I see the emphasis on local tribal units as aimed in that direction. Let Karzai remain Mayor of Kabul and the surrounding suburbs, talk directly with local leaders.
An errant thought: what happens if its the wussy liberal guy who brings home Osama’s head on a pike? Ouside of me dying of laughter, of course…
Do you think he’s going to ‘draw down’ the troops if Afghanistan is still a mess in 18 months? If Afghanistan is still a mess after the next 18 months, what will have changed, so that Obama would start drawing down troops then, whereas now (with Afghanistan being a mess) he is increasing them?
What a crock of BS.
How about he shouldn’t have even asked the question in the first place?
I agree. In a war, you should have no ROE. The objective should be to pacify the uprising at the least cost to your own forces. Once that is done, you leave.
American Imperialism has gotten us whacked in the hand a few times and it is time we discontinue the process.
Shouldn’t have asked what question? “What’s the best way to deal with this situation?”
Nah, we’re fine. The U.S. gets most of its heroin from Colombia and Mexico.
You can’t have it both ways Marley, either the question has been asked to the military personnel capable of answering the question (in military terms) or the POTUS decides to go another route.
If everyone already knew what he was going to do given the circumstances, why did it take him so long to decide? Surely he was adamant about it in his campaign, why now does he waffle?
It was enough in Iraq. What’s the alternative? To just leave now? Ramping up without a time table isn’t an option.
The answer to the question in military terms is NOT the only answer to the question. It also takes time for people (besides the military) to decide what they think the best way forward is, and it takes time to make one’s goals known to the military and engage in a constructive conversation about how to best reach both political and military goals.
It’s not as if Obama can get away with hanging up a mission accomplished banner, or just do whatever Dick Cheney sez. Both of those have been tried and found wanting. So this time the commander in chief appears to have actually taken some time to find the best way forward himself.
I expect the results will suck, but that’s not due to any failure on the part of the president. Sometimes the hole you inherit is just too big to climb out of.
So in other words, he can’t ask the military personnel what they think and THEN decide to go another route? Either we’re miscommunicating or you’re making some demands that don’t make sense.
Beats me. But I think he was considering this plan the whole way through rather than just thinking about how many people he should send.
He was never adamant about sending a specific number of people. That would be ridiculous. He was adamant about trying to fix what is happening over there, and to the extent he spent a long time on it, I think he wanted to make sure he had a solution that would work.
He didn’t waffle. He already sent 17,000 more troops in February, a month after taking office. He took the necessary time to consider a request to send more next year. There was no delay, no “waffling,” no denial of resources. All of that stuff is just Fox News/talk radio hokum.
The “18 months begin exist strategy” is one of the dumbest partisan appeasement lines Obama has ever said. Simply incoherent within the context of his speech, in which he – much like his predecessor – tried to make the case that the Afghan war if of vital interest not just for America but for the Free World as a whole. If he truly believes it is, he can’t very well put a time table on it until the actual “threat” is no longer. However vague that notion is for I don’t think the mandate given eight years ago holds up to scrutiny today as AQ is largely irrelevant as an operating force in Afghanistan. Which, IMHO, makes current operations there fall under the “preemptive-war” doctrine.
OTOH, I thought it interesting what was left unsaid, namely that it is actually Pakistan that is the source of the biggest fears due to their flailing political climate with growing anti-American feelings especially along the very Afghan border where many AQ elements have found safe haven – not to mention numerous Taliban factions/tribes. And of course, the most powerful reason of all: the fear that some of their nuclear weapons could find their way into the midst of those radical factions.
The Surge likely means increased fighting along said border – as has been the case since Obama took office – and the more civilians that get caught in the cross fire, the higher the odds it’ll strengthen the resistance on both sides. There goes your exit strategy.
At that time I certainly hope we won’t be summited to another USS Abraham Lincoln moment…in whatever guise and garb Mr Obama choses to do it. For that matter I can’t say I liked yesterday’s chosen scenario…brought back many an unpleasant memory.
Of course, I could be wrong. In fact I certainly hope I am.
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.
It is not even new. In grants biography he discusses not going into Mexico which he thought was an unjustified war.
But he said"once initiated few public men would have the courage to oppose it.
Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war his nation is engaged in, no matter right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him to advocate war, pestilence and famine than to act as an obstructionist once a war has already begun. The most favorable posthumous history for the stay at home traitor can hope for is…oblivion"
Standing for peace is a very bad political move. Fighting the generals who we all accept as experts, no matter how often they are wrong, has huge political consequences. Truman had the guts, Obama does not. Politicians pay a huge price when they try to stop wars.
I think sending more troops was the best option Obama had. I was not surprised by this decision at all. If Obama said during the campaign that stabilizing Afghanistan was not in our interests then I would have voted for Hillary during the primaries (it wouldn’t be enough to get me to vote for McCain though.)
Here are the reasons way all his options were bad:
Pull Out - The Taliban and Al Qaeda are both threats to the US. The Taliban provides funding and support for Al Qaeda and I don’t see how they can be allowed to control an entire country. And from the political side, if Obama ordered troops out and the US got attacked, all hell would break loose. The Democrats could forget about winning a majority in any branch of government for a long time if that happened.
Stay the Course - Not an option because things were getting worst. At least according to Martha Raddatz of ABC News. The Taliban is gaining momentum in Afghanistan, so if Obama kept the troop levels the same then it would only increase the chance of a Taliban victory.
More Troops - The only realistic option IMHO that protects US interests and isn’t a political embolism is to give McCrystal the resources he says he need to win the war. If we are going to fight this, then we can’t make a half-assed attempt at it.
Now I know concerns remain. The Afghan government is deeply corrupt and I have very little faith that they can handle the country. Pakistan is not dealing with the Taliban as well as we might like. From my perspective this seems like a tough war to win, but that doesn’t mean we should leave because the war is too hard. I define a win in Afghanistan as the point where the country can run with being a safe haven for the Taliban. That seems to me the way Obama defines a win too. Creating a “good enough” government in Afghanistan that can keep the Taliban out is not impossible.
I wish Obama could have explained how he thinks he can fix a hopelessly corrupt government, but I realize that would involve getting pretty technical for a decent explanation. I will just have to get the details from other sources to see if I agree if his strategy will work or not.
I understand that. But to answer the question you want answered (again, in military terms) and then waffle on answering the public. 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.
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.
Wait, what? Truman dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and got the U.S. involved in the Korean War. He did make the military industrial complex comments during his farewell address, when he was leaving office, but I don’t see that as trying to stop wars.
Someone has their Presidents mixed-up.
The thing that amazes me is how utterly simple the right seems to think this is.
They had ten meetings. What do you think they did at those meetings? Argued? They ordered intelligence assessments, talked to experts and ran through the outcomes of possible options. They might have had specific questions that could only be answered by sending intelligence operations into new areas. They may have had analysts crunching numbers and listening to radio traffic.
Anyone who says that the decision should have been made in a day is stupid and thinks life is a Chuck Norris movie.
Not that I don’t see the attraction to sending Chuck over there with a flying motorcycle and a tea-stained flag and seeing how long he lasts. 