It's not the number of troops its the amount of "troop-years". That is, 80,000 troops there for another 2 years is preferable to 50,000 troops for 5. He, of course, needs to make the case the extra troops will finish the job (after making the case what "the job" is).

And this is why commenting and speculating on a strategy that has not yet been articulated is bad - See here
Quote -
That's wrong. The time frame of 3 years is nowhere in the speech," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable. He added that spokesman Robert Gibbs' statement on this issue earlier Tuesday was accurate but did not elaborate.

Obama already sent additional troops to Pakistan, and there was little stink about that. But tonight, he's apparently planning to go very close to all-in, sending almost all of the available troops (according to last night's Rachel Maddow show there are only about 50K total deployable troops, and he's reportedly sending more than 30K of them). These men and women are mostly on their second or third tours.

Wasn't that before we knew that before Karzai stole an election? Seemed like a game changer. Guess not.

Sic transit Obama - it's downhill from here.

He launched his Senate run with a speech where he claimed that he wasn't against all wars, just against dumb wars. Iraq was the dumb war.

So he record of consistency on this issue spans his entire national political career.

There are almost NO reasonable people in this entire debate, Steve.

As Greenwald pointed out:

The most bizarre defense of Obama's escalation is also one of the most common: since he promised during the campaign to escalate in Afghanistan, it's unfair to criticize him for it now -- as though policies which are advocated during a campaign are subsequently immunized from criticism.

For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo opened, and privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the ground that he promised to do them during the campaign? I highly doubt it.

Makes sense to me.

Time for Rush to call all of our enemies to surge into Afghanistan. He's said he wants Obama to fail.
What better way to spread his "radio" "active" bile?

Seriously. While I realize Obama has consistently said Afghanistan deserves more of our MIC, I don't think he has accurately read the writing on the wall.

Yeah, the MIC experts have pleaded for 10s of thousands of more troops, but other folks have pleaded for more peaceful approaches.

We assume waging war is the answer, yet Obama, with his Nobel Peace prize (not quite in hand) seems unwilling to actually wage peace.

Partly because we don't have a department of peace.

War is a golden cow. Peace sucks. Or at least that's the message.

Nobody in history has "won" in Afghanistan. Why do we assume we will be more successful than the Soviets?

Victory is an illusion.

Not an entirely irrelevant question: given that estimates for the length of the Vietnam War run up to 18 years, how is US involvement in Afghanistan the longest war in US history?

-Z

Campaign promises are not immune from criticism. We only have two candidates for fuck's sake.

I also didn't know whether or not to believe Obama, because you can't win the presidency without some kind of military penis pumping. You can only be against one war if you're for another one. Anything less is political suicide.

Amen.

Exactly right, Steve. Whatever else may be said about this decision, anyone who professes to be surprised was simply not paying attention.

"But it's worth noting at this point that Obama told us during the campaign that he intended to send additional servicemen and women to Afghanistan,"

It's also worth noting that he promised to do all sorts of things that he's backed away from. Funny how the kept promises always seem to be the stuff that makes the wingnut happy, and the progressives always need to learn to deal with the realities of governing.

And are you really telling me, Steve, that because I voted for the lesser of two evils in 2008, that I have to eat all the smelly cheese Rahm Emanuel decides to shovel at me without objection?

What you, Booman, Drum, and Yglesias don't seem to get is that being royally p.o.ed about being screwed isn't the worst thing that can happen. The worst thing is that people decide not to vote for people whom they feel screwed by.

To Inkadu and others, nobody is saying you can't criticize Obama's decision to send more troops to Iraq, though I would hope you listen to his speech about the decision with an open mind.

However, there have in fact, been a number of people on the left calling the decision a betrayal of Obama's supporters and for that complaint, his repeated pre-election statements of support for more troops in Afghanistan is a valid defense.

Steve, how are you calculating that Afghanistan is the longest war in American history? Even if you calculate the Viet Nam war as beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, in 1964, and ending with U.S. troop withdrawal in 1974, that's nine years, and the Afghanistan war began in late fall of 2001, which means it's only been going on for eight. And the war in Viet Nam had actually begun well before 1964. Or are you counting the Afghan war as beginning with our support of the resistance to the USSR back in the '80s?

BREAKING: Obama to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011.

For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo opened, and privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the ground that he promised to do them during the campaign?

No, but I also didn't vote for Bush knowing those things. If you voted for Obama knowing his oft-stated position re Afghanistan, don't act surprised or outraged. That's the point. See the difference? Probably not.

It's also worth noting that he promised to do all sorts of things that he's backed away from.

Like what? Or are you just making stuff up to fit with your pre-ordained conclusion that the administration is a Bush clone and failure less than one year in?

Funny how the kept promises always seem to be the stuff that makes the wingnut happy, and the progressives always need to learn to deal with the realities of governing.

That might be because some of the biggest progressive priorities can't be accomplished without going through Congress, where there are a handful of rightwing corporatist Dems who are just as obstructionist as any Repub. This requires you to think beyond "Obama bad" and blaming him for everything.

