Do people here really expect Obama's policy in Afghanistan

[27inCali]

to be as inept as Bushes?

I don't. Obama has done a lot of smart things that at first didn't look so smart to most people. He's done a lot to earn my trust that whatever he is doing, a ton of thought went into it, and that the long term consequences were always kept in mind.

I think there are humanitarian arguments for not just leaving quick and sloppy, but taking a year or so to rebuild some basic infrastructure, train cops and create a new power-sharing agreement between the tribal leaders that will lessen the negative effects of the corrupt central gov. Not doing any of these things practically invites the bad guys to make a come back, which would be a disaster for the Afghan people and eventually for us too/

it's very easy to say "just leave" and feel like that is the right thing. But that's way too easy to be the right thing. Life has always taught me that the right thing to do is usually incredibly fucking hard and full of painfully complex nuances.

if you don't agree with me, I don't think you are nuts, this is a complicated issue, we all want the suffering to stop, we disagree about the best way to do it, but Obama has done a lot of good so far for this country, I'm pretty sure he's doing it this way for a lot of good, well thought out reasons.

I hope people listen to him tonight with an open mind -he might just surprise them.

[YOY]

1. So. You think it can be "won". What praytell is a "win"? Define it please.

I am waiting for a good definition. Many of us are.

Once you have one...I think we should start placing bets on it.

I'm pretty fired up for some serious 'nut up or shut up.'

[dionysus]

4. i'm not in favor of staying there, but i guess i could define a "win" as being to leave the place

without having the taliban immediately come back and slaughter a bunch of people.

now, i don't know if this can be achieved, even with more troops. but if we did leave and a bloodbath ensued, the critics here would blame obama for that as well. it's a no win situation.

[YOY]

5. If the current government cannot be empowered to keep the nutters out of control...

then the nutters have themselves a hell-on-earth of their very own again.

If someone wants to fix it let China send a wave of troops with no concern for human rights or nation building there to wipe them out.

[27inCali]

36. I'm sure wiping everyone out

is the humane answer..............

[dflprincess]

19. Obama is looking to "work with" the Taliban

not run them out of the country. This extravaganza has nothing to do with getting rid of the Taliban.

[freddie mertz]

23. Slippery slope re "the critics here would blame Obama"

I am sorry but I can't accept this (or any) potential "political" problem with some "domestic critics" as even a partial justification for expanding this war.

And to be fair, I don't think that is what Obama himself is thinking about right now.

When his would-be defenders fall into that trap, making the argument based on potential future "PR" issues, that is where I start to lose respect for them.

It's a slippery slope, and reminds me of Nixon's phoney talk about "peace with honor."

[dionysus]

26. what i clearly mean is, people will complain what he does either way.

[freddie mertz]

29. That's when you need a clear moral and ethical compass

I think I expected more from him than this, let alone the staging with the troops as props, a la "he who shall not be named."

[dionysus]

34. but people on both sides of the compass will believe they are right

the people that want out now believe they are right
the people that think we owe it to the afghans to stabilize the place before we leave think they're right.

i'm not even for the increase but i can easily understand how people can support the action there without being "warmongers" or cheerleading for death.

if the people who want out right now realize that it's quite possible a major slaughter is going to happen if we left immediately, that's fine. but it's hard to claim a moral high ground that way. That's pretty much saying you don't give a crap how many people the taliban would kill in the aftermath because they are not americans.

[Egnever]

31. What do you think Obama is thinking about?

Just curious. Surely you dont think he is just thinking about how many people he can get killed do you? Surely you think his rejecting the first four plans put in front of him indicate a little more thought about it than just Lets bomb us some brown people.

You seem to be indicating he is thinking only of escalating death and destruction with no thoughts whatsoever to the costs or the consequences. Is that really what you believe?

[The Straight Story]

28. We did win

We took out the leaders and their army. Not sure why we are still there :shrug:

[27inCali]

35. not having a massive blood bath

in Afghanistan because we left a power vacuum, not seeing a drastic rise in terrorist attacks around the world etc especially here in the US. Radical nutjobs not taking over Pakistan and using their nukes against us or other nations.

I know it's hard to prove negatives but these seems like important things to worry about avoiding.

[YOY]

43. That 'bloodbath' is unavoidable...in 3...6...9...whatever years

Now if you want to bet some money...I'm game if you can put a number on the years.

[Ignis]

42. You want mission objectives defined BEFORE we surge?

That's just unreasonable!

"We'll tell you when the war is over, son."

[Vincardog]

2. Right you are. We can't leave until we have the drug routes firmly established and under acceptable

control.

[icee2]

16. Yessir. CIA needs $ from drug ops for their own ops. nt

[phantom power]

3. It isn't about who's in charge.

Wars of occupation are bad juju. Putting the smart guy in charge does not change that.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

17. Your graphic pretty clearly steps over a line. Enjoy your outrage, typing away on DU.

[LooseWilly]

22. I'd say the graphic is challenging, and forces one to consider an argument/assertion.

Just having it isn't agreement, any more than looking at it is agreement.

And, the sad truth is that there are arguments to be made that it is justified. The question, I suppose, is will those arguments become less valid over time... or more valid?

