 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
September 21, 2009
MCCHRYSTAL WANTS MORE TROOPS.... The Washington Post and New York Times report today on a leaked "confidential" report prepared by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. The revelations are not altogether unexpected: McChrystal wants more troops and a more aggressive counterinsurgency strategy. Without them, he said, the conflict "will likely result in failure," and within a year, defeating an Afghan insurgency will "no longer [be] possible." In addition to the reports themselves, there's the story behind the story -- confidential reports like these are leaked to the nation's two largest newspapers for a reason. In this case, military leaders want to put President Obama in a position in which he can't deny McChrystal's request without serious political consequences. Obviously, the substance of the appeal for additional ground forces is what matters most here, and on that front, McChrystal has a high hurdle to clear -- how many more troops would be needed to secure a country that's largely controlled by the Taliban? Is it realistic to think stability and security can be brought to Afghanistan in 12 months? The president appears skeptical, and for good reason. But there's also the issue of the White House's relationship with the brass. On the one hand, the president and his team won't be rushed or pressured...
...and on the other, military leaders are getting impatient.
As Michael Crowley explained, "It's an awfully uncomfortable spot for Obama to be in. During the campaign he spoke often -- albeit usually in the context of Iraq -- about heeding the advice of his commanders on the ground. Now he's in a position where he may not want to accept it.... That said, what the generals want is not the only consideration here. Their job is to tell Obama how the war can be won. Obama's job is to decide whether, in the context of America's myriad priorities at home and abroad, it's worth the projected cost." —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)Comments
No, their job is to explain what the hell "winning" is supposed to mean. Unfortunately they have no clue about that. (Perhaps they should ask their ex-Soviet counterparts for advice...) Obama better get a clue, though; he's about to let himself be turned into Lyndon Johnson minus the domestic accomplishments. And he has only himself to blame for being in this rppredicament. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on September 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINKVietnam, light at the end of the tunnel, all all over again. Posted by: jeff on September 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINKAfghanistan was a disaster from the beginning -- late Sept 2001. That Obama put his campaigning imprimatur on it was stoopid, and now that his presidency includes the war, he is lbj. He fucked up. And I think it was because he had to garner the blood-sucking vote at least to a certain extent. Well, now he's got to answer to the blood-suuckers... Posted by: neill on September 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKCLAP HARDER! Three-quarters of a trillion dollars yearly on the military-industrial complex and we can't even transform two artificial countries encompassing diametrically opposed ethnic and tribal factions into libertarian paradises! What the hell?! Posted by: norbizness on September 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINKNo, he's not LBJ. In this situation -- and ONLY in this situation, I hasten to add, I'm drawing no broader analogies -- he's Nixon. He didn't start this war, he wasn't the one responsible for botching it, but he did commit himself to finishing it during the campaign and now he's facing the reality that it probably can't be done. Please, please, great FSM, let him have more good sense than Nixon did about escalating when he should be getting us out. Posted by: T-Rex on September 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINKSteve LaBonne @ 10:20 AM starts to hit the key point when he asks "what the hell "winning" is supposed to mean"? As a veteran of a Southeast Asia disaster predicated upon politicians lying and not wanting 'to lose a war', I marched in the streets of D.C. in protest of Bush's Iraq war. Iraq was total bushshit from the start. I did not initially oppose Afganistan, because I could perceive reasons to be there. Now, it must be spelled out in a clear, understandable fashion what the objectives and timeframes are of continued war in Afganistan. War is too fucking important to turn over 100% to the generals. War is too fucking important to have purely political reasons for engaging and continuing one. Until I hear the objectives and how we will meet them and get the hell out of there, I stand ready to march in protests against continued involvement in Afganistan. Posted by: AngryOldVet on September 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINKIf I could, I'd ask every American to write a research paper on why our founders established civilian control of the military. Posted by: Chris on September 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKThe evidence that Karzai and his government manipulated the election is overwhelming. Int'l observers say as many as 1/3rd of the