As I sat down to watch President Obama's speech last night I wanted to try and be as objective as possible about what he was going to say. Although my personal preference would be to begin the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, or at least to not escalate our 8-year old and counting involvement there, I knew that neither one of those was going to be the case. The three major areas I wanted to hear addressed were how many troops, how long a commitment, and how would he deal with the issue of the costs of the war.
First let me say that I know there are no good or easy solutions to Afghanistan at this point. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, saw to that. What President Obama is left with now is making the best of a badly mismanaged and too long neglected situation. He has the neo-conservative hawks on his right questioning his commitment to "winning," although I've yet to hear them define what that means or hear them explain why winning in Afghanistan is such a priority now when it didn't seem to hold the same importance or urgency before January 20, 2009.
Then there are those on the other side, what the media and the hawks like to call the "the left," but what I consider to be the adherents to the foreign policy of the founders of this country and framers of our Constitution, who warned us against the dangers of "foreign entanglements," and a state of "continual warfare." If Washington, Jefferson, and Madison are now considered "left" and "liberal" then count me in.
President Obama stands somewhere in between, again faced with the daunting task of making some semblance of a silk purse out of the sow's ear he's been handed. Non-intervention isn't an option at this point, and since no one seems to know what constitutes "victory," that's out too. And oh by the way, the lives of the men and women in our armed forces hang on his decision. Nobody outside of the Wallenda family ever faced the challenge of walking such a tightrope stretched over such a chasm.
But back to the speech. How many troops was addressed-30,000. The rate of deployment was accelerated from what had been previously speculated, cut from 18 months to 7, or possibly fewer, what the president called "the fastest possible pace." The how long question was answered, kinda sorta.
That last caveat troubles me a bit, but I'll give the president the benefit of the doubt, for now. I also think the hoped-for troop increase from NATO and the training timetable for Afghan forces is more than a little optimistic, but again, we'll see as we go along.
The issue of the costs was also left kind of vague:
I'd feel a little better if "openly and honestly" had been replaced by "through the regular budgetary process, not by supplementals."
Those concerns aside, these statements were encouraging, to say the least, and a breath of fresh air following the policies of the previous administration:
First let me say that I know there are no good or easy solutions to Afghanistan at this point. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, saw to that. What President Obama is left with now is making the best of a badly mismanaged and too long neglected situation. He has the neo-conservative hawks on his right questioning his commitment to "winning," although I've yet to hear them define what that means or hear them explain why winning in Afghanistan is such a priority now when it didn't seem to hold the same importance or urgency before January 20, 2009.
Then there are those on the other side, what the media and the hawks like to call the "the left," but what I consider to be the adherents to the foreign policy of the founders of this country and framers of our Constitution, who warned us against the dangers of "foreign entanglements," and a state of "continual warfare." If Washington, Jefferson, and Madison are now considered "left" and "liberal" then count me in.
President Obama stands somewhere in between, again faced with the daunting task of making some semblance of a silk purse out of the sow's ear he's been handed. Non-intervention isn't an option at this point, and since no one seems to know what constitutes "victory," that's out too. And oh by the way, the lives of the men and women in our armed forces hang on his decision. Nobody outside of the Wallenda family ever faced the challenge of walking such a tightrope stretched over such a chasm.
But back to the speech. How many troops was addressed-30,000. The rate of deployment was accelerated from what had been previously speculated, cut from 18 months to 7, or possibly fewer, what the president called "the fastest possible pace." The how long question was answered, kinda sorta.
"Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
That last caveat troubles me a bit, but I'll give the president the benefit of the doubt, for now. I also think the hoped-for troop increase from NATO and the training timetable for Afghan forces is more than a little optimistic, but again, we'll see as we go along.
The issue of the costs was also left kind of vague:
"And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit."
I'd feel a little better if "openly and honestly" had been replaced by "through the regular budgetary process, not by supplementals."
Those concerns aside, these statements were encouraging, to say the least, and a breath of fresh air following the policies of the previous administration:
"Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests...It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home...That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."
Oops. "Fascist", even.
Here is a very long but very insightful and enlightening 6 page article in the NYT on Obama's evaluation and decision making process in his approach to the war in Afghanistan. I believe he put more time, thought, and research into this one decision than his predecessor George W. Bush has done in his entire 8 years of mismanaging this war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?hp
But it will always be "dithering" to the haters. And speaking of which, the article notes that Obama immediately already augmented the forces by 21,000 in Afghanistan shortly after taking office. But you know, he's a weak Lib'rul Marxist, Communist, Facist who hates the military. Do these right wing idiots even hear what they spew?
jkugler wrote: ..yet it still further enmeshes us in the .. civil war and has us supporting a deeply unpopular and corrupt regime with little power beyond the precise territory it holds.
------------------
Boy, sheesh, talk about your "deja vu" all over again.
OTOH, we have a lot of experience in this "type" of situation.
If we sent Vince Young over there this thing would be over by Friday.
No easy answer here given the fine mess we've been in for years now. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I'm at least encouraged that someone finally mentioned the fact that we've totally screwed ourselves and need to focus on rebuilding HERE for a change.
I think this is the absolute wrong way to go about it. This plan is neither the full escalation asked for by some corners, yet it still further enmeshes us in the Afghan civil war and has us supporting a deeply unpopular and corrupt regime with little power beyond the precise territory it holds.
I am not at all happy with the President's plan and I think it could very likely sink his presidency.
