be done there and how. Not holding my breath though for obvious reasons. * * * It almost feels like I need to put in a disclaimer. I still think Obama was the right choice for the US. But he’s your POTUS, not my Mesiah by a longshot nor a figure of unconditional support. Doubt any polititian will ever be; or anyone else for that matter. Then again, perhaps it’s genetic as I seem to be devoid of the Cult Of Personality trait. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/152 "2009-12-03T04:43:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Nope he fired MacArthur. He stood up to the military and it was a t great political risk. Ah, so he had the guts to prevent one war. He started another and dropped two nuclear bombs, so that looks like a draw at best to me. Maybe we can give Obama credit for not starting wars with all the non-Iraq and -Afghanistan countries. Now that I think of it Truman started one more war than Obama and nuked one more country, so I’m not sure how much more courage Truman had on this point. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/153 "2009-12-03T04:46:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > My mistake. So noting Truman’s involvement in two wars, **gonzomax** , when did he stand up for peace? He put the breaks on Macarthur who became a rogue general. Macarthur was a hero as any general who is still standing after a war ends. Truman was not for peace as such. That is not the American way. But he made it clear he was in charge and the military would take his orders. That has been reversed for some time now. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/154 "2009-12-03T04:49:32Z")
Mustn’t offend our erstwhile allies. Wouldn’t be prudent. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia annoy the crap out of me. I guess the U.S. is showing probably the proper amount of deference to them, consider the strategic importance, but fuck is it irritating. And as the discussion has noted, Pakistan is critical to any assessment of a future for Afghanistan. But since Pakistan is supposedly our ally in the “War on Terror,” and since it is a nuclear power after all, all diplomacy with them has to be delicately handled indeed. What would you folks have liked Obama to say about Pakistan in his speech last night? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/155 "2009-12-03T05:02:28Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Greetings, **John** , long time no talk. Trust all is well by you. > > As to the issue at hand, almost needless to say it is quite complicated – though we seem to agree that Pakistan’s involvement is of the essense. > > Bone-tired as I feel after so many years making my case agaisnt the existing status quo vis-a-vis US policy in the ME, we seem to agree that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the turning point of the current pitch – and like you, I have no definitive answers to give. > > That said I am not onboard with Obama’s undertaking for as you well note – not sure in which thread as there are a number of them on this topic – The Taliban is by and large is driven by ideology/religious fanatism, not reason. Thus you both > have/will be fighting on faith not facts; hard to impossible to “win” with such nebulous guidelines in place. While I am totally against indoctrination, in my opinion that is precisely what drives this war on all sides side by side with their quest for power. Because The Taliban are not the only ones guilty of acting that way. > > If interested, you might want to read the following take from an Indian newspaper: > > [**Obama’s silence on Pak disappoints**](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obamas-silence-on-Pak-disappoints/articleshow/5294281.cms) > > Except: > > [While US government background information says that the past three months’ review has focused on Pakistan, the speech was remarkable for its gloss over the fundamental fact that the extremist “cancer” as Obama calls it, **originates in Pakistan** , not Afghanistan](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obamas-silence-on-Pak-disappoints/articleshow/5294281.cms).-- my bolding. > > Nota bene, it’s not that I agree with their predictions but rather that I find them more realistic than the ongoing (dual and fruitless – at the very least cost-wise,never mind what’s happened to the real victims, mentally or physically. Someties it is hard to tell the difference as to whom is worse off) occupation. > > So yes, I am totally on board with you that there needs to be some serious “outside the box” thinking as to what should be done there and how. Not holding my breath though for obvious reasons. > > * * * > > It almost feels like I need to put in a disclaimer. I still think Obama was the right choice for the US. But he’s your POTUS, not my Mesiah by a longshot nor a figure of unconditional support. Doubt any polititian will ever be; or anyone else for that matter. > > Then again, perhaps it’s genetic as I seem to be devoid of the Cult Of Personality trait. I hate to grade on a curve, but I’m much, much more comfortable with Obama at the helm than Bush. There are no good decisions in this mess, but I would have hoped (perhaps beyond hope) that Obama would rise above politics and just get us the hell out of there. For those on the left who are, even reluctantly, supporting Obama on this… how many civilians are you willing to see die in pursuit of this new strategy? Surely you know that civilian deaths are going to increase as we send in more troops. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/156 "2009-12-03T05:12:10Z")
No, Shirley, I don’t. A lack of “boots on the ground” is largely what makes air strikes necessary, and such strikes are notoriously sloppy. A soldier can at least aim his weapon at the man holding a gun, shrapnel is much less discerning. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/157 "2009-12-03T13:28:18Z")
If Obama was able to secure 25,000 - 30,000 troops from Europe (e.g. France, Britain, Germany) I might have been convinced that staying in Afghanistan would be worth it. Neither European or the Canadian government seem particularly concerned about Afghanistan nor do they see a need to increase their own involvement in that country. Clearly they know something we don’t. We should have pulled out while we had a chance and used that $30 billion to build a freeway, a few state-of-the-art schools, maybe a mass transit system for the MidWest, or a juicy stimulus check. Ahh well. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/158 "2009-12-03T15:28:04Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > If Obama was able to secure 25,000 - 30,000 troops from Europe (e.g. France, Britain, Germany) I might have been convinced that staying in Afghanistan would be worth it. Neither European or the Canadian government seem particularly concerned about Afghanistan nor do they see a need to increase their own involvement in that country. Clearly they know something we don’t. No, I think it’s a lot simpler than that: somebody else is already doing it, so why should they? Aside from that it wouldn’t exactly be a popular move. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/159 "2009-12-04T03:14:34Z")
Hopefully our European and Canadian “allies” who probably spend more money on the Department of Politicial Correctness than on the military will be reliable enough to fulfill their quotas for the Afghan War. But now I’m really thinking we should give up on expecting much help from Europe and focus on asking for troops from India, Korea, Australia, Brazil, and maybe even Iraq. Anyways this is one areas where I wish the La Belle Epoque spirit of ultra-militarism was still present in Europe when almost all countries had million-men armies. Also to all those who advocated “withdrawal” from Afghanistan: what do you propose we do? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552/160 "2009-12-04T03:49:00Z")
Withdraw from Afghanistan. It’s kind of self-explanatory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-announce-afghanistan-policy-in-speech-tuesday-12-01-09/519552.md?page=9)