Robert Creamer: Obama, Progressives and Afghanistan

[SpartanDem]

Posted: December 3, 2009 11:26 AM

Like many Progressives, I disagreed with President Obama's decision to increase the number of American troops deployed to Afghanistan. But Progressives must not lose sight of the fact, that though we may disagree with this particular decision, President Obama shares a progressive vision of American foreign policy -- including Afghanistan -- that differs fundamentally from that of his Neo-Con predecessor.

At its core, President Obama's Tuesday night speech elaborated his plan to end the American military presence in Afghanistan. His chosen path may not end that presence as quickly as many Progressives would prefer, but he was very clear that America will not conduct an open-ended occupation of Afghanistan, and he set a firm deadline to begin American withdrawal.

Barack Obama understands that Western occupation of a Muslim country ultimately feeds extremism, rather than defeating it. And he understands -- as he said in his speech -- that our relationship with Afghanistan must ultimately be as a partner, not as a patron. Barack Obama opposes pre-emptive war and the unilateralism that earned George Bush the enmity of people everywhere.

Let us remember that if Barack Obama had been President eight years ago, he would have managed our engagement in Afghanistan completely differently from George Bush -- and he would have never invaded Iraq.

While some Progressives may not fully appreciate the fundamental difference between Barack Obama's approach to the world and that of Bush and Cheney, there is no question that the Neo-Con crowd understands it clearly. Dick Cheney's attacks on the President are not simply partisan politics. His criticism of Obama's withdrawal deadline is emblematic of a fundamental disagreement in world view.

The President rejected the original McChrystal proposal for a gradual buildup of American forces over the next 18 months that was premised on a large American presence over a number of years. He also rejected a long-term nation-building mission in Afghanistan, focused heavily on the central government there. Instead he chose to bulk up American forces over the next six months, set an 18-month timeline to begin the disengagement of our military, and provide sharp incentives for the Afghan government to put its house in order - and develop their security forces -- immediately.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obama-progressives-and-af_b_378605.html

[NJmaverick]

1. I agree with most of what was written

but I think he was understating things here when he said:

"While some Progressives may not fully appreciate the fundamental difference between Barack Obama's approach to the world and that of Bush and Cheney"

[Cant trust em]

3. The way decisions are made counts for a lot, IMO.

It's interesting to think that someone with Obama's mindset and someone with Bush's mindset might come to a similar conclusion on this.

I'd like to think that if I were in Obama's shoes I would have chosen a different path, but I couldn't say definitively that if I actually had to make that decision what it would be.

[NJmaverick]

5. I tend to agree. Often the outcome of a decision can be chancy

but if you practice good decision making techniques you increase your odds for success considerably.

[Cant trust em]

2. This is why I'm willing to give Obama some benefit of the doubt.

Unlike George Bush who went into everything guns blazing, I actually feel like Obama is carefully weighing the use of force. Even though the outcome is not what I would have wanted, I do appreciate the deliberative approach he took.

[SpartanDem]

6. Too often there is binary thinking

as in if Obama supports this war and Bush did too therefore he's adpoted Bush's forgeign policy except there are major strategic differences.

[Cant trust em]

8. Yeah. Part of it is amount of troops, the other is strategy.

I saw someone post on CNN the other day how we should just send 60,000 troops because if we're going to send them at all, we should send enough to finish the job. Clearly this person doesn't know what that job even is. It's not like they have x amount of troops and we need y amount to defeat them.

[Sukie]

4. Good OP. Thanks for posting.

The writer disagrees with the surge, but understands Obama the man would not choose this for the same reasons bush or cheney did. Interesting that such a thoughtful thread meant to create sound dialog on the subject would get unrecs, though.

[NJmaverick]

7. I wonder how many of the knee jerk unrecs realize they were knocking someone

opposed to the surge.

[SpartanDem]

11. Like you said it's thoughtful

the very thing the unrec crowd dislikes

[Duende azul]

13. The writer is in the business of selling the war to progressives.

That's the job to be done at the moment to not loose the Dem base in 2010 and 2012.
You can smell their fear to have gone to far. So all the media troops are out to help.
All the progressive talkingpoints for the war are in this piece. Why don't they go over to SaudiArabia if this whole exercise was about the liberation of women? For that purpose they simple had let the Soviets handle Afghanistan. (They have pretty good record in giving women the same rights as men.) Before the US fucked up the place via mudjahedeen against the secular government, it was by far the the most modern stage this poor country had ever seen.

But if this guy states:

Personally, I believe that by the end of his first term, President Obama will have completely withdrawn American forces from Iraq and that most combat forces will be gone from Afghanistan as well.

he clearly has no idea. Because the timeline he relies on is already in the gutter.
And a few years from now you will be able to hold Obama accountable for the hope this journalist instills in you today? Get a clue.

So an unrec is well deserved.

[27inCali]

9. this is the direction the debate needs to go

we can't let ourselves be fooled into turning on each other because of this issue alone.

There are too many important things that still need to be done, Progressives don't have time the time to argue on a point that's already decided.

We have 10 months to try and help Obama get as much done as possible and give us a chance to retain majorities in 2010. If we lose the majority, we are all royally fucked.

[NJmaverick]

15. I am afraid it may already be too late

[CTyankee]

10. excellent piece

I am hopeful that Obama has chosen the right path here. I truly believe he understands the danger of getting sucked down in Afghanistan for years more. Whether this works, however, is another thing...

[KoKo]

12. Ummm...But...there are DU'ers here who said "Obama was never a Progressive...he didn't run as one!"

So either you believe Creamer or your own lying eyes? :eyes:

[HughMoran]

14. The short-term nature of this makes it more palatable