Apparently, the only promises Obama intends on keeping are ones that piss his supporters off.

You all can support him, but you have to understand that Obama is leading this party someplace a lot of us won't follow. It's not our fault if Obama can't hold the Democratic coalition together. He can't give everything to the coporatists and the war-mongers and leave nothing for the majority of the party.

Lets be blunt here, this is why Senators suck at governing. They try to please everyone with half measure rather than allowing certain factions to wing or lose battle outright. That may work in the senate, but in the electroate it makes everyone think they are constantly losing. People need clear-cut victories to keep hope, and Obama hasn't given them any.

Obama is doing what he said he'd do.

Damn, what a time for a politician that actually keeps their campaign promise.

This requires you to think beyond "Obama bad" and blaming him for everything.

The problem with this is it's too rational.

To knee-jerk non-thinkers on both the left and the right, the president is an all powerful monarch that can create change with the wave of his hand. The other two branches of government don't exist.

The difference is that the wingnuts blame congress when the president can't get something done (abolish welfare, eliminate taxes, privatize social security). The moonbats, on the other hand, seem to blame the president when the president can't get something done (healthcare reform).

But what do we expect from a society that is offended when they can't get free overnight shipping?

Right. Agree or not with the plan, Obama called Afghanistan "the good war" or similar quote. BTW Repugs are using the trick of pretending that Obama's build up is a dithering escalation instead of a quick strike (see Kyle IIRC), but of course don't let on that such a quick buildup is literally impossible.

REM that Obama was left with no good choices. If he pulls out to satisfy "the Left" and ironically, the more authentic Right (strict constructionists bothered by undeclared war and the costs - of course the Establishment Repugs couldn't care less what Ron Paul, American Conservative mag, libertarians etc. think of foreign policy), then if anything goes wrong later (it would) he will be blamed for "cut and run." That would not only be an actual possible demonstration it was even worse to pull out than to escalate, it would be electoral poison.

I don't like to accept this either, but this muddle is perhaps his only realistic option in the big scheme of things. The "surge" in Iraq did at least calm things down, and now there are fewer troops than before - we can try that too in Afghanistan. You complainers and purists, remember that - and if another Republican gets elected because of Naderite perfectionists, I don't think we'll survive a second hit.

"You all can support him, but you have to understand that Obama is leading this party someplace a lot of us won't follow."

Then be my guest, follow Sarah Palin where she wants to lead us.

Yes, I've heard that excuse about congress, Allan (q.v. my snarky reference to Drum, Yglesias & Booman, who whip that one out every time he dumps progressives over the side).

When he breaks promises that don't involve congress (executive orders, staffing, etc...), I've heard the excuse about not favoring cultural issues at the expense of major policy initiatives.

When an appointee takes a dump on progressive causes, I've heard how you can't blame the chief for everything a lower-echelon Indian does. And when it's a cabinet-level official, I've been told that the president can't micromanage.

You guys can construct as many self-serving rationalizations about why all this stuff is necessary and smart. The problem is that when you get people to vote for you by talking about "The Audacity of Hope" and "Change You Can Believe In", you don't get to tell unhappy voters that they need to dial down their expectations.

The issue here is that you guys can't name a single issue where this White House has delivered more to progressives than it promised-- or didn't back away when the heat got turned on.

It looks Obamastration is going ahead with the court terror trials ... And they did the usual nice things like extend unemployment, etc. Look at that previous post and link Steve had up, about what Obama has done so far. (But yes it is still disappointing. He needs to hit on things like the lower cap gains tax rate, to lift the FICA cap, etc.)

See also http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/30/progressives_and_obama_are_doing_better_than_we_th/index.php

Steve, don't your knees get sore from all the fluffing?

according to last night's Rachel Maddow show there are only about 50K total deployable troops, and he's reportedly sending more than 30K of them

Not to worry -- the shitty econ will continue to force poor kids into the military to be sent into the Afghan meat grinder.

Dear Steve, thanks for keeping it sane. And dispuke-o, poor kids will always choose the military, you dumb fuck.

"...the shitty econ will continue to force poor kids into the military to be sent into the Afghan meat grinder." Disputo @ 6:44 PM.
Considering the number of US troops in Afghanistan, the length of time they have spent there and the total number of casualties suffered, I don't really think that "meatgrinder" is an applicable description. The Somme, Passchendaele, the siege of Petersburg, Gettysburg, those were "meatgrinders", but hey, if you want to use unrealistic hyperbole, go for it. It works so well for the Republicans...
Oh, and about those "poor kids" being forced into the military? See my remarks about hyperbole.

It's interesting that basically everything that happens winds up eventually becoming an argument about a referendum on Barack Obama, personally. Democrats win an election for once and then for some reason decide they want to re-fight it for a year.

If we're going to take that approach, though, I think this basically says it all:

http://wonkette.com/412475/john-mccain-not-pleased-with-this-possible-end-of-war-business

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win Washington, DC | August 01, 2007
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.