At home, the worst action of the Obama presidency was the intimidation of the Chrysler bondholders into surrendering their legal rights. But even that ugly action pales in comparison to the president’s handling of Afghanistan. Here’s from today’s FT:
What began as an almost reflex debating stance on the campaign trail – that George W. Bush had started the wrong war in Iraq and that Hillary Clinton had voted for it – has brought us to this moment,” says Daniel Markey at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Only now is the president really analysing the implications of escalation in Afghanistan. And they are potentially paralysing.”
“Only now?”
Obama supporters praise the president for taking the time to deliberate before sending more troops to Afghanistan. Deliberation is always welcome. But the time to deliberate is before making a commitment – not before honoring that commitment.
Obama supporters plead that new facts have arisen in Afghanistan. Like what exactly? A bad election? Candidate Obama visited Afghanistan in July 2008. The officials he met warned him that Karzai would tamper with the next election. How do I know that? Because I visited Afghanistan three months later on a NATO tour, and met many of the same officials he had met – and that is what they told our group. I have to believe that they briefed a candidate for president in much more detail and candor than they briefed a collection of thinktankers.
Obama was briefed on these concerns. He opted to disregard them. He made his commitments to wage a bigger war in Afghanistan for campaign purposes – to immunize himself against charges that he was soft on security.
Now the bill has arrived. The Obama administration has launched American troops into a much more intense fight in Afghanistan – one-quarter of all Afghan casualties have been suffered in the past three months – while hesitating to add the reinforcements for which the troops’ commanders clamor. Ten months into his administration he has developed doubts about the war he once declared a war of necessity. Seems it’s not so necessary as all that. Tell me: if it’s wrong to make war for oil – what is it to talk war for votes?
34 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm
But the time to deliberate is before making a commitment – not before honoring that commitment.
Obama during the 2008 debates: So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.
And yes, we have gone from 3 combat brigades in Iraq to 6 (5 Army and 1 Marine) following Obama’s doubling of our troop presence over there.
Sounds like he honored it. Now the question is whether that committment was enough – or if we can ever sustain the level of committment that would be “enough” to prevent the Taliban from retaking control of at least some portion of Afghanistan, given that a large portion of the Afgani population really doesn’t seem to mind if the Taliban runs things.
2 DFL // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Democrats preference for Afghanistan to Iraq was sophistry, a way to attack George W. Bush. Once Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda were ejected from Afghanistan and the Taliban was brought to flight into the mountains in 2001, the Democrats truly had no more use for the Afghanistan operations except as a tool in which to strike out at the Bush Administration.
Now the Democrats have the responsibility for Afghanistan, a duty that the Democrats don’t believe in and would rather abandon. Interesting is that the roar of the anti-war Left is now muted much like the comic Whos that Horton could not hear now that the Left runs the government and the wicked Bush is gone. For Barack Obama and the Democrats, Afghanistan is like the churlish uncle at Thanksgiving dinner who everyone wishes would just go away. And as long as blue-collar conservative military men do the dying in Afghanistan, the Obama Admiinstration will not risk a withdrawal that might cost it independent votes for 2012. American policy in Afghanistan promises to be schizophrenic for a long time at the expense of American soldiers.
3 Reason60 // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm
This is one area I fault Obama for; caving into the hawks (or even sincerely believing them) was a tragic mistake.
The Afghan war is based on two absurd premises:
1. That we can create a stable civil democracy in a nation that has no history or desire for one. This is liberal social engineering on steroids.
2. Its second premise, equally absurd is that this is even necessary- that we need to do this to prevent future terrorists from having a safe haven in which to plot there attacks. This even though the 9-11 attacks were actually plotted in Saudi Arabia, Europe, and New Jersey. Notice yesterday’s Washington Post article ominously warning that we must “do something” about the unstable lawless state of Somalia; expect to hear a drumbeat of a need for war in Somallia emanating from the neo-cons shortly.
Obama would show true leadership by withdrawing and leaving the Afghan nation to sort out its own future.
