The media is reporting that President Obama plans to announce his Afghan troop decision in a prime time address next week. What the media is not reporting, and will not report, is that because of his dithering, indecision and rhetorical backsliding, the president already has made key wartime decisions; and these decisions, unfortunately, have made victory in Afghanistan more difficult and problematic.
Thus, a key question now is whether the president and his advisers will continue to talk down Afghanistan and, in so doing, make defeat there a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consider:
In war, perceptions matter; but in counterinsurgency warfare, perceptions are everything. That’s because the objective is to win over the populace, which is the center of gravity in this type of fight. The objective is to isolate the enemy from the populace so that an administrative state can develop and a civil society can flourish.
Indeed, isolating the enemy from the populace will neuter the enemy and render him impotent. And, when the administrative state and civil society become sufficiently mature and robust, and when Afghan military and police forces are sufficiently trained and operationally ready, they can do what U.S. military forces are now doing: take the fight to the enemy and protect the populace.
For these reasons, it is critically important that U.S. political and military leaders send a clear and resolute message to friend and foe alike — to wit: that the United States is intent on achieving victory and will stop at nothing to ensure that victory is achieved.
Despite all its flaws and missteps, this was the message that the Bush administration sent forth when it persevered in Iraq — and especially when it embraced General Petraeus and “the surge” of U.S. forces there. And the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, political and tribal leaders; Suni, Shia and Kurdish factions; and al-Qaeda-led insurgents all got the message:
President Bush and the United States are serious. They intend to fight and to win. They can be neither stopped nor dissuaded. Indeed, no amount of improvised explosives and combat and civilian deaths can tire or deter them. Best to make peace while we can, and to reconcile with the Iraqi government while we can, before we become completely irrelevant to our country’s rapidly changing political landscape.
In short, the surge in Iraq worked because the American will to win, as epitomized by President Bush and U.S. military leaders on the ground, was clear and unmistakable. And that will to win was backed up by both hard and soft power, courtesy of the awesome might and generous heart of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
The “hard power” was delivered through ruthlessly effective counterinsurgency operations, which terrorized the terrorists and killed and captured thousands of al-Qaeda-led insurgents.
The “soft power” was delivered through American military patrols and civil affairs actions, which proved to the Iraqi people that while there is no more effective fighting force than the United States Army and Marine Corps, there is also no more kind and more generous a group of people.
“Let every Iraqi know, and let the world know, that there is no better friend and no worse enemy” than an American soldier, sailor, airman, or marine.
That’s what Marine Corps General James N. Mattis told us when he was commanding U.S. forces in Iraq. And, despite the glaring exception of Abu Ghraib and the hyping of Abu Ghraib by the American media, General Mattis was correct: The kindness and generosity of U.S. servicemen and women is legendary and awe-inspiring. I only wish we saw more of this reality on American television.
I certainly saw this kindness and generosity with my own eyes while serving as a marine in Iraq. And so, too, did thousands of Iraqi children who will never forget their kind American benefactors who, resolutely and with great compassion, protected them from evil.
But the confluence of forces that righted Iraq is now absent in Afghanistan. An insufficient number of troops tasked with too many missions is a big part of the problem. But an even bigger problem is the lack of national purpose and resolve. Simply put, does the Obama administration intend to win in Afghanistan?
If so, it sure doesn’t sound like it. The president, after all, doesn’t talk about victory or winning; those words are conspicuously absent from his vocabulary. Instead, the talk out of his administration is all about “exit strategies” and “off-ramps.”
ABC News, for instance, reports that, according to one White House aide, “Obama wants a clear picture of the ‘American bridge’ out of Afghanistan.” Says another aide: The president has insisted that “we’re not going to be in Afghanistan for another eight years.”
“A decent part of it [the president’s strategy],” says White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, “is not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan,” she says. “We’re not interested in any long-term, you know, presence there.”
More ominously, today’s Washington Post reports that even as the president plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, he is simultaneously preparing to define victory down in the event that a counterinsurgency there proves difficult to win. Thus, “White House advisers say Obama is looking for ‘off-ramps’ that would allow him to adopt a strategy more narrowly focused on al-Qaeda if the one he chooses is not showing results.”
Thank goodness President Bush didn’t define victory down in Iraq — even though this is exactly what the Washington cognoscenti, led by the Iraq Study Group, agitated for: Declare victory (prematurely) and bring the troops home, they urged.
And thank goodness President Truman didn’t define victory down in Germany and Japan. Consequently, American troops have been stationed there, in both countries, for more than half-a-century.
American forces, likewise, have been stationed in Kosovo ever since President Clinton sent them there in 1999. The U.S. military is a force for good in the world, and our forward-presence abroad is typically a helpful and stabilizing influence.
