Why Are Folks Pretending The Only Component Is Military?

[jberryhill]

Did everyone just snooze out when Mr. Obama described the civil components of the Afghan approach?

The point seemed to be to establish sufficient security to nurture a civil society initiative that had shown promise before the Bush Administration ran off to Iraq.

Did I hear a different speech from the one heard by those yammering on about a "surge"?

Because I heard something different.

[phleshdef]

1. They were listening for the unrealistic bullshit that they wanted to hear.

Anything else was ignored.

[Hansel]

31. +1

[BeFree]

2. Yeah!!

And he thinks that just because the military has been a complete and utter failure for 7 years he's now gonna make 'em shape up and make peace by putting more military in there. How can he fail? He is Obama, ya know.

And didn't you just love the way he blasted Bush policies?

Oh! happy days!!

[Cha]

7. You're not sounding very rational..

read the speech again, please.

[BeFree]

11. Well, then

Obama wasn't being rational, because what I wrote is is pretty much his policy. Except for slamming Bush. I just threw that in there.

[jberryhill]

12. There was a very sharp criticism of Bush's policies, and of Cheney's yammering

...I can't see how you didn't hear that.

He took it all the way back to our abandonment of Afghanistan on a non-military basis after the Soviet withdrawal - which is where the story really begins.

[BeFree]

14. Did he call out Bush and Cheney by name?

I didn't listen to the whole thing.

So that's why I just threw that in there. But if you say that Obama is calling out Bushco and laying the blame directly on them for this fiasco, then that's a change.

But, nope, Obama's gonna let them go free, betcha.

[jberryhill]

18. "I didn't listen to the whole thing."

Well that much is obvious.

In order to translate this into juvenile "calling out" language, with which you seem most comfortable, you may need to strain to remember who was president since 2001:

-----------


Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

...

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops.

....

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.

...

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.


-----

I'm sorry that he didn't say, "Neener neener, Bush and Cheney fucked this thing up," but that's not his style, I suppose.

Reading between the lines, I can hear it, though.

If you need help figuring out who ran in there half-cocked like a lone cowboy, ignored the situation for years, refused to act in concert with the international community, and handed out goodies to corrupt cronies, etc., do let me know.

[BeFree]

20. You're good

You can hear between the lines?

So, I am right, he didn't name names. But reading between the lines he does blame the military. And so what does dear leader propose? More military.

And no. I don't need to be reminded of who f'd all this up. It would just be better if dear leader called them out and prosecuted the bastards, don't you think? Why not?

Oh, he did say:
"We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."
Is he talking about Bush and Cheney here? Maybe Halliburton and KBR?
You can hear between the lines, so tell us, who exactly is going to be held accountable for 7 years of screw-ups?

[jberryhill]

21. "if dear leader called them out and prosecuted the bastards"

Yeah, that would be a very effective means of addressing the situation in Afghanistan.

So, like, your blockbuster plan toward some sort of conclusion to the situation in Afghanistan is to put Bush and Cheney in jail.

Hey, I'd love to see that happen too, but I don't see the connection between settling that score and anything that might be at all relevant to seeking stability in Afghanistan.

So that's what you wanted this speech to the cadets to be about - Obama holding up a picture of Bush and Cheney and saying - "Go git 'em."

Ummmm.... that is a foreign policy, how?

And no, I can't "hear between the lines", but I do know who was responsible for bollixing up the situation in the manner outlined by Obama.

You really expect the presidency to consist of four years of "Boy, that last guy was an asshole!"

[BeFree]

22. Accountability

Obama said:

"We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."

And I agree with that. So what will he do? And if he won't do that, why should I believe anything else he says?

Imagine him telling the world that the previous administration was a bunch of screwups. And he recognizes the mistakes and won't allow the same to happen under his watch. The world would cheer!!

[jberryhill]

23. That's exactly what he did

My goodness, have you ever had conversations with anyone above the age of ten?

Not everyone is as dense as that.

There is a huge difference between sitting around and fixing blame, and saying what you intend to do - with an emphasis on areas in which the other guy went horrifically off the rails.