4 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Democrats preference for Afghanistan to Iraq was sophistry, a way to attack George W. Bush.
To some extent, I agree with this. I was telling people 14 months ago that Obama didn’t seem to be being realistic on Afghanistan.
Once Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda were ejected from Afghanistan and the Taliban was brought to flight into the mountains in 2001, the Democrats truly had no more use for the Afghanistan operations except as a tool in which to strike out at the Bush Administration.
Not completely true. Most progressives, if not Democrats, believe there was a finite window of opportunity for the US to trap bin-Laden and his Al Qaeda associates (I didn’t actually know the goal was simply to eject him from Afghanistan – was it “Dead or Alive or At Least In Pakistan”?) … but also to stabilize Afghanistan in a way that would lead the majority of Afghans to see the value in risking their own lives to preventing the Taliban from re-taking power.
We didn’t get there – on either count. We didn’t capture Bin Laden, we didn’t really do much to persuade Afghanis why they should prefer Karzai over the Taliban.
Not every effort one undertakes has a potentially infinite timespan. Sometimes you complete a task in a certain time window, or you fail.
5 DFL // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I agree with most of your post, balconesfault. In 2001, I believe Americans of all political persuasions wished to defeat Al-Qaeda and capture Osama bind-Laden. Creating a democratic Afghanistan under Karzai is another matter, one which it seems is foolhardy to me.
America has accomplished as much as is practical in Afghanistan. It is disappointing that President Obama finds himself constrained by the old Bush policies.
6 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:34 pm
DFL writes: “Now the Democrats have the responsibility for Afghanistan, a duty that the Democrats don’t believe in and would rather abandon. Interesting is that the roar of the anti-war Left is now muted…”
Here in uber-liberal Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor, the bumper stickers “End this Endless War” were gone the day after Obama’s election. It appears that the far Left were using the war as an excuse to Bash Bush and win election at any cost, with any leveraged issue. I don’t think Obama is deliberating about the best strategy to employ in Afghanistan –I think he’s looking for a way out. His team thought they had it with the whole vote corruption/illegitimate govt argument with Karzai but Dr Abdullah’s exit quashed that exit strategy.
As an aside, it’s queer that liberals and Obama are concerned about voter fraud in Afghanistan when they’ve raised it to a new art form in America with ACORN and SEIU extensive programs of vote fraud. Heck, it may even be so effective an artform it helps New Jersey Democrats keep the governorship today.
Obama is not going to agree to what the ground commanders have asked for in Afghanistan. He’s failed, even with all the shuttle diplomacy to London & Paris & Berlin, at securing greater NATO involvement and a change in the rules of engagement which still restrict many troops from actually fighting the Taliban. And he’ll fail in Afghanistan as well.
The Cheneys have it right: He’s a ditherer. He’s a waffler. He’s a fake. And he’s not even good at it –like when his team last month was doing the “It’s Bush’s Fault” spin and Cheney reminded them that they used the Bush Team’s plan earlier this year. Stupid.
Obama is looking for a way out. He’s not deliberating anymore than he was sincere in his use of those KIA coffins as publicity props. He is the Ditherer in Chief.
7 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The Cheneys have it right: He’s a ditherer.
The Cheneys didn’t finish the Iraq or Afghanistan wars in the time it took for Roosevelt to defeat Hitler.
That said, a little dithering in early 2003 might not have been too bad … perhaps giving WMD inspectors more time to see if they could find anything in Iraq for us to be concerned about, or if as in 1998 they would be barred from investigating critical facilities.
Perhaps saving the US about 1 trillion in short term, and 2 trillion in longer term expendigures, as well as the lives of thousands of US troops, and limbs of tens of thousands more?
Dithering isn’t always a bad thing. One could say that the US “dithered” through much of the Cold War, never pressing an invasion against the Iron Curtain even when we had military superiority.
8 LFC // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:55 pm
DFL said… Now the Democrats have the responsibility for Afghanistan, a duty that the Democrats don’t believe in and would rather abandon.
