Archive
Iraq and a Hard Place: Obama’s Afghanistan Decision
Oh, no, I’ve gone and made a terrible Middle East geography pun.
Subject: The War in Afghanistan
Ongoing conflict officially begun in October 2001 following the September 11 attacks
On December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama makes a televised speech from West Point academy declaring a 30,000 troop surge to begin in 2010. He also announces plans to begin drawing down in “eighteen months.” He estimates the operation at $30 billion.
Obama is criticized by the Left for committing more soliders to a war liberals are beginning to liken to Vietnam.
Obama is criticzed by the Right for not making this decision earlier and for drawing a timetable that “sends mixed messages” to Afghanis.
Facts: Candidate Obama ran on a platform of decreasing troops in Iraq and increasing troops in Afghanistan.
Obama states in his speech that there has been no proposal by his generals to take this action before 2010, responding preemptively to former vice president Dick Cheney’s “dithering” criticism.
According to NBC news, since taking office, Obama had already approved a troop increase from 31,800 to 71,000. This next increase will result in Obama having approved approximately 60,000 additional troops since taking office.
Links:
Wikipedia – War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)
White House – Full text of December 1, 2009 Obama speech
AP – Gates: “Severe consequences” for Afghan failure
—-
Who do you trust more? The guy who knows why he’s right or the guy who knows how he may be wrong?
My answer is unequivocally the latter.
Too much of our modern political discourse is dominated by people who know they’re right. They know every decision made by the President they personally hate is wrong. They know what the mistake is in our foreign policy. They know what the right answer is.
Everyone can’t be right. And when the two dominating opinions are at extreme polls, most people are probably wrong.
Obama could be called out on many things, but changing course on Afghanistan isn’t one of them. Those of us who were paying attention knew this would happen. So anyone who decries this is as a betrayal to those who voted for him is in ignorant denial and probably shouldn’t be trusted to provide legitimate suggestions, given their disregard for the facts.
Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so. — Michael Moore
All Obama is teaching Doves who voted for him thinking that our military interests would magically turn a 180 is that they need to clean the wax out from their ears and pay attention.
The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks. — Organizing for America, Barack Obama’s campaign homepage
Sounds like your war president was also your war candidate.
Obama, conveniently, was not in the Senate to have a voting record on Iraq in 2003. Given the national attitude and his party’s need to distinguish themselves from Dubya, he was able to rail against Iraq as a “distraction” from something most of the population was, at one time, supporting: the War on “Terror.”
Obama was against Iraq. He was never against Afghanistan. And, while the drawdown was already being worked on at the end of Bush’s term, it was Obama who announced a final timetable for withdrawal of most troops from Iraq — August 2010, a little less than a year before the planned end to the Afghanistan surge.
So, if all goes according to plan, and that’s a very big If, we’ll have effectively ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2012, right when you have to decide whether to vote for Barack again.
What were Doves expecting? For the U.S. to just drop the casserole and let it smash to 1,000 pieces? We’re setting the casserole down. It takes some time. And in the case of Afghanistan, it takes some more cooking.
Terrible military metaphors, ho!
I don’t understand how a grown man like Michael Moore can believe that the President has the only say in military operations. What was one of his chief complaints against George W. Bush again? Stop me if this sounds familiar, but wasn’t the Fahrenheit 9/11 crowd decrying Bush for not listening? Not listening to the U.N., not listening to proper intelligence, not listening to diplomats and military strategist, not listening to the people? But when Barack Obama makes a decision weighing the inputs of people who probably know a smidge more about the realities of Afghanistan than Michael Moore, he’s obviously the second coming of Dubya.
It’s also willful ignorance of the apparent true threat to U.S. secruity in the area: Pakistan. More specfically, instability in Pakistan, a nuclear power. And this is nothing new.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made Pakistan a country of paramount geostrategic importance. In a matter of days, the United States declared Pakistan a “frontline state” against Soviet aggression and offered to reopen aid and military assistance deliveries. When the Reagan administration took office in January 1981, the level of assistance increased substantially. Presidential waivers for several of the amendments were required. The initial package from the United States was for US$3.2 billion over six years, equally divided between economic and military assistance. A separate arrangement was made for the purchase of forty F-16 fighter aircraft….