We got rid of Bush. The world cheered already. Now they want to see some leadership on what this guy intends to DO. Everyone except the 20% nitwit contingent knows how we got here.

This is also going to come as a surprise to you, but we do not have some sort of dictatorship in which the President of the US decides whom is going to be prosecuted for what. That was the entire scumball situation that Bush created with his politicization of the DoJ. The answer to that is not to simply having the "guy you like" locking up arbitrarily designated enemy combatants.

[BeFree]

24. Typical

You are willing to go over there and kill thousands more, but you don't want your hands dirty. Even go so far as to make excuses for why there will be no real accountability for our criminals but, by gawd, we'll blow the shit out of those innocent villagers.

Fuck that shit. Enough.

[jberryhill]

25. Rational Argument Much?

Yes, the totality of the plan is blowing up villages.

Uh-huh.

[BeFree]

26. That's the actions taken

Own up to it. Be strong and own up to your support for what has been done.

Your lack of support for holding accountable our own criminals is sickening, so I don't expect you to ever own up to the reality that our criminals have killed many innocents. Sad.

[treestar]

27. If Bush hadn't distracted with Iraq

The Taliban could have been dealt with by now. That's what the vast majority wanted in late 2001. Obama's just going back to that.

[floridablue]

3. Because the military is the only ones carrying guns ?

And killing each other?

[jberryhill]

5. That is not the entirety of what is being proposed here...

So what if the military are the only ones carrying guns?

How is that at all a reasoned criticism of the plan as a whole?

[floridablue]

28. I may not have absorbed the big picture yet, but I will

My comment refers to additional soldiers that will raise the body bag count. And I don't give a damn about nation building or whatever it is that is going on. Rebuilding what we blew up that gets blown up again as soon as a back is turned. All this while there are hungry children of parents with outsourced jobs all around us.

[HamdenRice]

4. Many people only heard what they wanted to hear--more precisely what they didn't want to hear

They only heard: This is not Kooch saying every soldier and marine comes home tomorrow and every Al Qaeda and Taliban member gets a personal "I'm sorry" note from the president plus a free thoroughbred Arabian pony.

[dionysus]

8. arabian pony, nice touch.

[BeFree]

9. Well

You can bet a large majority of Afghanis would vote for that.

And become our friends.

[Cha]

10. I know and they have no accountability

in the way they're all over the board lying about what Obama stated.

It's all right there in black and white and needs to be quoted to counteract the lies.

[Cha]

6. People heard what they wanted

to hear last night.

"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security."


"This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people."

[treestar]

17. Ending it responsibly

He even says it will be ending.

[Cha]

19. But, we have idiots going around this

board asking for those who support this to go sign up like they're some kind of gawd damn robot who are challenged in reading comprehension.

[kristopher]

13. I think this is more about Pakistan than Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis are on a precipice with one slope dropping them into extremist fundamentalism, and the other leading to a more open (if still theocratic) society that is focused on raising their economic status.

Must of the momentum for extremism flowed from Bush policies and it is going to take time to change that trajectory enough to feel any degree of confidence in their control of nuclear weapons. If we leave Afghanistan now or if we pursue an imperialistic strategy in Afghanistan that enables the extremists and discourages the moderates.

I hate the need, but I have to concur that it is real.

[Cha]

15. Yeah, I got that and I do

hate it that it's real.

[Hansel]

32. I think you are right. nt

[Clio the Leo]

16. It's hard to hear when you have your fingers in your ears. NT

[SpartanDem]

29. Simple

taking a holistic view wouldn't allowing them go around calling people war mongers and murders. But to be fair the MSM is guilty of the same focusing solely on troops. When in reality it's the civilian part that is the most important element to the strategy.

[SoxFan]

34. "Facts are stupid things"

Funny to see so many dyed in the wool lefties taking the Gipper's words to heart!

[Telly Savalas]

30. Because the non-military components largely rely on the presence of our military

and such folks object to the presence of our military, so the other aspects are secondary to them.

[SoxFan]

33. Facts mean nothing to Kucinich Underground

Pesky thing called reality gets in the way of their little poutrage party.