Why, then, preclude the option of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan for another eight years or more? Why communicate a desire to quickly leave that country? All this does is signal weakness and irresolution in the wake of a determined and implacable foe who might now be inclined to try and wait us out.
Then there is Obama’s studied refusal to promptly send reinforcements to General McChrystal. This despite the general’s August 30 urgent request for tens upon thousands of new troops.
“I’ve been asking not only General McChrystal, but all of our commanders who are familiar with the situation — as well as our civilian folks on the ground — a lot of questions,” Obama told reporters recently. “I want to make sure that we have tested all the assumptions we’re making before we send young men and women into harm’s way.”
With all due respect to the President of the United States, this is nonsensical. The reality is that President Obama already has sent men and women into harm’s way in Afghanistan. Last spring, for example, he ordered more than 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as part and parcel of his “comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
In all, there are nearly 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and they are asking for help. Their lives are on the line, and they are requesting reinforcements. Yet, their commander-in-chief has been telling them for the past three months: “Not yet. You must wait. We need to reevaluate our strategy.”
But the problem is not General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy, which most knowledgeable observers agree is the only possible way to achieve victory in Afghanistan. The problem, instead, is that the number of boots on the ground there is insufficient to execute that strategy — and that the administration has signaled vacillation and uncertainty about whether it even wants to pursue victory in Afghanistan.
This, of course, has only emboldened the Taliban and al-Qaeda while frightening the Afghan populace, which is worried that U.S. forces may leave too soon. The Los Angeles Times, for instance, reports on the plaintive plea of one Haji Mohammed Khan, district administrator for Nawa in Helmand province:
‘Please,’ Khan said in a low voice, his sad eyes looking directly at his guests, ‘don’t let us be here alone. You used your young people, your vehicles, your helicopters to help us. Please don’t turn around and leave unfinished your business here… We believe in the United States. We want the United States as a friend.’
The Times says that “Helmand province appear[s] as divided as officials in Washington” about the U.S. presence in Afghanistan; but my experience in Iraq, and my discussions with U.S. troops who have served in Afghanistan, tell me that’s not true. Most ordinary Afghans, I believe, share Mr. Khan’s fear: They are worried that U.S. soldiers and marines will abandon them and leave the country with the dreaded Taliban and al-Qaeda victorious and in charge.
Certainly, polling data shows conclusively that the Afghan people do not wish to be ruled by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that they view the U.S. military as a protective force for good in their country. A recent poll conducted by three major news networks in Great Britain, Germany and the United States, for instance, found that 90% of the Afghan people “said they opposed Taliban fighters.”
Moreover, “the Taliban were seen as the biggest danger to the country by 58% of [the Afghan] people. The United States,” by contrast “was in fourth place with eight percent” of the Afghan people viewing them as their country’s biggest danger. What’s more, 69% of Afghans “thought it was a good thing that the U.S.-led forces had come to Afghanistan to bring down the Taliban (down from 88% in 2006).”
The U.S. military’s failure to crush the dreaded and resurgent Taliban surely accounts for its declining (but still strong) support amongst the Afghan people. “A perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents,” explained General McChrystal in his confidential August 30 assessment.
“I believe the short-term fight will be decisive,” McChrystal wrote. “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
To be sure, success in Afghanistan is still possible. General McChrystal, in fact, says exactly that in his August 30 assessment. However, the president’s dithering and indecision have made the situation there increasingly precarious and more difficult for our troops.
It is also important to note that General McChrystal apparently would prefer 60,000 to 80,000 more troops, not the 40,000 that have been widely discussed. These additional troops, McChrystal believes, would minimize the risk of mission failure. However, Obama reportedly will send McChrystal only 34,000 additional soldiers and marines.
It is unclear why the president would send his own handpicked general, Stanley A. McChrystal, fewer troops than McChrystal thinks are necessary to optimize the likelihood of victory.
It is also troubling to hear that, according to the Washington Post, the president is intent “on discouraging future troop requests if the security situation [in Afghanistan] deteriorates.” Again, thank goodness President Bush didn’t “discourage future troop requests” when the situation in Iraq deteriorated. Bush, in fact, did quite the opposite: He doubled down with the surge of U.S. forces.
Still, at this late date, the precise number of troops sent to Afghanistan is less important than the president’s commitment to victory and his willingness to support General McChrystal’s overall counterinsurgency strategy.
Indeed, the important thing is to send our troops much-needed reinforcements now, without further delay: Because, as Max Boot has observed, even 30,000 additional troops will enable McChrystal “to implement a good deal of his counterinsurgency strategy, albeit with more risk than should be necessary for the troops involved.”
