Neo-Cons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over "War President" by Eli Clifton

[Better Believe It]

POLITICS: Neo-Cons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over "War President"
By Eli Clifton
December 4, 2009

.... 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).

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.

Senor described himself as, "pleasantly surprised" and "quite encouraged by the president's decision" in a Republican National Committee sponsored conference call.

"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.

"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.

Please read the full article at:

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

[polichick]

1. Well, it's what Obama seems to want most - to be embraced by his enemies...

Perhaps that's his idea of success.

[Better Believe It]

3. I don't agree, I think the embrace is temporary.

Once it's clear the war can't be won the right will demand a further escalation of the war and perhaps even a new military draft.

And if Obama refuses to send more troops and begins a pullout from Afghanistan they will say he "lost' Afghanistan and the war against terrorist. That would be their cry in the 2012 election.

And the war escalation has put Obama between a rock and a hard place .... just what the war hawks had wanted and hoped for.

They are the ones playing chess.

[polichick]

5. Oh yeah, I think he wants the embrace but I wouldn't trust them at all...

And, though I don't want it to be so, I too suspect that they're the ones playing chess.

imo Obama's Achilles heel is his desire to be accepted by his enemies, and they know it.

[karynnj]

10. That might be where the SFRC report that Bush "lost" Afghanistan in 2001

when he outsourced the effort to warlords who weeks before were allied with the Taliban weeks before.

I agree with you the Republicans will try to do so, but that is the best counter and at least one prominent Democrat called for it while it was happening - and was trashed by both Republicans and Democrats.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

7. You're the fool for not noticing that he has surrounded himself with...

...right-wing miltary leaders. He very much cares what the other side thinks; it could easily be his downfall.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Like Hillary and Susan Rice

:eyes:

[polichick]

14. LOL - They're not military leaders. nt

[jefferson_dem]

6. "Embraced by his enemies"?

What the fuck does that mean?

[polichick]

8. It's self-explanatory. nt

[Starry Messenger]

2. Yay!

:sarcasm:

[applegrove]

11. The neocons know left wingers are at each others' throats over the War in Afghanistan.

They are just trying to wedge it further.

[ShortnFiery]

12. No we're not, we LIBERALS know that there's no justification - but the corporate war hawk democrats

are running the party. :(

[polichick]

15. And those corporate war hawk dems actually trust guys like Gates and McChrystal...

...including the president. BIG mistake!

[burning rain]

13. Well, you know what this means.

Now the blind faith crew has to pivot 180 degrees and start praising Bill Kristol. And that will be funny!

[Jennicut]

18. Um, not really. This will last for 5 seconds and then the neo cons will

be on to something else to criticize.
By the way, I think Obama is flat out wrong on sending more troops.

[Umbral]

16. When Bill Kristol is singing your praises... nt

[ClarkUSA]

17. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

:)