It's simple......being the self-appointed, global police force defending liberty and justice for all has been very costly. VERY COSTLY.
But, then again, think what it would be like if we didn't have any help.
(Using Foghorn Leghorn voice...That's a joke son.:-)
I think that the primary objective NOW is to give the Afghans a "fighting chance" to defeat the Taliban. To deplete the Taliban and Al-Quaida forces so that whatever size army the Afghans are able to muster 18 months, it will be "most likely capable" of defending the country from insurgents. Now, don't get me wrong, I suspect we will still have to provide them with weapons, but hopefully THEY will be the soldiers "on the ground". NOT US. If THEY don't want ENOUGH to live in freedom, liberate their women and educate them, give their children a FUTURE.....then we and the UN need to let them make their own bed.
President Obama seems to have a good grasp of all of the nuances in this situation, one he was handed when he became president. Our failure there was not his doing, but it has become his problem. If you listened carefully last night, you could probably hear him admit to a certain helplessness, especially with regard to Pakistan, which is where the real problem lies - an unstable government, an intelligence service aligned with terrorists, a huge Army only recently dedicated to fighting al Qaida, and nuclear weapons loosely controlled, to boot. All in all, just a horrible situation and one for which there are no good answers, only varying degrees of bad ones. I just wish we had the political will to pay for the conflicts we engage in, rather than passing the cost of our failures off to our children.
Yeah Carguy, but that was a specific objective within the overall goal of winning the war. I do not agree that we should be in Afganistan for any longer than it takes to get them all out. But I didn't have a say. Considering the history of conflict in the country and how both the English and the Russians did nothing but spend time. money and troops to no end, how can we think that 18 months will accomplish the goal of eradicating the Taliban. Then, what about Bin Laden ? Is it no longer a goal or ours to capture and try him for the 9/11 terrorist attack ?
Tell me, why is it of such prime importance that we eradicate the Taliban. Isn't Afghanistan their country for the most part ? Hmmm, more questions than answers. But we are going to ship more troops in country.
Did anybody watch the speech on CBS?
The original, John McCain version 2000, was on. He behaved like the "statesman" he used to be. That guy coulda been president.
I think that Obama put the deadline on for exactly the reasons he stated. That's called "MBO", "management by objective". He's given the Afghans a goal. He's given the military a goal. Neither had one BEFORE. Benchmarks are nice, GOALS are more specific. In WWII, Eisenhower gave Patton and the Third Army a goal..be in Bastogne in three days to relieve the 82nd Airborne. He knew, in order to get something done, all you have to do is give Patton an impossible goal.
Let's see what kind of Army we have and what kind of leader McCrystal is.
OK, now I'm done being serious.
Ya'know the "Tater" is a big fan. But this is some of your best work ever. Succinct and to the point and, most importantly, absolutely in concert with me, the "Tater".
As I said on other blogs, this was really a matter of which foot do you want to shoot yourself in? Behind 10 points, 18 seconds on the clock, on third down, 35 to go, from your own 1/2 yard line, you just don't have a lot really GOOD options.
In fact, "winning"........nobody "wins" THIS thing. I don't care how many banners you hang up or where you hang them. This one goes into the "tie" category, at best.
I do agree with you Alien... I just don't like it but in reality, we have few options. It's a big mess to clean up and I don't envy the president. I will support his decision though and pray for a speedy resolution.
yeah, a mute button...cool idea. I hear you, man. The "negativity" can indeed be overpowering.
Delezzia,
He did indicate the function of stating a deadline was to exert pressure on all concerned parties to get their act straight. I do believe he thinks he's doing the right thing but he has been forced into the corner requiring he make such a decision. In a perfect world there are no terrorists and no wars. As to the reality of the deadline...Obama has chosen to visualize it as real and he has a strong mind. He can make it happen. The only real deadline will be decided by the American public. I repeat that I believe at last breath Obama recognizes moreso than the average, less morally centered leader that he is President at the behest of the American people.
Let us wait to see the casualty lists and if Congress passes this "war tax" in order to help pay the costs of sending more troops. All these right-wingers who claim the Dems don't support the war and are un-American or unpatriotic while they drive around with their "support the troops" bumper stickers... let's see how much they like the war when they see how many Americans are dying AND they the government taxes them! Hypocrites.
Let me say that I have seen the following:
"How long will it take Obama to lose this war?"
"Why don't you (Democrats) take responsibility for how the war has been mismanaged since Obama has taken office?"
The last one was in response to my question about how Bush mismanaged the war. Excuse my language, but if Obama took a shit in the morning, some of these folks would complain that the turd was too small. I hate to put things so plainly and vulgarly, but they are really pissing me off. I wish life came with a mute button.
My question is does the 2011 deadline really mean anything? The goals seem kind of thinly veiled here. Obama tried to appease some with the deadline but how can he really think a surge will work before it really even begins? This whole thing is a big mess. I got the impression that Obama knows most Americans are out of patience with these terrorist 9/11 wars. He didn't really sell me on the idea and I don't think his heart was in it. He is just tired and left to clean up the mess Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld left behind.
The Afghanistan situation is the quintessential example of the term "Morton's Fork".
Wow, I must have turned off my spelling brain... :O)
true that. But I wonder which enemy is more formidable the Taliban/Al Queda or the Republican party. The challenge of nation re/building the United States of America at times seems to have less of a chance of succes than building the nation of Afganistan.