President Obama held a final war council meeting before the holidays last night, and it looked from the timing that it could be decisive. After the meeting, Robert Gibbs released a statement saying “After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days.”
That decision? Most accounts see an increase of 34,000 troops in the near term.
President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said [...]
As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
That timeline means that the last installment of new troops wouldn’t arrive in Afghanistan until a year from now. We’re talking about an escalation in slow motion. However, the total 34,000 number could be lower than the actual commitment. Hillary Clinton will be dispatched to NATO to try and wring some more troops out of their member countries. And the advisers, consultants, trainers and contractors may not be included in this announcement. I don’t think you can put an exact number on this escalation, at least not yet.
There’s also talk of a Friedman Unit:
The administration’s plan contains “off-ramps,” points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or “begin looking very quickly at exiting” the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
“We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that’s it,” the U.S. defense official said.
I don’t think there was any thought to “off-ramps” a couple months ago, or an exit strategy of any kind.
Cost also seemed to be a major concern in last night’s meeting, which included OMB Director Peter Orszag. Could that mean that the war surtax will get a fresh look?
The President plans to meet with Nancy Pelosi today, presumably to discuss the decision. NPR reports that the decision could be announced in a speech to the public on Dec. 1, with Gen. McChrystal and US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry to testify to Congress later that week.




127 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
And Friedman is STILL wrong.
Obama has been sucked in by the Generals. The off ramp nonsense is just window dressing. The 2012 election will be about how the Rethugs can “win” the war in Afghanistan and Obama is likely to be a one term president.
How sad for the Nation.
Hey Guys–This is mcClatchy we’re talking about here.
OT-did you see over at rawstory that obama is still using Xe/McChrystal’s murderers?
So much for Santayana and the lessons of history. I guess no one in the White House has read Gordon Goldstein’s book “Lessons in Disaster” and our descent into the hell that was Viet Nam for so many of us and our country is going to be repeated in Afghanistan.
This president is a big disappointment and appears to be an empty sack in the cojones department.
Time to end Bush’s 3rd term.
DDay, is there any information on what those exit ramps look like? I thought part of the point of the delay was Obama wanted an exit strategy. So? How and when will we get out?
Obama is so predictable you could tell the time by him. The parallels between Afghanistan and the healthcare debate are striking. He embarks on a nearly endless process but when he does eventually arrive at a conclusion it is the one you knew he would go for from the beginning.
In Afghanistan, this means giving McChrystal everything he wants without quite admitting that is what he is doing.
In healthcare, it means dealing the public option down to nothing or next to nothing, slashing Medicare, enforcing individual mandates in exchange for vague promises from the insurance, drug, and medical industries to limit their cost increases (limits which they are already busily violating).
If I can see this, then I wonder why so many other progressives are acting as if they don’t. In particular, I wonder why Jane continues this empty fight for a public option. The PO never had much substance to begin with and has been repeatedly trashed since. Obama, as ever, is right on schedule.
some of the more cynical among us find it wildly coincidental that the so called off ramps make their appearance just as the mid term races heat up -
Could that mean that the war surtax will get a fresh look?
Of course not. The rich have already decided they will pay NOTHING, not in taxes, not in blood.
just another disappointment amongst many.
what exactly has changed that i can believe in since January?
No, no, and no. This is Obama. This is who he is.
“Exit ramps” are just another way of saying “triggers”. And as we all know triggers never get pulled. We have been in Afghanistan 8 years. This was the exit ramp, the time to begin to exit. Instead Obama is escalating. In light of that, he is just treating us like rubes (again) with all this exit talk. As always, look at what Obama does, not what he says.
Told all my friends and family that this guy was an empty suit and took alot of abuse for it. At least Hillary was truthful when it came to being a hawk. What we got here is a non leader either on the war or Health Care so folks sit out the elections of 2010 and 2012
The exit ramps look like the LA freeway system in the movie 2012.
I agree with Former Fed about Obama being “Sucked In ” by the Generals. Generals know only one thing….War. It is obvious that History has been lost on all that want to continue this Futile endeavor,IT IS FUTILE !
Just ask Mikail Gorbechev, who was Smart enough to bring his troops home after the debacle they encountered in Afghanistan. I really thought that Obama was intelligent enough to recognize the futility of the situation and make A decision, while difficult ploitically,the right one to bring our people HOME and stop the needless bloodshed of Americans. Remember one thing, our soldiers ARE NOT FIGHTING AND DYING FOR AMERICA,THEY ARE FIGHTING AND DYING FOR A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN. One more thing, if we want to cut down on Terrorism, get our militry OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S COUNTRIES….THEY DON’T WANT US THERE ! THAT IS THE PRIME REASON FOR TERRORISM …..AMERICANS OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY.
One last thing, Remember what President Eisenhower said:BEWARE OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX……WAR = MONEY, If there was no money in making war, we wouldn’t have Wars.
