Here’s a repository for comments on Obama’s Afghanistan speech.
Just a couple notes before it starts:
• Vice President Biden will fan out to all three morning shows to defend the policy.
• Presidents who escalate unpopular wars typically lose ground among the American people rapidly.
The data track the average annual approval ratings of the last three presidents to find themselves enmeshed in unpopular wars. The picture is not a pretty one: Harry S. Truman lost 25 points in public approval as the Korean war progressed; Lyndon Johnson, 32 points during the Vietnam war; George W. Bush, 43 points during the war in Iraq.
• Russ Feingold and some progressive lawmakers, including Republican Walter Jones, offered a critique of the policy today.
We’re waiting on the address…
Obama leads by saying he will talk about “the strategy to bring this war to a successful conclusion.”
And then, in what is sure to be on the Daily Show tomorrow framed against a Bush quote, he goes right into 9/11.
…”Al Qaeda’s base of operation was in Afghanistan.” Emphasis on “was.”
…He sets his authority in place by citing the AUMF that passed in 2001, and the endorsements by NATO and the UN Security Council. Message to Congress: I can do what I want. (Still?)
…Will Obama mention the escape at Tora Bora while recounting the history of the Afghanistan war? Not yet…
…Obama says “the wrenching debate over Iraq is well-known and need not be repeated here,” but he essentially blames it for taking focus from Afghanistan. He mentions that we’re leaving Iraq completely by the end of 2011.
…He talks about Iraq like it’s a paradise, but it isn’t. Declaring victory and getting out, hmm, sounds like a good idea…
…The big mistake here is believing that the Taliban could overcome the entire whole of the country, which is disputed by most experts in the region. This is a regional civil war where neither side can win militarily.
…When Obama got to office, there were 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. By the end of this escalation, there will be 98,000.
…He’s taking credit for the Afghan Presidential election????
…”There’s no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban is making progress.” A nod to reality. Also that there is no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, though they’re on the Pakistan border.
…”The status quo is not sustainable.”
…Obama’s defending the thorough review of the strategy. Says there has been no delay and that he owed the American people and the troops an intensive review.
…”It is in our vital national interest to send another 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” There it is.
…A nod to more dovish tendencies by mentioning that he opposed the war in Iraq.
…Actually says the security of the US and the safety of the American people are at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “the epicenter of violent extremism and Al Qaeda.” Cites 9/11 again. Wow.
…”We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and to do that, we must increase the stability of our partners in the region.” There’s the mission creep right there. Notice the shift into bolstering regional governments.
…Stanley McChrystal has released a statement. It’s supportive, unsurprisingly.
…You can read along here.
…”We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect.” I think there are 98,000 reasons why Afghans might have trouble believing that.
…Obama is taking on a few straw man arguments, identifying a Vietnam analogy as the critique from the far left. That really isn’t the only argument. There’s the whole “Afghanistan isn’t a country and you have no regional partner.” That didn’t make the list.
…”I will work closely with Congress to address these (war) costs as we work to bring down our deficit.” That means approximately nothing.
…man, Jon Stewart’s going to have a field day matching up the surge speech from Bush on Iraq with this surge speech. They are interchangeable.
…Obama says that “we cannot count on military might alone” to defeat terrorism. He’s talking about all the different ways we can achieve security. Properly deployed, this is the best argument against an escalation in Afghanistan. Unless we’re also going into Somalia and Yemen, there are tools to keep the nation secure that have nothing to do with the military, and this President knows it.
…Don’t even talk to me about civil liberties, Mr. President of Bagram Prison Base.
…”But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades.” Yes, and I think someone should actually get to admit on television that the troops we have in 150 countries all over the globe is a problem.
I don’t know if there’s a whole lot to say. I thoroughly disagree with the policy, and I think the speech was disingenuous at key points.



16 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Thanks for the synopsis and hitting the
highlowlights.Can we have a new party now? Pretty please? Something completely opposite of Democan?
Didn’t watch, didn’t want to.
Usta love Obama speeches, but I’m past tired of being lied to, beautifully, by the “fierce advocate.”
And you’re getting this weary avoidance from a life-long, fourth generation Democrat, here.
It’s bad to have a President that is a lying sack of shit.
He spewd from His lips the same stuff the Neo Cons have been spewing to keep the wars going.
It’s Nation building from nothing to start with.
If anyone thinks the Afghans will stand up, and we’re going to leave that soon their nuts.
Rove, et al., loved the speech and the Afghan Surge. ‘Nuff said.