….
President Bush formally lifted sanctions against India and Pakistan 22 September 2001 in a special memorandum to Secretary of State Colin Powell. The sanctions were imposed in response to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons programs and testing. Powell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” September 23 that lifting these sanctions, which had been under consideration for some time, sends an important signal that “we will stand by our friends who stand by us.”
In March 2003 President Bush lifted sanctions against Pakistan that were imposed following the 1999 bloodless coup that brought President Pervez Musharraf to power. A White House statement said President Bush decided to lift the sanctions because it will “facilitate the transition to democratic rule in Pakistan” and help in efforts to fight international terrorism. Pakistani cooperation was key to US military action against the Taleban government in neighboring Afghanistan and al-Qaida terrorists thought responsible for the September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
By December 2003 Pakistani government had launched an investigation into whether figures in Pakistan’s nuclear program may have provided nuclear-weapons technology to Iran or other countries. The US State Department said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf assured the United States more than a year earlier that any such activity had ceased. Officials were reluctant to speak about what nuclear-export activity the United States believes Pakistan was engaged in before the Bush administration took office. But officials at both the State Department and White House said the United States continued to accept at face value an assurance made in 2003 by President Musharraf that Pakistan was no longer involved in such proliferation. — Globalsecurity.org
So the Bush administration extended a courtesy to Pakistan that it wouldn’t extend to Iran or Iraq: it lifted sanctions. Now, gee, why would Mr. No Compromise ease up on a nation with a patchy history of abetting terrorism when he took such a hard line on Saddam and Ahmadenijad? Could it be because we didn’t want to piss off a nuclear power right when were committing troops into two countries?
Why it's not called the War in Pakistan.
Rachel Maddow, the Left’s less pathologically partisan Sean Hannity, clearly agrees with me that Pakistan is the real motivation behind a troop surge in Afghanistan. She said this on her show following Obama’s speech:
To the extent, though, that this war is not about some potential future threat but a real current one, like the president described tonight, a current one that—he didn‘t say it bluntly, but he meant it—one that exists in Pakistan. To the extent that our 100,000 troops in Afghanistan are there simply to backstop and contain the real war against the real threat next door in Pakistan, then tell me this—how are we fighting our war in Pakistan?
We‘re fighting it using the CIA, which effectively functions as a fifth secret branch of the U.S. military now. They even have their own Air Force. They‘re a fifth secret branch of the military now which our civilian leaders as a matter of policy do not answer for. They don‘t even bother explaining what they‘re doing….
If the real war is Pakistan and we‘re fighting this war not to prevent some threat to us in the future, not as an extension of the Bush doctrine, but rather than to respond to a real threat now, why are we fighting it with our secret military that we don‘t admit to? Why are we fighting it with our CIA?
BECAUSE YOU CAN’T INVADE A NUCLEAR POWER WITH YOUR MILITARY AND EXPECT A FAVORABLE CONSEQUENCE!
I understand the question was semi-rhetorical, but you can use some logic. The CIA exists primarily for this very reason. We can’t officially intervene in every threat to U.S. security without setting off Armageddon. And yet, without the CIA, that is also very well what we could be facing. Honestly, I don’t understand the point that Maddow was making besides saying, “Man, we’re a bunch of warmonering assholes.”
And that may be true, but completely turning a blind eye to an unstable region harboring anti-U.S. hostility doesn’t produce a protective bubble against attack.
Listen, I agree that a lot of what we’ve done with our military and with the CIA, particularly when it comes to Predator Drone attacks is despicable and inhumane. It’s not how we should be handling the situation. But I’m not going to be so presumptuous to assume that any operation in that area has to be scrapped as a result. There’s a middle ground between indiscriminately killing civilians / destabilizing nations and completely abandoning all presence in a hostile area.
Obama clearly understands the threat we’re trying to contain in this godforsaken operation.
The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them….
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
The speech itself is even titled “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Anyone who believes that we’re staying in Afghanistan simply to pick off the “less than 100” remaining al-Qaeda members is a fool (I’m looking at you, Michael).
That’s why Obama mentions his stance on nuclear disarmament. That’s the real threat. And it’s something even Doves should take into account when considering what to do with our military.