Joe DeMarco
WW 2 Veteran
We don’t HAVE 34,000 extra troops to throw at Afghanistan, even for a quick surge.
Obama, like Hillary (and Bill), has Civilian Guilt Syndrome: They feel inadequate for not having served in the military, so they become total patsies for any guy with stars on his shoulders.
It’s who Hillary is as well — a guilt-ridden civilian.
Biden, who was listening to the intel community and not McChrystal or Kilcullen, was fighting for pullback.
It’s time to get behind Dave Obey [D-WI]‘s efforts to pass a “war surtax.”
All those budget hawks who scream about health care being “unaffordable” can try to explain why pouring more dollars down the Afghanistan rathole should be exempt from oversight.
Off-ramps = opt outs? People, JUST. SAY. NO.
Even if it is a slow surge (which seems an oxymoron), where are these troops going to come from? With all the news of soldiers wondering why they are there, what civilian will want to join? Has anyone heard the word draft lately? Scares the poop out of me.
The biggest irony: The NATO chief, the Danish guy Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who along with McChrystal and Kilcullen has been pushing this the hardest, has a lot less committment to it — Denmark has maybe 750 troops in Afghanistan right now.
The Decider only pretended to serve.
Don’t give Obama a pass on this. He. is. not. being. sucked. in. He is marching in on his own. The war is unpopular with the American people. There are plenty of Democrats in Congress even (shock, gasp) who are opposed to it. Obama could waltz away from this war in a second if he wanted to. But he doesn’t. Afghanistan is Obama’s war. He wasn’t sold a bill of goods. He bought them with his eyes wide open.
Obama must be disappointing even his most ardent supporters. He looks more and more like W every day.
I can only say that he was one hell of a salesman and we bought the Brooklyn Bridge.
The good news is that the more these jerks persue this nonsense, the sooner the inevitable collapse will occur – no soft landings with policies to try to mitigate these horrors. We are heading full steam ahead off the cliff.
So true.
Obama campaigned on health care reform, then found out that would be hard so he changed his mind to health insurance reform. And now we’ll get nothing.
Obama campaigned on transparency and is more secretive than Bush was. FISA overturn? Too hard.
Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo and stopping renditions, well, that’s a tough call, better stay the course.
End the war? How about just one of them? No, the generals wouldn’t like that, and it would be tough to push back against them.
Hope for Change!
Bloody goddamn morons. I have no more tolerance for alleged political “reality.” What’s wrong is WRONG, period, and we should have the courage to do the right thing.
We have no business in Afghanistan. There will never be a “victory.” Thousands of Americans and many more locals will die needlessly. It will cost trillions. It is insane.
Good point (you and clb2 at 9 as well). Just because there are exit ramps, does not mean we will exit. I drive by a lot of them on my way home every night.
This, along with Scahill’s article, suggests that the corporate interests will not allow an exit. They won’t permit anything that will adversely affect their bottom line.
I don’t think Obama has succumbed to the influence of the generals, his heart lies with corporations, whether on Wall St. or in health care or in defense.
I absolutely agree and I can tell you the Generals know how to play it.
The only thing the Generals respect is strength. When Cheney fired Dugan (full disclosure – Dugan and I were AWC classmates), all the Generals bitched and moaned, but they did it privately and they got in line.
The Brits were kicked out, the Russians were kicked out and we will be kicked out. The question is how many more lives and billions will be sacrificed before we get smart. 9 years–if you can’t win it in a decade, then when? Besides Al-Qaeda is not even there any more. Terrorists are everywhere, like VISA. Do we plan to occupy every country were they are plotting against us? We already occupy three–Iraq, Afghanistan and the US! Americans need our money here-no more billions for Iraq and Afghanistan!
You shouldn’t be scared of a draft. That’s the last thing the military wants is people forced to serve who don’t want to. Doesn’t make for a good soldier.
sadly, I disagree with you as to motivation – per my comment above, I believe it is all an archly cynical game revolving around electoral politics for these people period
less troops than McChrystal was calling for, but enough that says “commitment” to the bobbleheads and to blunt GOP memes of cut n run and a handy dandy off ramp
everyone is assuming facts not in evidence. there are considerations with securing pakistan’s nuclear arsonal that have to be counted in the exit strategy. perhaps we can give the president just a little latitude for all the things we don’t know yet.
I hope you are right. Because, it would be over my dead body.
Obama is making the same warmongering mistake that was made to get us into the Vietnam War and it will cost him dearly!! This war along with Iraq was started for the personal amusement of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney on lies and propaganda! Now Obama will escalate it based on the same tired lies and propaganda! We the people brought the Vietnam War to and end and it looks like it is up to the people to bring this useless war to an end!! This nation cannot afford to protect the Military Industrial Complex any longer it is time to shut it down once and for all!!! we can start by VOTING OUT ALL INCUMBENTS STARTING WITH OBAMA AND HAVE RECALL ELECTIONS UNTIL REAL AMERICANS ARE IN OFFICE!!! We have killed enough young men and women FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!! It is time too look after our own country and let the others take care of them selves!!! WHEN DOES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE COME FIRST IN THE EYES OF OUR GOVERNMENT??????????????????