LINK.
Well then success is his. The neocons’ good opinion is the only one he cares about.
Disingenuous.
Heh.
Rachel Maddow did a fine job just now deconstructing Obama’s speech as a reincarnation of the Bush Doctrine: Why are we in Afghanistan? Not because Afghanistan presently threatens us, but because they might threaten us again in the future.
She also had a great graph showing the Bush growth in US troops in Afghanistan 2001-2008, and then Obama’s doubling (~35,000 to 71,000?) in March, + 30,000 more in the next few months: a startling escalation of the war in Afghanistan, because Al Qaeda harbors bad thoughts about us.
Bob in AZ
I am over the top sad and disgusted. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama was to get out of Iraq. We are not out and are even going into another equally absurd war. We need every dime to combat global warming, to pay for health care, to help the middle class have a roof over their heads—we do not need this and worse, we do not even have a dog in this fight. I am completely upset tonight. It started awhile ago when he acted like the public option wasn’t the most important part of cost containment, then he didn’t stand up for women when Stupak got his amendment through and now sounding like Bush. I do not support any of this. I feel betrayed and nauseated.
WaPo:
“Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111019644.html
100K American troops / 100 = 1000 troops for every Al-Qaeda member.
This is not a military war Al-Qaeda is fighting, it’s an economic war of attrition. And we are losing, badly.
One of the things that impressed me about Obama’s speech is that he has not given up on working with Republicans in a Centrist mode– not the faux centrism of the media, but the real centrism that can be seen mostly in the range between moderate Republican governors and the DINO senators [Ben Nelson(D-NE), Specter (R-PA), Carper (D-DE), Landrieu (D-LA), and of course
Lieberman (ID-CT)]. He hasn’t given up on that yet, despite the discipline of the Republican caucus.
BTW, it looks to me like Arlen Spector is reacting to is upcoming primary vs. Sestak and has veered to the Left. His name has been interestingly lacking from the debate about DINOs opposing Health Care Reform, which has focused instead on Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Lincoln, and ….(who?)
Bob in AZ
David, you and the comments above pretty much cover it all.
It’s all about the gas, oil, drugs and distribution routes.
Still.
Air America Flies. Again. Still.
Sigh.
Oh well, the economy and unemployment alone are gonna force huge change on us all, including the elected offals and big biz . . . there’s THAT bright side to look at. /s
Thanks for the lowlights.
Obmama turned directly to the camera and told the Afghan people we are not looking to stay but to help. Can’t blame the people of Afghanistan for not believing after we abandoned them after the Russians were driven out and then the Bush administration abandoned them when they illegally invaded Iraq.
He also encouraged the Taliban to surrender. Now why the hell would a Taliban member surrender after at least 2000 surrendered Taliban were allowed to suffocate in convoys in late 2001 and no one in the states is barely aware of this massacre.
If you have not seen this documentary about the surrendered Taliban who were massacred it is on line. The international media aired this documentary and others around the world are far more aware of this massacre than Americans. When I broght this massacre up during a PhD candidates talk at Ohio University he not only agreed that this had taken place but said that the number of deaths were much much higher 6-7 thousand. He also said this massacre had fueled the Talibans anger and hatred of the cccupying forces. Figures
Now why would any Taliban members surrender to an occupying force who allowed this to happen and then brushed it under the rug? Why?
Too bad Rachel has never touched the Convoy of Death issue. Too bad she is so damn inconsistent. Allowing many unsubstantiated claims about Iran to be repeated on her program and then repeating things like “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” Yes I heard Rachel repeat this horseshit. She needs to have Prof Juan Cole and Flynt Leverett on to talk about Iran and stop repeating and allowing lies to be repeated on her show that go unchallenged by her
No one should be surprised by this escalation. Obama did not hide his stance on Afghanistan during the campaign. He kept repeating that Afghanistan was the “right war” the “necessary war” between “hope” and “change”.
It is true one should not be surprised and I am not. It is also true he didn’t hide his stance on Afghanistan any more than he hid his stance on Iraq. As with all things, he has no stance – he just says what he thinks will get him elected/re-elected/supported. He was never against Iraq – he mentioned once at an anti-war rally in one of the most liberal areas of Chicago that it was a misguided venture and then used it for great mileage during the primaries and general – that no one called him on it … big surprise. Now, with re-election far off and history arguing that his base will vote for him anyway, he can afford to alienate them. He’s nothing more than the Chicago hack he has always been and it’s depressing that so many of you cast a vote for him.