As a senator and as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama famously said, “Words matter.” Indeed, they do, especially in counterinsurgency warfare. Unfortunately, in recent months, the president’s words about Afghanistan have been dispiriting and demoralizing to both U.S. troops and the Afghan people. That’s why his words will be closely watched and heeded when, next week, he announces his new plans for Afghanistan. We can only hope that our president rises to the challenge that history has thrust upon him.
54 responses so far
1 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:41 am
If Bush had not done his jolly Iraq adventure the war in Afghanistan would have been over years ago. He took his eye of the ball and “dithered” for 5 years.
I don’t want a COC who goes by his “GUT” I want one that is careful,thoughtful and listens to all sides of an argument before making a decision. There is no “WIN” in Afghanistan. Ask the victorious Russians about their famous victory. Or the Brits.
You really are way off base here. Remember those famous words. “You are either for us or against us”. You sir do not have the best interests of the American people in mind in this matter. You just wish to discredit a COC at a time of war.
I don’t agree that sending more troops into this particular hell hole will work. The Russians tried that and it failed. The more you send (and there can never be enough) the bigger target we give a irregular fighting force to attack.
When are you signing up for service sir? When do you wish the draft to start and at what age? We are overcommitted by a large margin. If any other emergency start we are not in a position to respond. What is your answer to that little conundrum?
2 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:46 am
What a crock. Afghanistan was undermanned from the first day we set foot in the country and some of our most critical assets were diverted to the debacle of Iraq for years.
What you may have trouble recognizing is a president who asks for data, war gaming, and does due deliberation when you are so used to a cowboy who flys by the seat of his pants.
Hundreds more troops may die, and it is certain thousands of Afghan civilians will perish who didn;t have too because of our trillion dollar excursion.
Your comment is beyond foolishness.
3 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 am
Add to that is the fact that you don’t actually fight in Afghanistan in the winter months.
Obama could have waited until January and still be in a position to reinforce by the spring fighting period.
So all this dithering nonsense is just that.
4 CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:53 am
Whether or not to send troops into harm’s way is what Obama described as a “solemn decision,” and I’m glad that he’s taken the question so seriously. The idea that Republicans now consider careful deliberation “dithering” is another sign of how intellectually bankrupt this party has become in recent years. If his predecessor had exhibited the same level of caution that Obama has, perhaps we wouldn’t be facing such a difficult, potentially no-win choice today.
5 Kevin B // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:53 am
Obama’s careful deliberation may have won the war.
6 balconesfault // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Again, thank goodness President Bush didn’t “discourage future troop requests” when the situation in Iraq deteriorated.
What about when the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated?
I notice in the poll referenced:
Generally speaking, do you think things in Afghanistan today are going in the right direction …:
2005 : 77%
2006: 55%
Clearly, Afghanistan was in a severe downturn … and the US did what?
Here’s what troubles me:
Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?
Strongly support/Somewhat support:
2006 – 30%/48%
2007 – 20%/51%
2009 – 12%/51%
A constant erosion of the support among the Afghan people for our presence there.
Does anyone really think that doubling again the number of combat troops in the country (Obama had already doubled them even before this announcement) is going to help this number? In particular, the “Somewhat support” number making up ove 80% of the support for the US in Afghanistan should be troubling, because that suggests it would take only a few high profile wartime accidents/incidents that have high civilian kills for that number to quickly flip.
Any American success in Iraq wasn’t simply because we poured more troops in … it was because the Sunni warlords were willing to go out and hunt down Al Qaeda for us and with us.
No matter what the Afghan people say about not wanting the Taliban to retake control, if they are unwilling to shed their own blood to prevent it, I don’t think that America should be shedding our own blood in that cause.
7 SSteamers // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:11 pm
People are turning on this war for one simple reason. They sense, as happened in Iraq, the government and military are not being forthright about the final costs. 20,000 troops in the spring and some 40,000 more? What about March 2010? The level of troops even if General McChrystal’s request was granted is far less than needed to affect an outcome of “success.”
Tell America you need 500,000 to 750,000 troops for the next 5 years or more, and we are not going to pay for it on the credit card and then see how the public reacts.
Also, considering the real action is in Pakistan, I’d appreciate a thoughtful policy that takes both states into account.
8 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:21 pm
When Republicans start talking about a tax to pay for the damn thing, and their Chickenhawks start becoming Marines I’ll believe they’re serious.
Until then, it’s just another talking point.