This is a bad thing, about to get worse. It seems that when you get to the upper levels of the military all you want to do is wage war. It justifies your existence. I have always heard that men define themselves by their job (women don’t) and I guess if you’re a soldier you fight. Disaster.
oh, and because my mood calls for a stupid and empty gesture –
Off Ramps Are At Hand !
I can’t tell whose head is photo shopped there.
Bush’s disastrous policies created messes so big that Obama can’t just waive a wand and make them go away.
In early March 2009, Gates said that Obama’s more analytical than Bush:
And after working on getting a plan for Afghanistan right, stories about him deciding that all the plans presented to him were unacceptable were reported round the world. For example, Barack Obama demands exit strategy in Afghanistan (Telegraph, 11/12/09):
You’re focusing on the numbers of troops, while he’s focusing on getting the best possible plan in place.
In a diary about Obama telling Cheney to go fuck himself at a press conferene in Tokyo after Cheney said he was “dithering,” I wrote:
Nice touch cbl2 : ) Unless I am mistaken, you replaced Orszag with Kissinger. Well done — full steam ahead, damn the cost!
oh, and I thought it was my best yet :(
let’s just say there are two, count ‘em, two Nobel Peace Prize winners in that pic
By a terrible twist of fate our Military higher ranking Officers have been taken over by extreme Right Wing evangelical types who think hating others and fighting wars is glorifying God! They are twisted and WRONG!!! Peace and good works glorify God!! These people must be forced out of the military and the warmongers in government must be voted out at the ballot box and by recall elections!!! There will never be peace until the people of this nation demand it!!!!
You did a fine job. The image was just small, but I got it now. You are having fun, aren’t you. Thanks.
It is my firm belief that the Nation needs a draft. An all volunteer military is a very dangerous thing. A draft at least spreads the exposure of what the military is doing and being asked to do to a greater part of the Nation.
There will never be peace until the people of this nation pay the true price, the blood from their veins or the lucre in their wallet.
That is a cop out. If Obama had a case to make he could have made it anytime the last 9 months. Yes, this has been going on since February. OTOH we have discussed the pros and cons of Afghanistan all during this time. Now you would pull this incredibly lame “well maybe there is something we don’t know” out of thin air. There are always things we don’t know. That is no argument at all. Obama has had plenty of time to make any case he wished and raise any issues he thought needed raising. And there are many things we do know, more than enough to realize that we have no policy for Afghanistan and so no reason to be there.
How would that work? They would have to draft men and women, right? I don’t see Americans sitting still for drafting women, do you?
keeps me out of the pool halls and saloons
Why not?
Obama wants to be another “War President.” How long before he begins strutting around in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier?
This simply is wrong. You can not have a workable strategy without a policy underlying it. We have no Afghan policy. We stumbled into the country and put an army there. That is not a policy. That was a mistake. Simply perpetuating the mistake for 8 years does not turn it into a policy. All of this talk about “best possible plan” is horseshit. It is like saying that Obama’s dithering on healthcare was so he could get the best possible plan there too.
What I want to hear from Obama is this:
1. What is the mission in Afganistan?
2. What is the new strategy for achieving that mission? Remember, in his
report, General McChrystal stated that a new strategy was needed.
3. How does this escalation accomplish that strategy?
and 4. How will it be financed?
“It is like saying that Obama’s dithering on healthcare was so he could get the best possible plan there too.”
And he has, too. It’s just not the best possible plan for the American people.
It’s being reported that the Christain fundamentalist reactionary group the “Family” is involved in anti-gay legislation in Rhwanda that would sentence repeat gay “offenders” to death.
I don’t think the nation would sit still for a draft now even if women were not involved. It’s one thing if your son or daughter volunteers – although you may not want them to – but it’s something else entirely when your son or daughter is forced to go to war. That’s when the wars will stop.
Rangel was right way back then…
would it really ;)
I think Americans still prefer their women to stay in the kitchen. I could be wrong. We see that there are a lot of folks clinging to Old Views, and I think there would be outrage over people’s Little Girls going to war.
Their loss is our gain.
Obama said during the campaign that he intended to fight in Afghanistan and wanted to get AQ out of Pakistan.
What’s the surprise here?
I thought he was. But we can remember how he got blasted.
The “Little Girls” already are at war.
I’m as unhappy about what Bush/Cheney did as you are.
True.
