How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan

[kpete]

Source: New York Times

How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan

..................

How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month, he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war. Just a month earlier, he had mentioned to them his visits to wounded soldiers at the Army hospital in Washington. “I don’t want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years,” he said then.

The economic cost was troubling him as well after he received a private budget memo estimating that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?pagewanted=all

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. K&R

[old mark]

2. Rec. Thanks. nt

[rosesaylavee]

3. Good read.

Thanks for posting.

[Iowa]

4. Interesting article. Obama, as described in that article, reminds me of my brother-in-law...

My brother-in-law is a nice guy - and a very smart guy. The problem is, he analyzes everything to death... he's a perfectionist. In fact, he analyzes the details so exhaustively that he almost always misses the big picture. The end result is that every project he starts ends up a cluster-fuck. You go to his house and he has 50 jobs half-done and in various stages of disarray. He botches the ten-thousand-dollar decisions because he's too busy torturing himself over every 5 cent decision. In the end he spends more money, has more headaches, and has a half-ass result. In fact, his projects usually never get done at all by the time they move to another house, where they start the whole process over again.

We are in for a major cluster-fuck in Afghanistan, in health-care "reform", and in just about every other initiative this guy decides to undertake. We nominated the wrong guy.

[Posteritatis]

5. What we really need is wanton recklessness. (nt)

[bkozumplik]

13. um, thats what we got

deliberation first, or sending our a report that there was deliberation, then making the wantonly reckless decision, is what we have.
healh care
war
fiscal policy
rule of law
transparency
lobbyist power
leading the party effectively
using/losing historic opportuinty of having the repubs down and out.

all a clusterfuck, But hey, at least he is deliberating about things before he fucks up. I suppose thats a change from the Bush years, although the end effect isnt exactly Hope and Change. It just more clusterfuck.
Being smart is useless if you can't apply it to useful ends.

[Iowa]

18. That's what we have now - recklessness - except it's not wanton, it's deliberate.

See... you're missing the point entirely. My brother-in-law plans his multiple fuck-ups in excruciating, agonizing detail. Just like Obama. But just about everything my brother-in-law undertakes is either a complete cluster-fuck, a cobbled together piece of shit, or a project that is never actually finished. Just like Obama. Both are smart guys. Both are hard workers. Both spend a lot of time planning. But both are fuck-ups who can never seem to accomplish a damned thing that's truly done well.

Even if Obama was guided by principles grounded in the common good (which he isn't, IMO), he'd still be a screw up. He's a good speech-giver, for sure, but he has demonstrated very few extraordinary skills beyond that. Worse, he has demonstrated some fatal flaws... he can't see through the minutiae and on through to the big picture, he is doggedly determined to please his enemies (to the point of being almost "needy"), and he is a corporatist.

What you're describing by using the term "wanton recklessness" is Bush, who was the worst president in history. What I'm describing is almost the opposite.

[sattahipdeep]

22. It's a setup baby. How do you tell a predator from a protector?

The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

A neo-conservative of the highest order Frederick Kagan
Kagan is an influential member of the Project for the New American Century.

Support the President
Beyond the squabbling and behind the mission.
by Frederick W. Kagan and William Kristol

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/307lxxjy.asp

So we say: Support the troops. Support the mission. Support the president.

:crazy:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. I say lets un-invade Afghanistan and all the other stans and Aqs

let them have their countries back.

[swilton]

6. You're brother-in-law's behavior

reminds me of a Russian proverb that seems to some extent applicable to the predicament as you describe it......

"perfection is the enemy of good enough"


Whether the cause is analyzing it to death - or any other number of explanations - I agree with you that we are in a world of hurt on the eocnomy, health care and yes the at large influence of the Military industrial complex.

Maybe this is too simplistic, but I just think the electorate was just too hungry after eight years of Bush. Obama became everything to everyone....his speeches were long on eloquence and short on specifics.

But I don't think the fault is totally on the man we elected. Part of the blame should go to the Democratic Party and its leaders. I mean after all, they enabled Bush for eight years - and it wasn't just after September 11, 2001. They went right along hook line and sinker never questioning the phony election of 2000. :hi:

[JDPriestly]

9. Which candidate should we have nominated?

[clixtox]

11. Dennis Kucinich! N/T

[Posteritatis]

16. I suppose 538 Republican electoral votes would be interesting.. (nt)

[clixtox]

21. That's the spirit!

The fact that he is one of the few politicians willing to state the truth about the corporate pigs and suborned politicians who are running this asylum for the uber-rich is certainly a surefire way to lose every state.

The question has to be why?

Why are courageous, truth-telling patriots such as Kucinich and Ralph Nader demonized and trivialized?

Is it because they look like regular people and not Hollywood creations?

It definitely isn't because they can't speak effectively in public.

It obviously isn't because they are mistaken on the crucial issues.

There is only one reason progressive politicians have to face these artificial impediments liberally saturating the media and inculcated into too many peoples perspectives.

This supposed unsuitability for a leadership role has become a manufactured part of the "common wisdom" and is a "red-herring" always brought up in discussions as absolute reality.

The ruling elites, and their minions in control of the apparatus of both political parties, are justifiably afraid, truly terrified, of Kucinich's progressive message getting traction.

Unfortunately, as some posters, even here on DU, clearly indicate, they are willing, if not compelled, to reinforce this meme and, in their own pernicious, ignorant way, perpetuate the status quo.