[RKP5637]

10. How I remember this with LBJ. He sunk his 2nd term presidency chance on this one. n/t

[Better Believe It]

6. You want more coherent and effective imperial wars of conquest?

[dionysus]

8. straw man. you have it.

[27inCali]

41. I don't think anyone here takes you seriously anymore

except the other handful of people here who hate anything and everything Obama does.

[Oregone]

9. Obama's policy will *sound* better, sure. But the war effort alone might be inept by nature

Seriously, what can Obama not do now that he can all of a sudden do with 30K extra troops? The number is arbitrary and political in itself. He probably isn't going to see his victorious win with anything less than 400K troops. Thats a commitment he simply isn't willing or able to make right now. So in the meantime, its a political gesture, paired with more bodies to shoot at, a symbolic change in direction, and a nice speech to sell it.

[dflprincess]

21. Yes he'll sound better

but he'll be singing the same song we heard from LBJ, Nixon and both Bushes. I didn't buy it then, I not buying it now.

If the U.S. couldn't achieve whatever it's "goals" are in Afghanistan with the troops that are already there (including the extra 17,000 Obama already sent) we aren't going to be able to do it with an extra 30K or 400K.

[27inCali]

38. I don't think we are even trying to win anymore

I think we are trying to leave without leaving it worse than we found it.

[notesdev]

11. As long as there remains no clear objective

absofuckinglutely yes

You can't sprinkle a little Obama on a disaster and magically make it better, life just doesn't work that way.

If there's a practical difference between the latest spin-job and throwing one's arms up into the air and saying "I have absolutely no idea what to do here, so let's throw in a few more troops and see what happens", I can't spot it.

Saying we'll be there until 2017 is awfully convenient, as Obama would end a theoretical second term in January of that year and thus could not be held accountable for a failure to hold to that promise.

[AVID]

12. k&r

[cowcommander]

13. Then I suggest you start praying if you're religious

Obama's gonna need all the help he can get if he wants to succeed. Because if he doesn't, he is not going to be re-elected.

[TheWraith]

14. Yes they do, because they're invested in the idea of Obama-as-Bush.

A great many people here are just massively tied to the idea of Obama being an evil conservative like Bush, because they don't know what to do if they're not bashing the government.

[27inCali]

40. one of the most insightful comments

I've read here in a while./

[Individualist]

15. You're attempting to defend the indefensible.

[anonymous171]

18. Yes. Obama is not a god. He cannot turn shit into gold. nt

[Warpy]

20. I know people with kids there

and their kids say there has been a 180 degree turnaround in policy. What was compartmentalized and completely inept under Stupid has been streamlined with a clear chain of command and a defined purpose on the ground.

When Stupid was in office, all they knew was that they were getting shot at and their job was to shoot back.

It will still probably fail, everybody fails in Afghanistan. However, we might leave buildings instead of rubble and that might weaken support for the next bin Laden.

That's an improvement.

[Egnever]

32. I suspect todays anouncement

will further that turn around.

Thanks for posting that though

[Cleita]

24. I hope the President has an ace up his sleeve, because from what I

understand right now, the "central" government's authority extends to the borders of Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is tribal ruled by various chieftains. We were never at war with a nation, so there is no war to win there, just a daily battles here and there with an ever changing list of enemies. If our goal was to get Osama, since there is circumstantial evidence that he is dead, it seems we should be winding down operations to leave. Instead the search for Osama should be done by Interpol not our military and his organization should be regarded as international terrorists. We can't keep invading nations to run down terrorists. Did we invade countries in South America to chase down Che Guevarra and his gang? No we didn't. It would have been stupid. Yet, we had a stupid President who was busy doing photo ops instead of making sure his security chief, Condileeza Rice was tracking these terrorist cells, which we knew about and who had attacked us before. I guess she was too busy shopping to go swat flies when warned that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack.

President Obama was stuck with these wars built on lies and incompetence on the part of a criminal and stupid administration, who should never have been allowed in power to begin with. I would hope that some day we get someone in Washington who has the courage to investigate all these people, including the Supreme Court justices who stole the election for the worst President we have ever had in this country. They need to all be put under oath, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, General Frank, Rice, and the Supremes involved and we need to get the truth about how and why we got into these wars from their mouths and then they need to be indicted for treason and war crimes and put in prison.

I hope that the escalation of troops is to stabilize the various tribal regions, to identify the real leaders and I hope it's followed with some carrots to help these people and the leaders they acknowledge to rebuild their infrastructure so that those war traumatized people can build a future for their children if not themselves. We need to be gone, for our sake as well as theirs.

[FSogol]

25. The minute we leave, the Taliban will return. Taking some steps to prevent

that will help us in the future. I trust the administration to do the right thing in the long term.

[Triana]

27. it already is. n/t

[27inCali]

39. I'm sure Micheal Jackson

would have pulled out.

[Egnever]

30. Yes a large portion of them do.

[GeorgeGist]

33. Offensive War is not a policy ...

it's a crime.

[treestar]

37. Rec's for sentence one alone!

The level of ineptitude is gone!

[ShortnFiery]

44. Yes, because it's just what the MIC has ordered President Obama to announce.

Every day our troops OCCUPY those two Muslim nations Americans are LESS SAFE.

It's our OCCUPATION of those countries that makes them HATE US.

This is so WRONG and it is for GEOPOLITICS and NOT for the benefit of American Citizens.