I simply don’t agree with your assertion that that’s what Obama’s doing in regard to Afghanistan.
again, you have no idea what the situation is with pakistan. it’s not a “cop out” to say that 10 months is not enough time to draw any conclusions about this president’s policy decisions. not everyone who doesn’t agree with a given interpretation of events is copping out.
personally, i want to withdraw from afghanistan altogether, but, at this point, i believe that extremists staging a coup and co-opting pakistan’s nuclear arsonal is a far greater concern that nation building in afghanistan. i also think there’s a good likelihood that this “dithering” has to do with negotiations with the paks as to how we can all protect against that eventuality.
so before you start trash talk listen to the, perhaps valid, points others might have to make.
When meeting with advisors on Afghanistan NPR refers to them as his “War Council.” Permanent war for the Empire.
Sorry if it’s been mentioned, but the “off-ramp” sounds an awful lot like the “trigger” in the health care debate.
btw – zero mention of our “unreliable partner” Karzai
and does this mean Ambassador Eikenberry will contradict himself before Congress or will he be there to serve the POTUS’s hear-from-everyone-in-the-room credentials ??
Rangel was right. It’s totally undemocratic for only the middle class and the poor to fight wars. But I have to say honestly, I don’t want a draft – I have an almost 20 year old grandson and I don’t want him to go to war. I can’t even stand to think about it.
there will be no draft. congress knows that would be political suicide. even the mention will end political careers.
I realize there are female soldiers, I’m not stupid. But, I doubt there are quite as many women serving as men.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with you people on this one. Let’s just get bin Laden’s head and get out?
no less than Sy Hersh last week swatted down the we-have-to-be-concerned-about-Pakistan’s-nukes bs. the nuke control wonks are busy picking apart his sourcing but wont disagree with his conclusions
Not one more day
Not one more dollar
Not one more death
OK. Instead of chanting No, No, NO. We DFH’s need to start chanting Pay-Go, Pay-Go, Pay-Go. It’s is time and Rep. Obey has created the political space for us to become fiscal scolds for a while.
The article says that he will be pulling troops from 101st Airborne, 10th Mountain Division, and a brigade of Marines. That must amount to 23,000 or so combat troops plus support. Add to that 7000 headquarters staff (how many will they pull from the Pentagon?) for NATO-Kandahar and 4000 trainers. The troops are marginally doable, based on previous press articles.
It is the funding that now should be an issue — $1 million per troop deployed — $34 billion a year. Where is that going to come from? Is the Pentagon going to reprogram $34 billion from boondoggles to actual combat? Are we going to have a war surtax? And while we are talking about having a surtax, why don’t we set the tax so as to pay off the Iraq and Afghanistan debt in 10 years? And hold Obama to his promise not to increase taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year?
We must make it clear that using this surge as an excuse to cut domestic programs or “entitlements” is going to get some major pushback.
And the question that Obama better answer when he announces it is how is this going to be different than just same old-same old. And what constitutes the conditions of one of those “off ramp” (God, I hate military cutesy jargon”)? And what diplomatic initiatives are they going to pursue that will actually allow us to exit? Ever. If he can answer that clearly, I think that he will lose the American people this time around because the Republicans not going to get his back but seek to portray even this as weakness. And the majority of the people are going to see another quagmire.
also remember that congressional rangel’s comments about instituting a draft were really a back handed slap at the fact that these wars were being fought by people who had few other options for getting out of difficult living situations, ie poverty, lack of prospects for the future, and that if young people were going to be deployed to the desert to die that reinstituting the draft would better distribute the burden of deployment to everyone’s children. not merely those who didn’t have anything else to do.
rangel is a new york congressmen and he was advocating his constituency.
Rahm’s interference in the health care debate has not been for the good (I suppose that’s part of Obama’s “dithering” on health care that Hugh was talking about @ 50), but I will credit Obama with working his ass off around the world to fix big problems that 8 years of Bush/Cheney created.
By July 2009, even Faux ‘news’ had to grudgingly admit it:
The Fox friends weren’t sharp enough to know that they were in fact complimenting him, but he does deserve some credit rather than be referred to as serving Bush’s third term.
okay, clearly that is significant to you so, i didn’t read it so what were his conclusions? what does he think should be done about that. should we assume that he is the last word on the subject?
So what is the policy?
President Obama deserves a lot more credit than that. Thanks for saying so. It is just too easy to get into the denigrating rhetoric and there is too much at stake to simply keep coming up with excuses not to give a rat’s ass.
What you are doing is substituting Pakistan for Afghanistan. We have no Afghanistan policy so without missing a beat you start talking about Pakistan. They are not the same. Loose nukes are an even greater concern to the Indians than to us. And they would likely do something about it before we would. Which is also why the Pakistanis are not going to allow any of their nukes to go loose. And a coup in Pakistan? They have them every decade or so. And no it isn’t the Taliban but the military which pulls them off.
You continue to have no argument so you sniff at the tone of the conversation. Get real.
so tell, do you do anything but argue?
