Bullet, I think politically, the President is in a no-win situation. He was harshly criticized by The Right for committing to pull out of Iraq, and now, ironically, for not hastening our retreat out of Afghanistan by the same people who were gung ho about a surge there. He wrestled hard with the implications of sending or not sending more troops to Afghanistan, and was harangued when he wouldn't rush that very important decision. The truth is the opposition will make hay out of any decision the President makes over American troop involvement in those two countries. Obama is the nail, and the GOP opposition is the hammer. Whatever he does or doesn't do concerning them will be the wrong decision. They will spin it to their advantage either way.
Of course, that's not to say he shouldn't do what he feels is right, regardless of the political fallout. That's what a leader does. I don't get the impression that Obama relishes the idea of our being in either country. But, he's probably more troubled by the vacuum a sudden troop pull-out will have on the terror fomenting capabilities of both Al Qaeda and The Taliban in Afghanistan, a country virtually devoid of political and economic structure. I'm sure the spectre of another 911-like attack haunts his dreams at night. And I'm sure he wouldn't want such an attack, stemming from a lack of stomach to do the hard work there to be his legacy. Rock: Hard Place. It's easy to be emphatic about what course a President should chart in the absence of all the intelligence a President receives, and when the fallout from a wrong decision doesn't accrue to one's own account. (I also felt that way when Wubya was in office, and said so on more than one occasion.)
However, having said all that, I too want us out of Afghanistan, like...yesterday. And I hope the President makes the decision to suspend major troop operations there soon as well. Can it really be said that he has us "bogged down" in that country when he's only been in office for two of the ten years we've been there? I say, give the man a bit more time to read the tea leaves and do what's best for our country.
-- Edited by Poetsheart on Monday 17th of January 2011 05:44:41 PM
Poet, which is worse? Those who now admit they were wrong (and you know I am one of them), or those who told us we were wrong from the beginning, but continue to do that wrong thing?
One side learned a lesson and admitted the mistake. The other side keeps at the mistake, knowing it is wrong anyway.
Nope, this one fully falls into Obama's lap now that he's had almost two years to fix the situation. I hoped for better from him, he seemed so intelligent. He's proven me wrong in my hopes for him in this case.
__________________
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.
Quote:And instead of getting us out of that Hell hole, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner increased our war activities there./quote
Hummm....the "Nobel Peace Prize winner" did what the vast majority of vocal conservatives insisted we should do; he significantly ramped up our presence in Afghanistan with an Iraq-like "surge". I recall conservatives, from Fox pundits and politicians, to self-appointed message board geniuses, betting Obama didn't have the stones to follow the eminently correct counsel of our boots-on-the-ground Generals charged with prosecuting this war. I seem to recall most of them being all for a significant increase in our troop presence there. Perhaps you were among them at the time, razor. Now that it's become ever-more obvious to even our most vociferous hawks (most of whom happen to be arch conservatives) that we are no more able to rout the many-headed hydra than the Russians, the troop surge was "ill-advised"...Really...?
Man, I wish spell-check worked in this format...
-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 16th of January 2011 08:00:22 PM
-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 16th of January 2011 09:10:26 PM
-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 16th of January 2011 09:12:28 PM
it depends on what the US is trying to do in Afghanistan...
the Taliban was kicked out of power by December 2001 with air support and some special ops and CIA guys on the ground along with the Northern Alliance.
Since then, we have be doing... well... something, that hasn't been all too productive unless we are willing to stay for the long haul (2030-ish), which is not possible politically or money-wise.
The place looks more like a collection of independant tribes who have little need or reason to interact, other than conflict.
The "central government" is a scam perpetuated by a few tribal leaders to get money from foreigners.
How does a tribesman in southern Afghanistan feel about our declaration that his "blood enemy" in a feud going back generations is, in fact, his "President"?
We have spent over $10,000 of borrowed money for every man, woman and child in that "region". When does it end? Why won't it end?
It is far cheaper to use conventional explosive warhead cruise missles against suspected terrorist camps than "boots on the ground"? At ~2 million a pop, we could take out a suspected camp every day for a year at the relatively modest cost of about a billion bucks a year.
We are spending over 5 billion a month.
I remember the endless litany of the military during Vietnam; More troops, "Vietnamization", we're kicking butt, etc.
It is not the job of the military to say they cannot win. It is the job of the civilian leadership to "pull the plug" on a lost cause.
-- Edited by BigG on Friday 14th of January 2011 04:48:09 AM
-- Edited by BigG on Friday 14th of January 2011 04:49:33 AM
-- Edited by BigG on Friday 14th of January 2011 04:55:45 AM