So you’ve got the Bleeding Hearts screaming at the President from the Left, but of course, you can always count on good old Uncle Dick to somehow find Obama too weak on terrorism.
Honestly, I can’t find a single substantial criticism of Obama’s troop surge plan in Dick Cheney’s response.
It amounts to “they’re calling us names and saying we did things badly, it’s not fair!”
The truth often isn’t fair to malicious incompetents, asshole.
From what I can ascertain, the Right claims that Obama should have A) accepted whatever General McChrystal said without demanding an exit strategy a-la his predecessor and B) not made the Afghani government feel “abandoned” by announcing the fact that we plan to leave in 2011.
Except we know that they’re full of shit.
Obama could have sent every single soldier he had, drafted all the liberals and minorities, and bombed the crap out of the Axis of Evil and the Right Wing would suddenly jump up and down and claim that they’re anti-War. There was never a chance of Obama making a move that wouldn’t be criticized by the Coalition for Insane TeaBagging. No matter what Obama does to try to “win” the war or save American soldiers, he’s still a black Democrat. And that’s all these people care about.
In light of this, practically none of their criticisms are worth responding to. I will, however, say this about Obama announcing the timetable:
An end date to this mess has been long overdue.
Fox News likes to pretend that the supervillain terrorists will take this as an opportunity to throw on their invisibility cloaks for 18 months while the 30,000 additional troops wander the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with their thumbs up their asses.
Man, I hope this won't start smelling bad after 18 months.
Whenever the end is in sight, your military is hopefully going to know. And here’s a news flash: If the troops know, the media will know. What the Right Wing is really saying is that Obama shouldn’t have an exit plan. Hell, remember John McCain, the candidate Doves now like to claim is exactly the same as Obama?
Sen. John McCain said he supports the build up but thinks it’s wrong to signal in advance when a troop withdrawal might start. “We don’t want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region,” the Arizona Republican said. – The Associated Press
Nah, we don’t want to sound an uncertain trumpet. Let’s make them feel better by basically committing to decades of funneling American soldiers into this conflict, without a goal in sight. This was the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. It wasn’t whether the President would wage war. It was whether the President would set up a policy to end it. McCain was perfectly content fighting in Afghanistan beyond his term. Obama is sending this message: “We can’t and won’t do this forever. We’re going to commit to securing our interests and then you’d best have your shit together, because we’re out.”
Pretty certain trumpet, if you ask me.
Now, if you’ve read all that and if you know anything about my past commentary on war, you’re thinking one of two things:
1) Phil is an Obama loyalist hypocrite who renounces his values to support the Party
2) Phil has been brainwashed into supporting war feeding off his own hatred of TeaBaggers
Not quite.
I hate this damn war. I hate all of them. I hate how we handled everything the past 8 years, including Obama’s decisions. I don’t believe you can kill every terrorist who wants to do this country harm. Not without five more popping up per martyr. I don’t believe that the ultimate answer to our security and the world’s lies in men with guns.
She Who Shall Not Be Nicknamed remarked after Obama’s speech that she didn’t think nation-building was a bad idea. Now, the connotation Obama was speaking out against implied that we’d be there to hold Afghanistan’s hand indefinitely. That would be fruitless. But she’s right that the best way to deal with terrorism is to provide people with stability of their own. Can we win the War in Afghanistan? Sure.
Just not with bombs.
As it currently stands, neither you nor I can stand up to the military industrial complex. It’s real and it’s hard at work. The United States has never known a more efficient way of dealing with a threat than intimidation through force. So, given the realities of our world and our nation, conventional war will continue. I don’t know a soul that actually believes we’ll make this 18-month timeline. It’s not realistic, to be honest. Somehow, War will find a way to perservere.
But we can put an end to it.
I support the President’s plan, within the context of the way our country works. If this is the only way we know how to protect ourselves, then it’s something we have to adapt to. But we all know that when the populace finally pressures the Complex to bring our soldiers home that the real enemy won’t have disappeared. And that’s where we have to step in.
If the free market is as beneficial to society as capitalists claim, it should acknowledge that there is an opportunity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and the entire Middle East. People need help. People need jobs. They need education. And in the areas where we’ve destroyed everything they have, they need infrastructure. This will put a stop to terrorism, this will make American safer.