That's the spirit!

Perhaps I misread the post by Posteritatis and he was predicting that the Kucinich platform and his campaign would resonate with the voters such that Kucinich would sweep the Electoral College!

That would be sweet!

[Iowa]

17. In retrospect, Kucinich. But what we really need is a new party that isn't corporate owned.

[jpak]

30. The lefty-teabagger anti-Democrat Party Party?

The anti-Obama lefty-teabagger Party Party that will alienate the African-American Democratic base?

The one that will get a RW-teabagger elected president?

That party?

Fuck that

[Iowa]

32. Here comes the pom-pom squad. I wondered when you'd show up.

Just three brief comments:

First, stop smearing the African-American base. We're all Americans, so nix the "African-American" label. And it's damned insulting to suggest that an entire group will vote according to race despite the corporatist ideology of the candidate. Progressives of all races can spot a con-job when they see one.

Second, if you aren't fed up with the Democratic party, you aren't progressive. Your way of thinking is about a decade behind the times and would keep the corps/MIC in power forever. Fortunately, the rubes who are willing to let the corporatists rule without opposition are dwindling in numbers.

[w4rma]

14. I blame the problem on Wall Street. (nt)

[jpak]

29. "We nominated the wrong guy."

boo hoo hoo

:cry:

[Bigmack]

7. I wonder... has he read anything .....

about how LBJ agonized about the war and the casualties? He used to wait for the figures to come in at night.

And then there is the economic parallels.... LBJ said there would be enough money for "guns and butter". Turns out there wasn't.

"I knew from the start if i left a woman i really loved -- the great society -- in order to fight that bitch of a war in vietnam then i would lose everything at home. my hopes my dreams."

If Obama leaves the rebuilding of this country to chase a phantom in Afghanistan, he'll lose everything.

I knew from the start if i left a woman i really loved -- the great society -- in order to fight that bitch of a war in vietnam then i would lose everything at home. my hopes my dreams."

If Obama leaves the rebuilding of this country to chase a phantom in Vietghanistan, he'll lose everything.


Edit... changed Afghanistan to Vietghanistan..

[TomCADem]

8. I Think The WaPo Article Is More Comprehensive and Better Sourced

I think the WaPo article provides a better chronology of the development of the strategy. Interesting to see the decision making process, and how the strategy drove troop levels, rather than the other way around. What is key is the General Shinseki experience.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR2009120501376.html?hpid=topnews

[medeak]

20. thanks for link n/t

[izquierdista]

10. "pushed to the left"

He should have asked a real leftist, like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich for advice then, not Gen. Warhardon.

[Posteritatis]

15. Uh, he wasn't talking about political ideology there. (nt)

[izquierdista]

27. He should have been

Much to our collective detriment.

[bkozumplik]

12. what a bunch of crap

Evidently he wasn't "haunted" enough. The facts of the conflict aren't so complicated they can't be evaluated by anyone with a brain, and he made the wrong decision.
I hope all the dead american AND Afghan haunt him for the rest of his miserable life.

I thought his guy was "smart".
I think he just talks well.

[Iowa]

19. +1

I think he's smart (as in IQ/academic smart). But when it's all said and done, yeah, he's an idiot. A good speech-giver, but a miserable failure as president.

[Frank Booth]

23. I think most of it is lack of experience, and naivete.

Obama's not like Dubya, who had a life-long record of failure. This job is really the first thing Obama's failed at, though of course it's tougher than any previous job.

I think (hope) Obama still has the potential to be a good president, though it might be his second term before it's realized -- if he gets there. It's really too bad Obama didn't have a couple terms as Senator under his belt before he got elected. It would have toughened him up, and helped him realize that the Republicans are never going to cooperate with a Democratic president and that many so-called Dems can't be trusted as well. Unfortunately, being young and inexperienced, he latched on to the DLC power structure, thinking their experience would help. If he never gets out from under their influence, his presidency will be very bad.

[Iowa]

26. I think the bottom line is this:

When it comes to the things that matter most, Obama just isn't on our side. We messed up and elected a Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

January 2013... hopefully then the disastrous 12 year reign of the Bush/Cheney/Obama administration will finally be over.

[jpak]

31. what a stupid post

Simple solutions to complex problems was what Reagan was all about - not Obama

Obama deliberated long and hard before making this decision.

try again

[guruoo]

24. July 20th, 2008: Obama spells out plans for Afghanistan in CBS interview...

Oh snap!

(CBS) Senator Barack Obama spent his first day in Afghanistan yesterday visiting the troops, talking to soldiers,
and speaking with their commanders. Today he met privately with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

After talking to both sides, his assessment is that the situation in Afghanistan is both precarious and urgent.
He said that the U.S. has to start planning to put more troops in Afghanistan now.

The following is a transcript of an exclusive interview with the Democratic presidential candidate, who told CBS
News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan that U.S. troop levels have to increase.

Obama: "For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he said.
"I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities.
But military alone is not going to be enough."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml


July 23, 2008

Obama interview from Afghanistan:redeploy Iraq troops,
Afghan/Pakistan is central front war on terror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0WOFrEgRu4

[fasttense]

28. I think part of the problem is that President Obama is NOT a fighter, he is a compromiser. n/t

[EFerrari]

33. Obama's agony in the garden by Peter Baker

who is now on the list.