Neo-Cons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over "War President"

[Nikki Stone1]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49548

POLITICS: Neo-Cons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over "War President"
By Eli Clifton

WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (IPS) - U.S. President Barack Obama's plan for a 30,000-troop surge and a troop withdrawal timeline beginning in 18 months has caught criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers. But a small group of hawkish foreign policy experts - who have lobbied the White House since August to escalate U.S. involvement in Afghanistan - are christening Obama the new "War President"... Indeed, their approval of the White House's decision to commit 30,000 troops is the culmination of a campaign led by the newly formed Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).

FPI held its first event in March, titled "Afghanistan: Planning for Success", and a second event in September - "Advancing and Defending Democracy" - which focused on counterinsurgency in combating the Taliban and al Qaeda. The newly formed group is headed up by the Weekly Standard's editor Bill Kristol; foreign policy adviser to the McCain presidential campaign Robert Kagan; and former policy adviser in the George W. Bush administration Dan Senor....


(snip)

"It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006," wrote Kagan in The Washington Post on Wednesday.

"Obama has had to make this decision with most of his presidency still ahead of him. Bush had nothing to lose. Obama could lose everything," Kagan concluded.

The theme of heralding Obama as a stoic decision-maker in the face of an administration and Congress that seek to "manage American decline" - as Kagan wrote - was also echoed by Bill Kristol in The Washington Post on Wednesday.

"By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 – after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush's, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power," wrote Kristol.

NOTE: Post #5 contains links and proof of these statements and of FPI, its members and its mission. All links available.

[gratuitous]

1. But we at DU shouldn't be upset about this

After all, it was the Kristols, Senors and Kagans who put Obama in the White House. Why shouldn't they get to call the foreign policy shots?

[Nikki Stone1]

2. +1

...

[babylonsister]

3. They did? That's major news to me. And this article is bullshit. nt

[gratuitous]

4. Are you saying they didn't?

Uh oh, I've been misinformed! :wow:

[Nikki Stone1]

6. The proof is in my post in answer to babylonsister

I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. Sorry, it's not bullshit, babylonsister. Here's the proof:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/obamas_lonely_decision.html

But now we see President Obama doing much the same thing, turning against a majority in his own party, resisting the counsel of Biden and the wise men to head for the exits from a war that they had long supported.

It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006. Obama has had to make this decision with most of his presidency still ahead of him. Bush had nothing to lose. Obama could lose everything.




AND

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/obamas_afghanistan_speech.html

Still: By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 -- after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush’s, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power.



AND

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff

[phasma ex machina]

7. Thanks for taking the time to edit Clifton's sloppy story to insert pertinent links. nt

[babylonsister]

11. Do you even know who Kagan and Kristol are??? nt

[phasma ex machina]

12. Yes, why do you ask?

My comment pertains to existential old school writers who lack the discipline to include pertinent links in their stories.

[babylonsister]

14. You don't know who the Kagans are. They are EVIL! nt

[gratuitous]

8. I'm not sure what babylonsister means by "bullshit"

It's entirely possible, though, that she means to say that the embrace of Obama by neocon warmongers is bullshit, an offense to the sensibilities of decent people everywhere.

[babylonsister]

10. Thank you. Kagan repulses me, and his reasoning vs. Obama's,

never the twain shall meet imo. It's the reasoning.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. Doesn't it bother you at all that Kagan approves of Obama's decision and

a lot of his base doesn't?

Or is faith more important than facts?

[mullard12ax7]

20. It's obvious "faith is much more important than facts" to some

War, torture, bank criminals and all other "facts" suddenly become completely acceptable to the brainwashed followers of propaganda, regardless of party.

[waiting for hope]

9. K&R - for content.

But there are those who refuse to see TPTB are behind it all. Kinda bad when the ones that were cheer leading for Bush are now chummy with Obama.

[Nikki Stone1]

15. Thanks

I wish this weren't so. It's more than disheartening.

[applegrove]

13. Neocons know 60 % of the country is for catching bin Ladin (or killing him). They

just want to take this chance to slice and dice the Democrats (not that the democrats haven't been at each other's throats all on their own). Don't expect anything but propaganda out of Kristol and Kagan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Hawks of a feather.... K&R

[leftstreet]

18. ouch

Nice one!

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

19. K&R