9 Toddtheconservative // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:37 pm
What ever reason why we went there 8 years ago has long left the building. This president is out of his mind to keep up this madness:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/11/a-socialist-thanksgiving/
10 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“What ever reason why we went there 8 years ago has long left the building. This president is out of his mind to keep up this madness:”
You are right. However I don’t think there are any good choices. The sensible choice would be to turn the war into a Special operations war. Quadruple the specialists. Then withdraw the bulk of troops out of the country. But do you realize the reaction from the far right if that was done!
It would be a firestorm of stupid.
11 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 pm
No, no, no. It’s a firestorm of stupid no matter what Obama does, because it doesn’t matter what he does the point is outrage about it. For it, against it is irrelevant. All that matters is generating outrage demanding the opposite of whatever president Obama does.
12 What M e Worry // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:10 pm
We are not fighting a “war”! Just a bunch of guys hiding behind rocks and some trees on their home turf. They are slowly wearing down the other guys. Does this sound familiar? Does 1776 ring a bell? This kind of police action, or whatever you want to call it, in the long run will end up like Vietnam where we are now see the old soldiers going back for vacation to relive their past. What will happen 50 years in the future?
I donated 4 years in the 60s and don’t want others to do the same.
What Me Worry
13 PracticalGirl // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Agree with all the sentiments. Heard a military guy on a talk show who scared me with this assertion: 40,000 troops would exhaust our supply of ready troops. Can anybody shed light on the validity of this assertion? I can’t beleive we’re seriously considering sending our last troop along with our last dollar into Afghanistan…
14 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Not our literally last troop, but last ready troops.
All soldiers are either preparing to deploy, deployed, or returning from deployment. Everything from sending your gear to the rail head to washing the trucks when you get back takes time and people. The United States Army is too small for the amount of mission it has.
As quite a few conservatives are more interested in more useless FY-22’s to fight the Soviets in 1982 rather than increasing the force size, and instituting an appropriate tax to cover the cost, that’s not likely to change any time soon.
Then there’s that little matter of tough guys banging out screeds against Osama Bin Laden and president Obama, rather than going down to nearest Armed Forces Induction Center and raising their right hand to consider as well.
Want more soldiers available to go? Join the frakking Army.
I did once upon a time, perhaps Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck might consider doing the same.
I’m just sayin’.
15 Socrates // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:45 pm
This article is a day late and a dollar short; actually, it is five years late and a few hundred billion dollars short. John (aka Cheney Jr) and the Bush neoconboys dropped the ball and now they bash Obama for not hitting a homerun for them. What a bunch of hypocrites.
16 PracticalGirl // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Yes, ready troops was my question even though I slipped into hyperbole at the end. Still, a chilling thought for me.
Not sure that Beck OR Goldberg could pass the psyche evaluation to be eligible for duty. Plus Glenn has The Plan, so that takes care of his national service…
17 John Guardiano // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Wow, what a negative and defeatist bunch you are! You in this peanut gallery! I’m glad you weren’t around in World War II! You would have cried and moaned about how we can’t beat the Nazis and the imperil Japanese. You would have offered up a million excuses about why we should just throw in the towel and admit defeat.
Victory always seems hopeless to the hopeless. Victory always eludes those without imagination and resolve.
The reality is that the United States can win in Afghanistan — provided we are committing to winning. The United States Army and Marine Corps bear no resemblance to the Soviet military. Our fighting men and women constitute the greatest counterinsurgency force on the planet, and perhaps the greatest counterinsurgency force in the annals of military history.
Caution about entering a war is fine. But once you are in a war, there is absolutely no substitute for victory. You either play to win, or you don’t play at all. And you certainly don’t dither and delay while our fighting men and women are stretched thin and have urgently requested reinforcements.
V/R
John
18 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:57 pm
My father was, and he wasn’t even allowed to vote where he came from. I’ll pass you thanks on to him in the afterlife.
And defeat comes from the hapless, ie. George W. Bush.
As we used to say in the Army, Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. What we are objecting to is the silly notion that president Obama taking the time to formulate a plan is what lost the war. If the war is indeed lost, it is because George W. Bush took much need troops, money, and material into Iraq creating a gigantic goat screw leaving 5,000+ dead soldiers and 40,000+ maimed. That sure helped the war effort next door.
Not a single man or woman of which would arrive before Spring 2010.
And yet we have been fought to a standstill by a bunch of uneducated 12th century minded insurgents. Hmm, wouldn’t have anything to do with lack of planning would it?
19 txanne // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:58 pm
It just amazes me how conservatives want to set up President Obama as the big FAIL. No matter that it was the last administration that seriously undermined this war. It was always under resourced. We had a chance in the early going until we decided Iraq was more important. So we “muddled” along in Afghanistan, as John McCain put it.
Conservatives also seem to have selective amnesia over the troop surge in Iraq. The commanders were asking for this long before decider in chief Bush finally made up his mind to go for it.