The word “duty” is too often used to shut down debate, and I reject the it was used completely. The “duty” argument was used for way too long to justify Vietnam, and there are still people that believe that “if we just put in more resources…” Our duty is to the Constitution and the people of this country, first and foremost. And if walking away is best for our country, that’s what we have to do. People who can’t handle that are cowards.
As to Afghanistan, the writings Gen. Patraeus himself say that counterinsurgency is not really possible without a credible government partner within the country. We don’t have that. We did after Karzai was elected by the Loya Jerga, but years of corruption and neglect by the U.S. has turned our one decent opportunity into a total mess.
If Obama goes “all in” with no clearly defined mission, I’ll fault him. If he just stays as is with no clearly defined mission, I’ll fault him. If he pulls out because there is no reasonable goal available to us, I’ll back him. It’s either come up with a definition of a mission that can realistically be accomplished, or get out.
9 DFL // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Believe it or not, LFC, I agree with you.
10 LFC // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 pm
DFL, I think there are a lot of people just waiting to hear what our mission is supposed to be. If it looks doable, I think Obama will get the support of a majority of the country. If he makes a clear case for withdrawal, I think he’ll get the support of a majority of the country.
But if he flounders, doesn’t make a clear case for a clear mission, and leaves opinions to be formed by the conjecture of thousands of bloggers and political talking heads, he’ll lose that support. As well he should.
11 sinz54 // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm
In a speech on March 27, 2009 (that’s just 7 months ago), Obama said this:
So tell me: What happened to all those brave words, uttered only 7 months ago?
I’ll tell you what happened: General McChrystal (whom Obama appointed for the job) made the mistake of taking Obama’s words seriously. And so he put forward the strategy and resources necessary to accomplish Obama’s explicitly stated goals.
So what happened next? Obama blinked. Faced with what his stated goals would really entail in terms of commitment, he’s walking back from his stated goals as fast as he could.
And Obama’s left flank revolted. The lefties who inhabit Moveon.org and DailyKOS and the Congressional Progressive Caucus never believed in the Afghanistan War–or any other U.S. war since 1946 (though they had cynically calculated that Obama had to talk tough on Afghanistan in order to win the election). And so Obama cannot hope to get support from his own party for a major U.S. push in Afghanistan. Unlike Bush’s surge, if Obama announces a surge of 40,000 troops, his own party will turn on him.
And those are some of the reasons why Obama is paralyzed right now.
12 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Another problem with applying our counter-insurgency strategy from Iraq into Iran.
In Iraq, it was successful in no small part because the Sunni warlords had a lot of reason to sign up. Not only our absolvence of their previous involvement in attacking US troops … not only the money and weapons we gave them, critical as they face future fights with the Shiites … but because the main reason warlords can exist is that they protect their people, and people are willing to put up with their corruption and tyranny to buy that security
(Bush/Cheney jokes deleted).When Al Qaeda in Iraq was flourishing, even the Sunni warlords couldn’t protect their own people – Al Qaeda were butchers, pretty much indiscriminate in their killing as they just wanted to maintain instability. The warlords were happy to make a deal to help eliminate them.
In Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was never going around killing people, and while the Taliban were tyrants and religious fanatics, apparently the people outside of Kabul really didn’t consider them any kind of a threat (except for the crackdown on opium production), and even the fundamentalist Muslims inside Kabul weren’t bothered by them.
So now, we’re stuck trying to persuade people why they should fight the Taliban, and outside of those who are directly benefitting from the current government, or the very few advocates for true democracy, the rest aren’t getting it. Which means not only do we have to do the job alone … but we’re constantly going to be facing shifting allegences, as people make decisions on who’s offering the best deal today.
13 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:01 pm
sinz: What happened to all those brave words, uttered only 7 months ago?
Well, whatever happened – clearly those weren’t campaign promises.
14 sinz54 // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm
reason60:
The training camps for al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan.
The CIA estimates that as many as 30,000 terrorists were trained there: Indoctrinated with mysticism and brainwashed into becoming willing suicide-bombers.
