RSS Feed MenuAt 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?
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??
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:07 am
sftor1: Train some more Afghan military and police, declare victory and get out.
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?
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
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.