It’s the same old story, blame Obama in order to take the heat off the real culprits. The Bush administration made a mess of things, foreign and domestic. I am proud of my President for taking the time to make the best possible decision out of a mess of terrible choices.
20 balconesfault // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm
You would have cried and moaned about how we can’t beat the Nazis and the imperil Japanese.
Hell, we beat the Nazis and the Japanese in 5 years.
And to do it, we had well over 10% of Americans in uniform, and Roosevelt called for Americans to accept rationing of key goods in order to keep supplies available. Top marginal tax rates were raised to over 95%. Harry Truman went front and center to declare war profiteering to be “treason”. A excess-profits tax was raised to 90 percent.
21 CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:17 pm
John Guardiano // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
“I’m glad you weren’t around in World War II! You would have cried and moaned about how we can’t beat the Nazis and the imperil Japanese.”
The goals in World War II, which you reference, were clear, as were the threats to our security. These things are much more muddled in the middle east. The parties involved run the gamut from crazy, unstable theocracies to ragtag but dangerous militants. The boundaries are ill-defined, the terrain exceedingly harsh. The ethnic conflicts go back for centuries and loyalties shift like the winds. And the history of the region does not foretell of victory.
“The reality is that the United States can win in Afghanistan — provided we are committing to winning.”
What would winning even look like in Afghanistan? I don’t think anyone really has a clue what would constitute victory anymore.
22 PracticalGirl // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:28 pm
John,
World War 2 is a silly comparison, as we had very clear goals and politicians who were laser focused on them, unlike the ADHD approach to war that we got from Bush.
“But once you are in a war, there is absolutely no substitute for victory. ”
Unless you just find something shinier, like another war, as Bush did. Rather than slam the “peanut gallery” (you know, your readers) perhaps you should wake up to the reality that the American people were almost unanimous in a committment to winning in Afghanistan until the Commander in Chief sold us on the fact that Afghanistan just wasn’t where it was at. Without even bothering to say anything so cute as “Mission Accomplished!”, he turned our focus and rallied us around The Stand in Iraq and never returned any focus to the first war and its troops that he, himself , abandoned with his inattention.
We’re tired of selling our children and grandchildren’s futures for those in countries that are nothing but revolving doors for our politicians. What is “victory”, anyway? Seems to me we helped bring that about in Afghanistan in the 80s…And then abandoned the country we helped tear apart and the young, susceptible population we left there.
We’re also tired of the blame game. It may be true that Obama has inherited the issue, but it was entirely mapped out by the previous administration’s inability to finish anything.
23 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“Wow, what a negative and defeatist bunch you are!”
BZZZ FAIL!
We are not a defeatist negative bunch. We are realists. As has been said before we defeated the biggest army stacked against us in WW2. In more time we have been fought to a standoff by a bunch of tribesmen.
So much for the greatest counter insurgency force in history. I’m sure the British would dispute that particular claim. They have been fighting these sort of wars since 1700.
You it seems have plenty of bravado but little in the way of thinking material. You actually need to fight a smart war against this sort of enemy. You are fighting a war of battlefields and positions. There is no such thing as a battlefield when your enemy actually lives next door to you. He is in the market, in the coffee shop, in the barbers.
We should train 25% at least of our armed forces as special Opps guys. Like the best of our Navy Seals. Then we would have a fighting force that could be the best counter insurgency in the world.
Then we need to pull out the “Target” fodder we are sending in and actually finish the job of catching and killing Bin Laden and his crew. That as I understand was the purpose of the war. Bush choked on that one and then ran away from Afghanistan with his tail between his legs.
Then it turned into “nation building” (TM). Afghanistan has never been and probably never will be a nation in the way we know it. It’s always been a bunch of warlords with their own territory. The allegiances sway this way and another with the whim of the leader. You can’t build a nation from that. We installed another puppet in Karzi (sp) another Sha of Persia sage. Fail again.
Tell me smart guy. What is victory. When will you know we have won.
24 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“And you certainly don’t dither and delay while our fighting men and women are stretched thin and have urgently requested reinforcements.”
This has to one of the stupidest statements I have heard, and I have heard plenty.
OK General Guardiano. You are at the start of winter in Afghanistan. In fact by now the snow is pretty thick in the mountains. For the past 8 years the “enemy” has retreated to safe hideouts to overwinter, right? So what is the rush? No troops will be sent until Spring. Probably April. Logistically we can ramp up to this sort of level in a month maybe 2. Not one fighting troop would be sent now or in the near future. What’s the point of sending them just for them to sit around freezing their nuts off for 5 months?
Just does not make sense. So enough with all this faux outrage and posturing. You are making yourself look silly.