At this point, Obama has pretty much boxed himself into trying to sustain clusterfuck #1.
He said in his campaigning, that he would shift the emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan. Then he said that Afghanistan was “a war of necessity”. Then he signed off on Petraeus’ choice of Stanley McChrystal, a dyed-in-the-wool warbot, who’s been farting in Obama’s face since he took the position.
He needed to keep shut about “winning” in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s not possible, and he surely knew it.
Instead, to the american people, he should have characterized everything to do with the shitmires, as a salvage operation as he tried to extract us with the least violent and chaotic result, while reminding all and sundry that he INHERITED these miserable Hobson’s Choices.
Now, they’re both well on the way to becoming HIS wars, and with the Kumbayah-inducing election in Iraq receding further over the horizon with every passing day, at some point in his first (and perhaps only, term…) he’s going to have to be indulging in the same rubberizing of time, itself while (as someone noted upthread) he peddles Friedman units like they were hot dogs.
The question is, will we progressives who have not yet totally abandoned him, begin speaking the language of bushCo, as WE try to convince voters that there’s light at the end of the tunnel?
I’m thinking, not. But that just may be subjectivity.
Like what? That old secrecy canard lost its shelf life years ago. These peoples (neo MIC) evil intentions are not that difficult to determine.
What makes you think our bombing, droning, spreading troops, spooks and private militia and their money and weapons (remember we now want to train and arm hundreds of thousands of Afghani’s who despise us) throughout Pakistan while invading and occupying neighboring countries is less of a threat or actually securing Pakistan, their nukes, or anything else for that matter?
We’ll find out soon enough. Quoting DDay’s post above:
Btw, my comment @ 76 is also to you.
Obama campaigned on escalation in Afghanistan! so why all this griping from his supporters? get back in formation, Soldiers!
this is the one campaign promise he is keeping – squandering more billions in the Graveyard of Empires – and still all this grumbling about exit ramps?
If you didn’t support escalation in Afghanistan and expansion into Pakistan you didn’t have to vote for him.
Personally, I’m kind of interested in what we DO know…which is that Afghanistan is not going to become our user-friendly-to-the-Fortune-500 51st state.
The questions about Pakistan’s nukes are certainly worth asking, but as we ask, we should remember that it was George Bush and his jingoes who exponentially jacked up this problem, when they radicalized so many Pakis with their policies and with their drone attacks. It’s got to be infuriating to be living your life in rural areas such as Waziristan, knowing that you’re being watched from above, and that at any moment, you can be converted to Alpo by the technology of another country, which is currently the only government in the world occupying two Islamic countries.
I think our best choice is the bandaid-on-the-hairy-leg option. 90 days and we are GONE. Period. Exclamation point.
And anyone who thinks that we should stay to make it all better, before we leave, should have to post why they think that staying will DO that. And, of course, then they’re going to sound like Condoleeza Rice/Donald Rumsfeld…if the shoe fits, wear it.
Who the fuck is doing all the leaking?
It’s definitely someone in the meetings and pro-escalation. The Guardian is using McClatchy’s story which gives up most of the ‘new plan’s’ details.
My money’s on Rahm Emanuel. Keeping the media focused on Afghanistan has let Israel’s continued bombings of Gaza and new settlements escape any critique, especially by McClatchy writers.
you insist so it must be true. you absolutely know all the contingencies and must by definition be right. all is evil. i defer. have a nice day, y’all. namaste
I wonder if gayle has perused The List, Hugh?
Driveby, so no linky
Specifically, what can Obama do to lessen the chance that fundamentalist Pakistanis will gain control over Pakistan’s nukes?
I’m really interested in hearing a putative solution to this, and I’ll be that Obama would be, too.
He’s already increased the drone attacks.
He sent Hillary Clinton there to scold the Pakis for not doing more to fight the waronterrr in Pakistan, which was created by George Bush, etc.
That she got her ass handed to her, especially as she refused to discuss the drone attacks, should have been predicted. More and more Pakis are angry at being reduced to the role of hookers, in exchange for our “foreign aid” lucre, and another squadron of F-16′s.
He’s on the verge of a surge, in Afghanistan, which will probably have the corollary of more attacks on the Taliban refuges in Pakistan.
He picked McChrystal, who is clearly willing to blow up any number of innocents, as long as he can get a few Taliban in the process.
Way I see it, we were at the point of diminishing returns for our “investment” in Pakistan, with the attendant increase in violence, before Obama came to office. The really lousy fact is, that he’s not making things better; he’s making things worse.
You hide behind secrecy.. please give us any indication what we have done and intend to do has anything to do with our or Pakistan or Afghanistan peoples peace of mind, much less security.
Every contingency plan we have witnessed since Viet Nam has been dreadfully dishonest, immoral, and just plain wrong. The whole McCrhystal coin/no coin/ but definitely a coin toss has always failed too.