And if Obama’s half as smart as he makes himself out to be, this is what we will commit to after drawing the troops down.
Think of this Afghan child as the embodiment of "hope" and "change" that we were harping on last year.
“As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.”
The mission of rebuilding what we helped to destroy rather than continuing our rampage out of fear?
I can’t think of anything more worthy.
Dick Cheney, Sorostitutes, Bros, and Hipsters
My most boring class is in the morning and is directly followed by my hardest class. However, my favorite class is at the end, so I guess it makes up for it. Today we talked about how in Postmodern society, multinational capitalism exploits and destroys. Alllllriiiiight.
As a senior, I feel that I keep seeing the same people pop up in my classes, so I’ve compiled a list of the five archetypes people are guaranteed to see at a large public university classroom.
But, first…
In the News
Continuing the CIA probe news, dear old Dick Cheney is running his mouth again.
“The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions.”
Patriots torture.
I’d ask if Dick Cheney knows about the documents Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald has posted, but I assume he ordered them all himself.
You thought waterboarding was bad? Actions during interrogations included:
– staging an execution to intimidate a detainee
– revving a power drill near a hooded and naked detainee
– telling a detainee “we’re going to kill your children” and “we could get your mother in here”
– using force to put pressure on a detainee’s cartoid artery on his neck
– blowing smoke in a detainee’s face (although the interrogator didn’t even smoke?)
So, following Dick Cheney’s instructions…
…thanks for completely discrediting U.S. antiterrorism efforts.
Assholes.
—-
The 5 People in your College Class
Compiled from personal experience.
The Sorority ‘Tard
Why she’s in your class:
– your major would be useless in a post-apocalyptic society (me)
– she needs to fulfill some LAME university requirement, OMG
– she’s lost
What she does:
– talk to her sister about how she hopes this year’s pledge class will DD more often
– establish how she’s not looking for drama this semester
– text
Quote:
“OMG, did you read Katie’s text to Sarah about Jessica’s Facebook message to Stacy quoting the IM calling her a fat slut?”
The Bro
Why he’s in your class:
– Science, Math or Engineering: He wants to graduate/ get a job, Liberal Arts: he’s looking for chicks
– he failed/dropped it four times before
– it’s got the word “Brewing” in it
What he does:
– Browse ESPN.com
– complains about this hard computer game to his fellow Bro
– sleep
Quote:
“Shit, man, I used to be so good at Breast Pong. To be a freshman again…”
The Asian Nerd
Why he’s in your class:
– he likes to learn
– his adviser, room mate, and parents told him to
– to ruin the curve
What he does:
– pay attention
– take notes
– download J-Pop
Quote:
“No, man, you’ve got it wrong, I’m borderline retarded. My A in Advanced Structural Calculus Decartes Historical Analysis was almost an A-.”
The Hipster Brigade
Why they’re in your class:
– the professor is liberal
– it’s conveniently located close to their favorite local coffee shop
– it’s an English course
What they do:
– compose music in their head
– wear ironic beanies and hats
– twitch anxiously from nicotine withdrawal
Quote:
“How was your summer working for the man? I managed to live off lawn mowing and pot dealing, drinking my coffee and contributing nothing substantial to society.”
The Perfect Girl
Why she’s in your class:
– she has the same interests and hobbies as you do
– she’s smart, driven, and committed to getting an education so she can be a positive force in society
– she’s the T.A.
What she does:
– wear flattering clothing that isn’t slutty
– doze off when the professor is boring, look adorably attentive when the professor is interesting
– occasionally surf the web in search of music you would like, movies you want to see, and books you’ve been meaning to read
Quote:
“Nice to meet you, I’m—[phone ring]–oh, one sec, that’s my boyfriend.”
Addendum:
The boyfriend is The Bro.
—-
I know I’ve committed to a lot of promises about the blog…working on it. Working on it. Will try to have a substantial Fact & Philos this weekend.
Quote of the Day
“Life is an escalator. You can move forward or backward; you cannot remain still.” – Patricia Russell-McCloud
Obama, Cheney, National Security, and American Values
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems.
This morning before heading to work, Peirce and I watched Obama make his speech on national security.