25 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Correction to my post above I found something stupider.
Dana Perino ex Bush spokesmodelhostess said on Shaun Hannity show last night.
About Fort Hood
“We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term. I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is.”
UM how about 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks what were they a joy ride?
26 PracticalGirl // Nov 25, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term. I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is.”
I guess dear Dana means not ANOTHER…But she’s discounting something.
The keep-you-safe-from-all-terrorists Bush administration is responsible for Hasan slipping through the cracks. He spews extremist Muslim propaganda in his residency (2003) and the Bushies just pass him along? Whatever happened (and we do need to get to the bottom of it) the Bush administration can NEVER claim again that their efforts kept us safe from another attack on our soil. Unless they prefer that we not label what Hasan did as a terrorist act…
27 ProfNickD // Nov 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“Obama’s Dithering May Have Lost the War”
I never knew that Obama thought that there was a war going on.
28 balconesfault // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I never knew that Obama thought that there was a war going on.
Yep. There were 34,400 US troops in Afghanistan when Obama took office (an increase in 27,500 in January 2008, and 26,000 in January 2007.)
There are now 65,200 troops in Afghanistan, with another 3,000 scheduled to be deployed this month.
For a really cool graphic of US troop levels since we invaded:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/10/01/world/middleeast/afghanistan-policy.html
That’s one helluva super-sized humanitarian mission!
Too many people echo the charge from David Broder in the Washington Post, encouraging Obama to fire more troops into the breech:
“even a wrong decision was better than no decision at all.”
29 SFTor1 // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:18 pm
In WWII we were dislodging occupying forces from known territory. Now we are the occupying force, in a tribal wasteland.
Let’s get out of Afghanistan, John. That may not satisfy your heroic aspirations, but it’s the intelligent thing to do.
30 anniemargret // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:21 pm
The Republicans call it ‘dithering’ when President Obama thinks through rationally and calmly before sending more troops in harms’ way. “Dithering,” they shout!
Yet not one blast of ‘dithering’ was leveled from the GOP side against National Security Sec’y Condi Rice for ‘dithering’ about the infamous memo on her desk. She ‘dithered.’ Badly.
31 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“In short, the surge in Iraq worked because the American will to win, as epitomized by President Bush and U.S. military leaders on the ground, was clear and unmistakable. And that will to win was backed up by both hard and soft power, courtesy of the awesome might and generous heart of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.”
> Nope, the surge worked in the main because we started bribing the insurgents to stop killing us and kill AQ instead. Your revisionism is nearly as bad as Perino saying the USA was not attacked by terrorists on Bush’s watch.
32 advocatusdiaboli // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Oh get over it–the war was lost when it begun. Afghanistan has defeated the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and 10,000 Taliban are holding 10 times their number at bay. Adding more Americans will not win when there is nothing to win. We trained Osama Bin Laden there to fight the Russians and now his pupils are winning against us. Just as we won against King George. The occupier almost always loses in the end. Let it go. Obama has many faults, but this is not one to legitimately lay on his doorstep.
33 anniemargret // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:39 pm
advocatusdiaboli: Correct. As a Democrat, I am disappointed in President Obama’s decision, but I believe he has probably done his best in listening to all sides of the issue. This was never an easy decision either way, but I totally agree with your assessment. I would imagine he was convinced by his generals that they could ‘win.’
Sadly, I fear this will become yet another Vietnam…. more troops, more billions, and no real advantage over our problem. I am very fearful of depleting the troops and exhausting them, putting us in a even more dangerous position.
34 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:43 pm
I think you are close. Obama loses nothing politically by trying. Getting us out of Iraq is the best he can give us for now, two or three years hence he can pullout of Afghanistan.
Like the gun issue, we have to accept there are some political realities that can’t be overcome. Pulling the plug on Afghanistan now is one of them.
35 anniemargret // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:59 pm
rbottoms: I think I did hear he will try for some type of timetable. There has to be an end goal, or some vision for what ‘winning’ there will be. All good Americans should drop the political gamemanship and say a prayer for our troops and for the President’s difficult decisions in these two ongoing wars.
36 Socrates // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:25 pm
There is an article in McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/79565.html) about whether we should raise tax to pay for the wars. Last time I heard it costs 1M per soldier in Afghanistan. Those who advocate for troop increase and wars seem unwilling to face this reality. So much for fiscal integrity.
37 txanne // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:22 am
Of couse you are right Socrates. The ones screaming the loudest for troop increases and fiscal responsibility will cry foul on this one.
What? Sacrifice? In a time of war?
38 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Socrates and txanne:
I have a counter-proposal:
If winning the war is worth the cost,
then how about SHELVING health care reform and using its projected budget of $900 billion to pay for the war instead?