We were sucker punched on 9-11 by a small band of nut cases.. and to this day we are terrorizing more than a hundred million innocent people in several nations… against our best security interests. Long ago I stopped worrying about anyone but our own inability to wreak havoc on so many while being looted by our own MIC and seeing folks like you cheer.
Treasure is burning.. flesh is too… and it’s all because of us these days.
Wish I was a kossak, I could justify murder as long as it came with a D.
[modnote: please don't go there]
But we do have a policy Hugh, a 60 year old policy called ‘cold war’ and it still applies within the context of an east / west rift.
Few things are more obscure to folks like you and I than how the variables of war are accummulated, collated and then acted upon at the highest reaches of government.
And that is because billions and billions and billions of dollars are at stake in our perpetual war economy. The pressure from Wall Street and the terrorist industrial complex is considerably more intense than from what’s left of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Try to imagine a 48 year old Barack Obama who has virtually no experience with the military but is firmly encamped in the mentality of the ruling class….i.e. the Council on Foreign Relations…making these decisions.
How many here actually believe it is about democracy for the Afghani people?
And; fresh off the DellNewsPage griddle:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091124/D9C61JVG1.html ….
as the indecent dialogue continues, without anyone pointing out the turd-in-the-chiffon-congeal reality, that if our military could somehow make inert and inoperable, every Kalashnikov; every RPG; every explosive, now in Afghanistan AND Pakistan, it would be a matter of a few months before it was all replaced, and good to go.
Likewise, if they could kill every Muslim that harbors in his or her breast, a hatred of us, I think the time it would take for their places to be filled, would be astoundingly short.
And George, just to keep it simple and responsive, I do not believe that it’s about democracy for the Afghan people.
And anyone who is dishonest enough to say that is probably already working for the CIA, or KBR.
I have gone from disapointment to utter disgust. The election of 2008 is just another reminder of the power of personality and image manipulation.
Obama’s handlers and media team did a superb job convincing progressives that Obama shared our concerns and would follow through on promises made. I think it’s pretty obvious now that Obama is not who we thought he was. Obama never had any intention of delivering true health care reform. From his stance on states secrets to no prosecutions for torturers he has done nothing to differentiate himself from Bush. Now he intends to go down the same disastrous path that Johnson took in Vietnam.
I agree with others, Obama is an extremely poor leader. He seems intent on taking the middle path regardless of the issue. Progressives put Obama over the top in 2008. I can’t imagine the same number of progressives who voted for Obama in 2008 will even bother turning out at the polls in 2012. I know I won’t. Maybe what this country needs is a wake up call in the form of another republican administration that screws things so badly that the American people finally stand up and make viable a third party candidate.
I don’t think history will be kind to Obama. Instead of exercising a mandate for change he chose to maintain the status quo.
Assuming the repubs don’t nominate Palin we will see the republicans back in the oval office in 2012.
Or, is their unwitting tool.
[[ Signaling he's decided on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to "finish the job" on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region. ]]
All Hail the Flightsuit.
You really should read Glenn today:
[[ Whenever Bush followers would run out of arguments to defend their leader's actions, that's the same rationale they'd resort to: he knows secret things that you don't know and therefore we should trust him. ]]
Policy is not like some super secret stealth whatsit that can be hidden until its formal rollout. Policy is, as I have said about a million times on this site, what you have after answering the following 3 questions:
1. What do we want?
2. What can we do?
3. What are we willing to live with?
There are many things we want but far fewer that we can actually do. At the moment, it looks like Obama is intent on nation building. This is in direct conflict with question 2. We can help other nations to develop, but we can not force them, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan, to build a state. That would take generations and we simply don’t have the resources. And even the resources we do have could be much better used here at home or to help other countries. The core truth in all these situations is that the Afghans live there and we don’t. Whether it is next year or 10 years from now, we will leave and the Afghans will still be there. You can not “win” against that fact. Even in a much more developed nation like Iraq, we have run into the limitations of nation building and the plain and simple fact that they will be there long after we are gone. Yes, we have security concerns about Afghanistan. We have them about many countries, but curiously we invade and occupy few of these. Finally, what are we willing to live with? al Qaeda doesn’t need Afghanistan anymore. Neither do we. We could leave entirely or leave a few troops in the region to take care of what security concerns we have. Afghanistan would still be a mess but it has been a mess for most of its history. We want to shore up Pakistan. It would be wiser to do so economically than militarily. It is the economy not any Taliban insurgency that could turn it into a failed state.
This is what we should be talking about, instead of these cartoon discussions of what shade of lipstick Obama should put on this pig, or if he has a secret shade that none of us know about.
Another reason for not leaving soon (but not for escalation) is to see where Pakistan is headed. I would bet part of the strategy is to slowly surround the Taliban from the East and West-I don’t know if Pakistan will do their part but, having said that, I don’t think we should leave completely, just yet.