15 sinz54 // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm
balconesfault:
Evidently, based on the speech Obama gave just 7 months ago, he doesn’t agree with that.
So go argue with him.
16 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Evidently, based on the speech Obama gave just 7 months ago, he doesn’t agree with that
There’s not a lot of value in arguing with someone over their past opinions if they no longer seem to hold them – except to challenge them as to why they changed their mind.
17 James Cody // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I think there are at least three sweeping generalizations made in DF’s post that either are not supported by the facts or assumes opinions as facts.
First, the claim that Obama did not honor his campaign commitment. Obama increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan by 20,000 in only his second month in office. That sounds like he honored his campaign commitment. The fact that Obama is now dealing with a request to send another 40,000 and may not grant the request in entirety does not mean he did not honor his original campaign commitment. Hence, this claim is not supported by the facts.
Second, the claim that Obama made the promise solely for political reasons, i.e., to get votes. I note that this claim is made without any reference to any sources (e.g., a news story or reporting from any one of the outlets in Rupert Murdoch’s massive media empire). This claim is at best an opinion that is couched as a given fact, and at worst is an extraordinarily explosive claim to make without citing any evidence (or to be more blunt, that kind of charge is a standard political smear that I would expect from Hewitt or Rush, but not on this forum).
Third, the claim that Obama no longer views this war as one of necessity, or never believed it was such, because he is considering not granting the 40,000 troop increase request in entirety. Conservatives of the like of Kristol and Krauthammer have done a wonderful job in conflating the ideas that (1) taking the war seriously as a war of necessity, (2) must mean that you would grant the request, because (3) granting the request is the only way to win the war. One can believe the war is one of necessity without believing that granting 40,000 additional troops is necessary to win the war. Again, Frum just assumes opinions as given facts, and does the kind of conflation of various concepts that I expect from disingenuous hacks like Kristol and Krauthammer, but not David Frum.
In my opinion, if David Frum really wants this site to be a forum for discussion and intellectually serious debate, he needs to address the deficiencies I (and others) pointed out by either proving us wrong or conceeding his errors. Moreover, if David Frum hopes to build a new majority that includes moderates, pragmatists, etc, he needs to be more careful in his arguments to be sure to not make the kind of claims that, in my opinion at least, are associated with the extremist, intellectually dishonest, and intellectually immature wings of the conservative movement.
18 LFC // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:36 pm
If we pulled out and if the Taliban once again took control of the government, wouldn’t that make them significantly more vulnerable than they are today? It seems that in order to control a major part of the country, they’d have to create some form of bureaucracy and have a something resembling a standing army or police force, like they did before we invaded. And anything they built up would be susceptible to more standard military attacks.
So what’s the real danger of a Taliban takeover of parts of Afghanistan?
19 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:49 pm
So what’s the real danger of a Taliban takeover of parts of Afghanistan?
Well, they’ve already blown up the Bamiyan Buddah statues. We’ve pretty much rounded up all the other cultural artifacts that Afghanistan had that the Taliban was likely to destroy … museum workers had been hiding them for years, and we have a “traveling exhibition” to keep them out of the country for as long as it takes to assure that the Taliban doesn’t return.
They now know that if they allow Al Qaeda to operate out of Afghanistan again, and we get hit, we’ll come back over and kill a lot of Talibani again.
The real danger is that the suckage that the average Afgani woman lives under would be institutional, rather than simply de facto.
20 Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:18 pm
i agree with those who think obama has dithered on the issue of afghanistan; mr cheney is right no matter how angry that makes me or people on the left. after secretly adopting the bush administration’s recommendations on afghanistan, president obama told the american people:
“Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people….”
a comprehensive new strategy that included pakistan in the equation of a solution. his words as president were consistent with his campaign promises made to gain the nomination and win the election. to argue otherwise is disingenious of the commenters on this site.