FDR shelved the New Deal to pay for World War II, remember?
It was the failure of LBJ to shelve the Great Society to pay for Vietnam that led to the stagflation of the 1970s.
If you really cared about “fiscal integrity,” you would be prepared to make some tough choices between health care reform, cap-and-trade, and warfighting. But you don’t.
39 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 4:26 pm
anniemargaret:
1. I’ve never heard of any war that went according to timetable, or was won on a timetable. No timetable survives first contact with the enemy. They get a vote too, you know.
2. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, and our soldiers are fighting right now. These soldiers are our fellow Americans, our neighbors. So as an American, I hope Obama’s plan succeeds.
3. If it doesn’t succeed, then we conservatives are going to hang its failure around Obama’s neck.
This is the job of the “loyal opposition” in wartime.
40 txanne // Nov 27, 2009 at 1:12 am
Sinz, interesting proposal but why should we again place the burden upon those is the lower income by denying healthcare for all? They are already sacrificing the most in their numbers enlisting and fighting. Their families carry an enormous burden.
I would much rather see a small tax increase on the middle and upper income excluding military and their families. I am solidly middle class and can ill afford much more these days, but if I am willing, I think there are many more like me who are ready to make that small sacrifice.
41 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 27, 2009 at 1:12 am
Sinz: “If winning the war is worth the cost, then how about SHELVING health care reform and using its projected budget of $900 billion to pay for the war instead?”
# of Americans who die each year from lack of health insurance: 45,000
# of Americans who die each year from an increase in marginal tax rates: Zero
42 BarryS // Nov 27, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“3. If it doesn’t succeed, then we conservatives are going to hang its failure around Obama’s neck.”
“This is the job of the “loyal opposition” in wartime.”
I thought according to all the Neocons that the job of the loyal opposition was to support the COC. And we did until we learned that we had been royally conned.
How many things are you going to “hang around Obama’s neck” I think I have counted three so far.
How are you going to find the room what with that blazing tire hanging there.
43 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
You dodged my question.
Which is more important for the year 2010: Finishing the job in Afghanistan so our troops can come home having accomplished their mission; or health care which is always going to be an issue as long as America exists?
In the 1960s, LBJ refused to make tough choices. He tried to give us the Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid, and more), fight a major war in Vietnam; and the space program to land a man on the Moon.
The result was he wrecked the economy, with a decade of stagflation and the stock market in the doldrums in the 1970s.
You can’t do everything–fight wars, reform society, major engineering projects, all at the same time.
FDR knew this.
To get the resources to win World War II, he shelved the New Deal. Even though his own Vice President, Henry Wallace, walked out of FDR’s administration over it.
44 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 1:06 pm
BarryS:
As a patriotic American,
I sincerely hope that this country ends up in better shape after Obama’s term than it was on the day he was inaugurated.
If it’s not,
then we’ll do our patriotic duty by offering to the nation an alternative course of action.
45 BarryS // Nov 27, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“I sincerely hope that this country ends up in better shape after Obama’s term than it was on the day he was inaugurated.”
That won’t be difficult as he took over two hopelessly mis managed wars and an economy in free fall.
Guess you had better hold off on that neck attire.
46 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Sinz: “You dodged my question. Which is more important for the year 2010: Finishing the job in Afghanistan so our troops can come home having accomplished their mission; or health care which is always going to be an issue as long as America exists?”
I didn’t dodge your question. I rejected its premise, which is that we can only do one or the other, and offered the alternative of doing both by raising taxes. If we’re going to rank the options, as we should do, then clearly raising taxes is preferable to going into debt to end the war or to save 45,000 lives each year.
47 anniemargret // Nov 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm
It is a ‘values’ moment in our history. As David Brooks correctly assesses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1
I agree with Spartacus. Why not raise taxes to pay for the war as well as healthcare reform? Is this country incapable of meeting its obligations in foreign affairs as well as domestic? Where’s the sacrifice that should be part and parcel of a great society, one that can assure our soldiers have the best resources available to them to win the war, and the sacrifice of understanding that taking care of we shouldn’t be deciding who will get adequate healthcare or who doesn’t. Because unless you live in a glass bubble of wealth, at some point of another, someone in everyone’s family will be touched by the rising costs.
And no ‘great nation’ should allow 45,000 Americans to die each year from lack of healthcare coverage.
48 anniemargret // Nov 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm
sinz: ” If it doesn’t succeed, then we conservatives are going to hang its failure around Obama’s neck.
This is the job of the “loyal opposition” in wartime.”