The Vietnam/LBJ comparisons will be flying hard and fast if he announces an escalation but we better be careful making these comparisons.
I’m surprised by the number of comments here of folks who seem genuinely surprised by Obama’s actions so far. I always suspected he was middle-of-the road. Thou shalt remember the first two rules of politics and politicians: 1. Get elected/re-elected 2. don’t forget rule no. 1.
I’m not being cynical-just realistic.
Announce an immeadiate activation of the draft then see what pro-escalation minds are changed.
He is exactly who I thought he was. A politician that will do and say anything, anything to be POTUS.
Hugh is correct IMO in several aspects.
The first is that Obama along with anyone else in a position of power has to be judged by what they do not by some reliance on their motives, which are by definition unknowable and irrelevant.
We know that he is a true believer in a bastard notion of markets where public money is transferred to failing private interests. We also know that he believes the US to be without blame for the reprisals that it receives by offended people who sustain death and destruction by the US.
His actions are consistent with these open stated beliefs. The problem is that these beliefs are wrong and they have been borne out to be wrong.
This bastard notion of free markets has led to ruin of the economy for the public and gain by the favored private firms. The idea that US aggresion can be levied out with impunity is borne out to be wrong, once again.
The Afghans say they want the US out. They say they want to reach a peaceful accomodation with the Taliban who are themselves Afghans. They do not like being killed by US bombs. Even Al Qaeda has put forth a proposal to withold actions for ten years in return for US cessation of violence against Muslim countries.
In short by holding these beliefs and acting on them, Obama is leading the country into complete ruin. And there is absolutely no need to give him the benefit of any doubt by resorting to notions about his hidden motives. Just as his motives can be pure they can also be wrong headed, it’s his actions that count.
Bingo!!!
Oh, and be sure to make it virtually deferment [i.e. chicken hawk] proof.
You appear to be among those who insist on confusing Obama with the assholes who invaded Afghanistan in the first place and then proceeded to fuck it all up.
Not sure you’re right to say that “it looks like Obama is intent on nation building.” That was the entire point of the Eikenberry leak, as the Washington Post put it:
That leak appears to have been prelude to Obama’s plan, which will be announced next week and will stress that we’re going to have a much narrower set of goals and that we’re leaving sooner rather than later. In other words, we’ll be leaving a whole hell of a lot smarter than the way Bush/Cheney took us in and dithered about and made things words for seven years.
If your biggest worry is that we’re there on a nation-building mission and that we’re going to be there forever, I think you’ll be very pleasantly surprised by what Obama’s going to announce next week.
I agree with everything except the last resigned attitude. Another GOP administration can not be allowed to happen it would be too costly in terms of suffering and there may well be no ability to recover.
We need to take matters into our own hands and organize and act collectively. But we must act. From taking money out of Banks that are too big to fail into community banks collectively, or working to oust selectively congressmen like Reid and Lncoln and challenging Obama in ’12 by promoting people like Sherrod Brown.
We as progressives need to be stirred into action now and demonstrate a show of strength. There simply is no other way bring about change.
Sheesh! Obama is going to get us out quicker and smarter by pouring in more troops. The illogic of that is staggering.
Obama did not orchestrate the Eikenberry leak. Just because Eikenberry pointed out that nation building is a non-starter doesn’t mean that Obama and company aren’t going to try it anyway. That has been the way the whole debate has gone. I am sure they will throw in some BS about benchmarks (it should be fun to see what they call them) but this whole COIN shtik is all about nation building.
ChuckinDenton@102;
You in Denton, N.C.? The reason I’m askin’ is, there’s a big bluegrass festival up there, and I’m wondering what the date is.
Thanks, Sorry to go OT.
Since the Eikenberry leak, the debate has shifted from a debate about troops numbers to a debate between those who want to rush in w/o a decent plan (Dick Cheney and the neocons) and those who want to achieve clear goals according to a well-thought-out plan with clearly identified exits (Obama and company).
Honestly, before you start calling me an idiot, we’ll have to agree to disagree and, unfortunately, wait and see what happens next week going forward.
gamd521, well, we’ve got Blanche Lincoln pissing and moaning. :o)
And Jane did a GREAT job on her, this morning. Took her about 20 seconds to flay the hide off her. :o)
Knoxville@110; I’m sorry, I missed the clearly identified exits. Could you re-indentify those? And, I may disagree with you, but I promise not to call you an idiot. :o)
If Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is part of this, (I think it must be), thank the great one, Ronald Reagan.
Seymour Hersh,in the New Yorker:
=D Gratias!
There were no clearly identified exits – there was no plan at all for far too long.
My point has only been that we need to avoid knee-jerk and/or visceral reactions before Obama has had an opportunity to make his case. He’s worked hard enough on this to deserve a hearing next week. And I don’t think that any reaction can be based only on the numbers of troops he’s planning on sending alone, so long as his plan includes clear goals and clearly marked exits. In other words, so long as Obama does his job so that our troops can finish theirs, I’m not going to oppose him.