votes cast may be tainted. Widespread corruption remains the norm across Afghanistan. The central government in Afghanistan has lost legitimacy in the eyes of large number of its citizens. That is why the Taliban is gaining ground. What do we do when Karzai is declared the 'winner' of a tainted election? What if real civil war starts to break out in Afghanistan (I know many would argue we are already at that stage)? Do we defend the Karzai government? Do we depose Karzai and start all over again? US and NATO are increasinly seen as foreign occupiers supporting a corrupt government. How does sending more troops improve that situation? Posted by: thorin-1 on September 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKAs another angry, old, Veit-Nam vet I think it's time that we start playing Bob Dylan's old song of that time called "Masters of War"....it was exactly right then, and it is exactly right now. Posted by: another angry old vet on September 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKIt is unbecoming and disturbing for the military to be so blantently political, but they are rather good at this. This maneuver puts them ahead of Obama and congressional democrats and feeds the neocons. Once McChrystal sits in hearings and hits the media outlets I don't there is any way to stop the escalation. The upside is this will be a very public debate. Let the spin begin. Obama will side with the military, but grudingly, and give space for the left to vote against and complain, but McChrystal will be given the opportunity to prove his resolve. Posted by: Bob Johnson on September 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINKThe upside is this will be a very public debate. Let the spin begin. Obama will side with the military, but grudingly, and give space for the left to vote against and complain, but McChrystal will be given the opportunity to prove his resolve. That's a mighty small upside. You'll have to forgive me if I take precious little consolation from it. More and more, on issue after issue, Obama looks like a total amateur who can easily be taken to the cleaners by the pros. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on September 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINKI thought the purpose of invading Afganistan was to destroy the Al-Qaeda training camps there. I didn't think the purpose was to run Afganistan forever. The British couldn't do it. The Russians couldn't do it. We cannot do it. The real question is: why should we want to do it? Is it because Muslims are "bad people" who cannot be allowed to run their own countries? That seems to be the underlying rationale behind the neocon imperialists. Posted by: Whispers on September 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKIt is unbecoming and disturbing for the military to be so blantently political, but they are rather good at this. I have said this before and I'll say it again - Generals who aren't natural, born politicians...are Captains. Posted by: Blue Girl on September 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINKThe Afghanisiraq war is too big a cash cow to give up on. Let's just build more bombs, send in more troops, and get 'er dun! Huh? We are wasting vast sums of money on a belief that our might will make "them" like us. Nope. The hatred goes back centuries. No amount of western resolve will "win" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I'd say we have lost both endeavors and face years of heartache and economic ruin. Posted by: Tom Nicholson on September 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKDuring the campaign he spoke often -- albeit usually in the context of Iraq -- about heeding the advice of his commanders on the ground Michael Crowley is incorrect. Bush was the guy who said he'll do anything his commanders tell him. Obama always emphasized during the campaign that HE sets the strategy as commander-in-chief. Posted by: Ohioan on September 21, 2009 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINKThere's always a political limit which sometimes is long enough to give the military plans room to operate. Other times the chain tightens and the military has to move faster or the politicians would have no choice but to end military involvement. We have a desire to help the Pakistanis. We can fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda for now. But, if the chain tightens we would have to end it. The only reason we haven't seen this happening so precipitously in Iraq is that there's a schedule for withdrawal and that has eased people's concern and fear of an unending involvement. Even there though we may have to depart earlier than planned if the Iraqis want us to go. The only difference in Afghanistan is there's no schedule for involvement and then withdrawal. I dont know, can he say no to General McChrystal? If he needs to say no, I hope he does, but if he says yes, I hope he does what he needs to for the continued protection of our country and the USA. Posted by: lucie lanes on September 21, 2009 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINKMcChrystal wants more troops and in this situation president obama wants more time to think about what to do.... Posted by: hire on September 23, 2009 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