liberals and conservatives here can debate all day long whether or not the president is backsliding on his campaign-era war hawkish talk that made hillary clinton look like a dove, but candidate obama and president-elect obama and president obama all made a strong case of minimizing american involvement in iraq and retargeting resources and personnel to the “war of necessity” in afghanistan. he now appears ready to retreat, without honor, from that position. liberals can not deny that it was a campaign pledge that he now appears ready to renege on nor can they deny it was a promise he made just a few months ago as president of america.
and democrats wonder why our allies don’t trust us. democrats wonder why the american people think obama is failing as commander in chief. democrats wonder why voters don’t approve of obama’s conduct of foreign affairs and only 44% approve of his conduct of the war in afghanistan.
what is in the water of the potomac that smart, astute political animals can fail so miserably, so cravenly, so quickly when they get to washington?
21 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm
a comprehensive new strategy that included pakistan in the equation of a solution
And Obama has, as discussed here earlier, significantly stepped up the (successful, I may add) use of drones to target and destroy Al Qaeda enclaves in Afghanistan.
22 Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:52 pm
balcones, well, and in your limited mind, that makes it all better. promises made, promises kept. right, ha ha. do you ever get serious here?
obama is backsliding on commitments and pledges and promises and a hawkish stance on afghanistan that he projected throughout his campaign and early months of his presidency. as for your claim that he’s successfully destroyed the al qaeda enclaves in pakistan… please see madam secy clinton –she doesn’t agree with your rosey, glowing sentiments. she was browbeating the pakistani leadership for failing to root out bin laden and al qaeda just last week.
i think you need to put down the robert gibbs talking points for loyal subjects and get with reality. it’ll make you at least appear more serious.
23 Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:53 pm
you missed the more important and meaningful part of my comment; it was directed to you:
“a comprehensive new strategy that included pakistan in the equation of a solution. his words as president were consistent with his campaign promises made to gain the nomination and win the election. to argue otherwise is disingenious of the commenters on this site.”
disingenious it is then.
24 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“a comprehensive new strategy that included pakistan in the equation of a solution. his words as president were consistent with his campaign promises made to gain the nomination and win the election. to argue otherwise is disingenious of the commenters on this site.”
I’m trying to figure out how Obama has not included Pakistan in his equations. Enlighten, please.
25 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 3, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Before anyone complains that there aren’t enough troops in Afghanistan, they should first deal with the two erroneous premises Reason60 pointed out:
1. That we can create a stable civil democracy in a nation that has no history or desire for one.
2. This is needed to prevent future terrorists from having a safe haven in which to plot there attacks.
Then, you have to define what “winning the war” actually means. If it means kicking Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, then we’ve already won. If it means preventing a return of Al Qaeda to Afghanistan, then this costs too much and it doesn’t increase our security since Al Qaeda can simply operate from Pakistan or any other ungoverned land.
After defining what “winning the war” actually means, then you have to decide whether the best way to do that is by adding more troops.
Frum and others who have criticized Obama’s delay in adding more trips have failed to address these more fundamental concerns. By not addressing these larger concerns, their criticisms seem like nothing more than partisan complaints.
26 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:13 pm
BlankHead asks a commenter: “I’m trying to figure out how Obama has not included Pakistan in his equations. Enlighten, please”.
I think the commenter has already tried to enlighten you, BlankHead. What part of “… a comprehensive new strategy that included pakistan in the equation of a solution. (H)is words as president were consistent with his campaign promises made to gain the nomination and win the election” not clear to you.
And how can you, BlankHead, read that and surmise the writer excluded Pakistan? You’re that quick to replace AutomaticBS as the FrumForum Village Idiot??
27 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:37 pm
by the way Independent, we’ve found BlankHead to be routinely disingenious and intellectually dishonest. It’s a crack-up that you pegged him so accurately, so fast.
Kudos.
28 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 11:00 pm
hey Mr. Abuse, I was asking how it is that Independent has already concluded that Pakistan is not included in the equation. Seems to me that, for example, Obama authorizing drone strikes of Al Qaeda emplacements in Pakistan shows that in fact he is including the destruction of Al Qaeda in Pakistan as part of the solution, and not just driving Al Qaeda from Afghanistan.
