...in the New York Times, "Obama to Weigh Buildup Option in Afghan War," which concerns "whether to deepen American involvement in the eight-year-old war amid shrinking public support at home."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/world/asia/01military.html?_r=1&hp
I read it again, and couldn't find the reason for our initial or continued presence in Afghanistan. In fact, I was only reminded of the quagmire that was Vietnam. At some point in the not-too-distant future, Obama has to remind us again of why we're there, what exactly it is we are trying to accomplish, and how we can expect to succeed. I, for one, have either forgotten the answers to those questions or never knew them in the first place. That's a conversation we need to have as a nation before we can be expected to commit more resources and more American troops.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Where is the indignation on the left for Obama's pursuit of Bush's wars? I don't mean to challenge you personally on this Mike, but I find it more than a little troublesome that these TWO wars are somehow overlooked by the left, now that the C. in C. is a Demo.
Very very weird.
I'll give Cindy Sheehan her due. At least she is sticking to her guns.
While Obama is continuing Bush's policy of winding down the Iraq War, the left is getting a little antsy with the president over Afghanistan. They've been giving him the benefit of the doubt so far, but their patience isn't infinite.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26654.html
The economic crisis seemed to have been a god send in terms of the political capital it gave the Obama Administration. I think I read somewhere that Rahm Emmanuel likes to say "never let a crisis go to waste."
The other cover Obama has is that he had nothing to do with the policies which took US troops into those countries and which bungled their operations once on the ground. In fact, his ability to separate himself from these fatal failures was one of the biggest planks in his election platform.
Another issue is that once you have a troop presence you can't just dissolve it in the blink of an eye. That is why Bush's childish impulsiveness (masquerading as decisiveness) was so costly and deadly. As Colin Powell is famous for saying "you break it, you own it."
I remember during the campaign that I admired Obama for saying that we had to be "as smart getting out as we were stupid getting in" in reference to Iraq. I thought it was hugely irresponsible (not to mention political suicide) for Democrats to be clamoring for an immediate and complete troop withdrawal. Irresponsible in the sense that if those calling for this action had the power to do so there is no WAY they would have the will to do it, and politically suicidal given the political climate that if you wanted troops home you were a wimp and if you wanted them to die for a lie (as long as "they" didn't include "you" or any member of your middle class family) you were somehow a tough guy.
Finally, I agree US presence in Afghanistan (while by no means a new concern since Afghanistan is where the US first trained and armed Osama Bin Laden to fight against the USSR presence there*) is a question Obama will have to answer. If Obama escalates he will further prove that he has no real problem with the status quo and in fact yearns to be a part of it. He certainly has proved his capitalistic metal by bailing out the banks in order to preserve a system that seems hell bent on self destruction whenever it is given the leash to do so.
*Source for Bin Laden reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/155236.stm
Post a Comment