By all means, the loyal opposition is required to make a comeback. But to ‘hang its failure around Obama’s neck?” Very harsh indeed. I think you make too much of who’s going to be remembered for failure. Americans are fully understanding of the complexities of these two wars, and I don’t know anyone who is going to forget that it was 8 years of Republican rule that brought us to these wars. The ‘war’ will be won or it will be another futile gesture draining our resources. Either way, the American people will understand that Obama had a Pandora’s box on his hands wide open and the furies already flying.
49 openhand // Nov 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm
The war is illegal, as was the invasion of Iraq. Can you deal with this fact?
We have a concentration camp on the island of Cuba with detention without trial.
We have hijacked people all over the world, calling it rendition, and then locked them up without a trial.
We have used the same torture that we have tried others for using, only we read Orwells 1984 and decided to change it’s name.
And now we blame Obama for dithering, using the term from Cheney, the guy who engineered the war in the 1st place. Well how about using another Cheney Term: Quagmire. Look it up as defined by Cheney in 1994 or are you too juvenile to remeber?
50 John Guardiano // Nov 28, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Actually, Openhand, Cheney got the word “dither” from me! I was, I believe, the first one to employ the term — on September 22 for a piece that I wrote for this site, FrumForum or New Majority. “Don’t Dither: Send More Troops to Afghanistan Now” I wrote.
I’m glad that the former Vice President (Dick Cheney) has come around to my way of thinking. He’s a little late. I wish he would have weighed in earlier in the debate; however, I still welcome his engagement and contribution.
Regards,
John
51 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:41 pm
John Guardiano wrote: “Cheney got the word “dither” from me! I was, I believe, the first one to employ the term — on September 22 for a piece that I wrote for this site, FrumForum or New Majority. “Don’t Dither: Send More Troops to Afghanistan Now” I wrote.”
You should have introduced him to the word before he hastily and foolishly rushed the country into Iraq. Nevertheless, you are to be applauded for publicly confessing your stupidity.
52 ottovbvs // Nov 29, 2009 at 9:43 am
……This is absurd……We’ve been in Afghanistan for eight years……eight years……. that’s twice as long as we were participating in the greatest war in history……for seven years and one month George Bush was president and from most of the time we had around 30,000 troops there……Obama has been president for 11 months and he’s increased troop levels to around 68,000…..the request for a further increase arrived about 10 weeks ago so at worst he’d “dithered” for ten weeks versus seven years and one month…..and according to Guardiano this is making “losing” in Afghanistan more likely……..the reality is we lost in Afghanistan years ago when we decided to squander whatever small chance we had of semi normalizing this country……personally I don’t even buy that but for those who believe this was ever possible I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt…….we have a huge mess on our hands that using General Petraeus’ own metrics is going to require over 600,000 troops occupying the country for a decade at least to fix……..the cost is going to run into the trillions……..btw 600,000 means double that with rotations…… Guardiano claims to have been in the marines…… well they don’t seem to have taught him much about tactics or strategy if he thinks taking a few weeks to decide on an appropriate strategy is going to make much difference to which few hills or mud villages we control while we try to prop up a corrupt govt that hadn’t technically been elected until about two weeks ago
53 cpanza // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:43 am
This quote from Guardino is asinine:
“And thank goodness President Truman didn’t define victory down in Germany and Japan. Consequently, American troops have been stationed there, in both countries, for more than half-a-century. American forces, likewise, have been stationed in Kosovo ever since President Clinton sent them there in 1999. The U.S. military is a force for good in the world, and our forward-presence abroad is typically a helpful and stabilizing influence. Why, then, preclude the option of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan for another eight years or more? Why communicate a desire to quickly leave that country? All this does is signal weakness and irresolution in the wake of a determined and implacable foe who might now be inclined to try and wait us out.”
He’s comparing our stay in Afghanistan to being stationed in Japan or Germany post-WWII? Or Kosovo post-conflict? There’s a difference between continually fighting battles and engaging hostile forces — which is what we’re doing in Afghanistan — and having a contingent of forces present after the fighting is over to keep the peace. Maybe you’ve forgotten what “post-” means.
54 Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Iraq was not a “distraction” and did not hinder victory in Afghanistan. This country can walk and chew gum at the same time. We fought Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan all at once. In fact, we launched D-Day on the same day as the first-ever large scale bombing raid of the Japanese mainland, and one day after the liberation of Rome. We had 500,000 troops in Vietnam while being fully manned and ready to repel a full-scale North Korean invasion of the South, and of a full-scale Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.
All the crocodile tears of the Left about the supposedly forsaken opportunity for victory in Afghanistan are now revealed for what they were – a mere ruse giving us an excuse to choose to lose in Iraq, to be followed by choosing to lose in Afghanistan. Our enemies could not hope for better friends.
You must log in to post a comment.