I really think you guys are incapable of reading for comprehension sometimes. If you don’t understand what someone is talking about, how about you ask, like I did, rather than just jumping on the abuse wagon right away?
29 SFTor1 // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:02 am
Back-of-the envelope analysis: an unmanageable area that is a country in name only. A head of state that is a corrupt crony of the West (former UNOCAL consultant for the pipeline deal.) A nationalist opponent with infinite patience, fueled by religious fervor. A military operation once labeled a police action that has turned into an eight year occupation with no end in sight, neither in time to end game nor in human and material resources required. A people that is increasingly turning against the occupier. Being in the middle of a regional showdown between India and Pakistan.
The Administration has serious qualms about continuing this loser, as they well should. Train some more Afghan military and police, declare victory and get out.
30 johnmarzan // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:31 am
obama mismanaged relations with karzai because he was against him from the start and wanted him out from the getgo.
http://bit.ly/BcOv
http://bit.ly/1XxFyw
http://bit.ly/8Iblq
http://bit.ly/1tLqPE
http://bit.ly/1FGmzv
http://bit.ly/vt0TP
31 ottovbvs // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:46 am
…..We’ve been in Afghanistan for eight years, eight years, for just over seven of them management of the situation there was in the hands of the Bush administration who dawdled away whatever remote chance we had of ever straightening this place out………this was twice as long as US participation in WW 2……..Now Frum is running around trying pin the blame for sorting out a huge national liability on a president who has been in office for ten months…….it’s pathetic and blows a bit of a hole in his oft expressed desire to see the Republican party revert back to being seen as a responsible party of governance…….to be seen as a responsible party of governance you have to talk like one………we’re playing with the lives of thousand of American lives here so it merits something beyond 8th grade puerilities.
32 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:07 am
sftor1:
I’m still waiting to hear the great liberal plan for how we put al-Qaeda out of business.
If you surf over to the FBI and CIA websites, they tell you that they are continuing to break up one al-Qaeda plot after another. But they can’t hope to have a perfect track record. Sooner or later, they’re going to miss one.
And so we’re going to be attacked again. Big-time. Until and unless the famous liberal plan for dealing with al-Qaeda is put into effect.
What is it?
33 LFC // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:47 am
sinz54 said…And so we’re going to be attacked again. Big-time. Until and unless the famous liberal plan for dealing with al-Qaeda is put into effect.
What is it?
Well it ain’t invasion of one country after another and it ain’t torture of innocent people to extract false confessions and bad intelligence. It IS the FBI and CIA. It’s the NSA. It’s local and state police. It is not a multi-decade occupation by our military in Muslim nations that view us as an enemy.
Bush never claimed he’d be able to meet that standard. Nor Cheney. Nor Petraues. Nor Obama. And there’s a reason for that. It’s because it’s not possible. You demand a silver bullet that will prevent any terrorist attack from ever occurring again. You want AQ, a now highly de-centralized organization across multiple nations, to be 100% “out of action”. That’s a child’s demand, but adults have to face the reality that this will never happen. Ask Israel what the magic bullet is to stop all terrorist attacks.
The WTC was taken down by a handful of fanatics with box cutters. Timothy McVeigh, pretty much alone, used fertilizer and auto fuel to killed 168, wound many more, and cause enormous damage. The U.S.S. Cole was struck by a small speedboat operated by suicidal maniacs. And you demand that we make it so this could never happen again? Dream on.
“You can’t handle the truth. Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building and isn’t it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?” — Timothy McVeight
34 SFTor1 // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Sinz says: “I’m still waiting to hear the great liberal plan for how we put al-Qaeda out of business.”
We’re on a better track, that’s for sure. The Bush Administration ignored the warnings from Clinton’s people regarding al-Qaeda. 9/11 followed. It seems like everyone has learned that lesson.
LFC’s analysis seems pretty fair. Multi-pronged intelligence and police efforts, including collaboration with Moslem countries.
It’s the best we’ve got, and I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment that occupying Moslem countries will make things worse and not better.
You must log in to post a comment.