For my part, I’ve been somewhat uncomfortable with the President’s perspective on national security, which at times seems eerily similar to the “dominance at all costs” approach that has become the country’s M.O. in the past six years. While I can understand the rationale behind beefing up operations in Afghanistan and classifying certain information, I typically prefer to be erred on the side of peace and full disclosure. So, suspicious that Obama was merely being puppetted by the military-industrial complex, I was in need of a strong justification for more defense spending, the seemingly dragging process of trying terror suspects, and the use of executive privileges such as “state secrets.”
After the speech, I’m still not sure if Obama is simply doing his part to advance war and pandering to hawks. But I am once again confident that he can justify our actions to the international community, restore eloquence to the presidency, and bring up solid arguments for some of the left’s complaints.
The centrist approach is logical and reasonable. Obama acknowledges that terror threats exist and that some most likely emanate from some of the individuals currently held at Guantanamo. He also believes that the Bush administration’s handling of the matter wasn’t “sustainable.” Without a justifiable legal framework or the internatinal community’s favor, we were standing on very thin ice when it came to the legitimacy of our terror prosecution. Ultimately, this didn’t make us any safer. It certainly didn’t win the hearts and minds of the people being recruited by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It didn’t gain us the support of allies in our military operations. And it set a dangerous precedent for the government’s power to detain even its own citizens.
Essentially, there was no check on these emerging powers of the executive. And that goes against what we stand for.
Obama went on to show that he understood the complexity of the national security issues. He knew that there were different categories of Guantanamo prisoners. He was aware that the states secret privilege was controversial and problematic. I’m sure every President has some understanding of the controversies before him, but few tackle them directly. Obama was confident enough to acknowledge the criticisms, state the opposition and make his argument. He practically singled out Fox News, Cheney, Limbaugh, and conservatives.
Most of all, I agreed with his anti-fear mongering rhetoric. For too long, those in power have tired to maintain that power by raising the specter of death, destruction, and terror. In short, letting terrorism permeate our lives, robbing us of our peace. Something Osama bin Laden must have been having wet dreams about when he was planning 9/11. And no one is better at reminding us that we are constantly threatened than Dick Cheney.
Cheney’s subsequent speech relied on one question to justify the “may-sures” taken while he was vice president.
Do you remember September 11th?
Yes, Mr. Cheney, I do. I think we all do. You get an A in recent American history, but what about the threats that we face today? What about the millions of displaced Iraqis who don’t have a positive words to say about the United States? What about the instability among the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a nuclear state? What about Muslim immigrants becoming unsympathetic to their adopted country? What can you say to that?
“On September 11th, we lost thousands of American lives…”
I see.
Cheney makes the argument that Obama takes half-measures when he refuses to be absolutist in his pursuit of terrorists. This is a fallacy. Embracing a philosophy of transparency to your people, of legitimacy in your methods, and of a distribution of responsibility among all three branches of government does not immediately weaken your efforts to gain and use intelligence, to stop threats to the homeland or to use the military to promote national security. But it does make your efforts sustainable.
Dick Cheney did his best to expand the powers of the executive in the name of naitonal security…his school of thought was rejected by the American public. The country’s founding ideals do not promote that much power concentrated in one entity. We had the foresign to recognize that absolute power corrupts…and when the corruption prevented the executive branch from promoting the general welfare because it was too busy going after its defined enemies.
Obama is arguing for the restoration of a balance of power. That’s what the United States is built to do. That should be an executive’s priority. To make sure the entire country can promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense at all times, in all climates, because the public should know that their government is legitimate.
I will always be a skeptic. Obama talks well and that’s refreshing given his predecessor. But this first year has shown him that he faces harsh realities when he tries to put his rhetoric into effect. And it seems like very often, he’s drawn back from his earlier visions of a liberal revolution in the country. And that’s okay…but he cannot back down from the ideals he expressed today at the National Archives. That is America. There are a lot of powerful people who agree with Cheney…and there’s a lot of pressure on Obama to downplay the importance of national security. For now, I’m reassured that he’s got a good head on his shoulders that is fully aware of reality and avoids extremism.
But a lot can happen. Let’s wait and see.
Good speech today, Obama.
Blog Catalog
Phil the Pill Archive 
Recent Comments