However, if his plan falls short or if it quickly turns out once his plan goes into effect that he’s full of shit, then I will be here calling him out on it, standing right next to you, just as angry, and very much opposing him over this huge failure of leadership.
Obama didn’t start this nonsense and, unfortunately, Bush/Cheney had a long time to fuck it all up. I’ll support his efforts to fix it so long as that’s what he’s doing.
I do have concerns about people on the Left appearing to have knee-jerk and/or visceral reactions because A) such reactions appear not to be thought out any more carefully than were Cheney’s actions taking us into war, and B) when such reactions are expressed as an extreme, they tend to drive people off to the other extreme.
Knoxville, wait a minute now. You said that Obama and company wanted to achieve clear goals according to a well-thought out plan with clearly identified exits.
And yet, you can’t cite any plan that they have. And they’re not citing any, either, that I’ve heard. I mean, the bullshit about “freedom and democracy” was bullshit coming from Bush, and it’s bullshit coming from Obama.
But let’s talk about what you think can be gained by putting another 35,000 of our troops into Afghanistan.
And whatever we…decide…the question at the end is, can and will the outrageously corrupt Kharzai government (or any other government, for that matter…) be able to sustain any stability that’s gained from increasing the occupation forces, after they leave?
And if you think that SOME government will, can you tell us why you think that?
WADR, all I’m hearing from you is your support of yet another faith-based
escalation, and we’ve too many of those already, it seems to me.
Is there something you know that I don’t, that is leading you to that?
seriously, thanks for doing that. it is fascinating and important info.
still, and just let me finish the thought, y’all…we know that india and pakistan are at odds over their nukes. my understanding is that, while the delivery systems are unsophisticated — they won’t be sending missiles to manhattan — the potential for extremists to score loose materials for “suitcase” bombs is there.
as long as the “state” controls the materials they have nothing to gain by threatening anybody. but the state in pakistan is unstable. i really suspect that a great deal of our continued presence there will have to do with being in proximity to act in the event of a coup.
we all know there are all kinds of people with interests in a war state, but i think our president is holding his nose — just like the rest of us — and dealing with what is in front of him. a pile of steaming shit.
What the fuck do Bill and Hillary have to do with this? Or their psychobabble CGS nonsense? This is on Obama, don’t bullshit.
Funny thing is, when Bush was saying we’ll stay in Iraq until the Iraqis can step up, the same people laughed in his face who now think we should stay in Afghanistan until, apparently, the Afghans step up. Oh, and mumble mumble Pakistan.
My view is he just doesn’t want to lose in his first term. The economy may not have recovered by 2012, and that’s going to hurt his chances of re-election. He is going to sign a health insurance bill, so that’s going to be spinnable as the second coming of FDR but FDR won his war. Withdraw now, like he should, and he faces two years of the Republicans yelling that he lost a war Bush was winning. He just doesn’t want it to go downhill. The policy is “get more troops in to try to patch it up until we can find some way to claim we won and get out”. SOP for America’s wars these days.
Gayle, could you explain some ways that in your view the continued American presence in Afghanistan is promoting the stability of the Pakistani state? Are you aware of the view that the war in Afghanistan has contributed to tension in Pakistan’s northwest and radicalised elements of Pakistani society?
Same question for Gayle as for Knoxville:
What is Obama going to do that is going to make things better in either Afghanistan or Pakistan? And if you can’t come up with any, then maybe you shouldn’t be asking us to do what, collectively, we should NOT have done for George Bush, years ago.
(I enjoy hearing progressives talk like Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheyney…:o) )
BTW, gang; the argument(s) we’re having on this thread? Wait about 6-8 months, and then watch the fur fly. :o) or, :o(
i am aware of a lot of things but i am finished with this conversation. have a good evening. namaste
Oh, hell. We all know that when we leave either, or both, clusterfucks, what’s left is not going to be corporate-friendly to amurka’s big bidnesses. It’s also likely to become more violent than if we’d tied up most of our military, and that $4 billion a week, by staying there and keeping the lid on.
I would have more respect for the people who want Obama to sustain our part in this misery, if they’d just come out and say:
“We can’t leave because the shit will hit the fan, and not only that, but that factoid isn’t going to change no matter HOW long we stay, and the shit MIGHT hit the fan if we DO stay.”
Which view should be followed shortly by re-thinking their desire to hang on, for even a year.
I hope McChrystal resigns over Obama’s inaction, the bullshit off-ramps and the glacial pace of troop commitments. Then this pathetic “presidency” would be tanked once and for all.
How about Obama should have fired his ass for presuming to try to make policies that belong in the hands of the president?
Much better-deserved unemployment for McChrystal. :o)
Do you actually read what is in these postings?? Or do you just put forth some nonsense that has nothing to do with what is being discussed.