Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Eugene Robinson: What Obama Really Thinks About the Surge

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:17 AM
Original message
Eugene Robinson: What Obama Really Thinks About the Surge
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_obama_really_thinks_about_the_surge_20091210/

What Obama Really Thinks About the Surge
Posted on Dec 10, 2009

By Eugene Robinson


The traditional Nobel Peace Prize lecture, given every year at Oslo’s modernist City Hall, does not usually include such words as: “I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed.”

President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel for peacemaking by delivering an eloquent, often grim treatise on the nature and necessity of warfare. Anyone who doubts his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, which he has escalated with an “extended surge” of 30,000 new U.S. troops, should read a transcript of the Oslo speech. Hawks who suspected—and doves who hoped—that Obama was a secret pacifist will see that although he did not set out to be a “war president,” he has accepted his fate.

Obama’s major speeches often lay out not just what position he is taking or what decision he has made, but also the thinking process that led him there. Listening to his lecture Thursday, I had the sense that we were hearing arguments and counterarguments that might have been running through his mind during the long policy review leading to the Afghanistan surge.

A senior administration official, speaking not to be quoted by name, told me this week that the day Obama decided on the troop increase was the toughest so far for the president. The options, according to this official’s account, were all bad.

The president had concluded that beginning a withdrawal—which is what I believed he should do—was too risky, given evidence of “real and serious threats” to the United States still emanating from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Leaving troop levels unchanged would have just perpetuated the unacceptable status quo, the president decided, without even a theoretical path to a day when U.S. forces could safely withdraw.

snip//

On how war should be waged, Obama pledged that the United States will faithfully abide by the standards of the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration seemed to regard as flexible and outdated. It remains incredible to me that a U.S. president has to explicitly renounce torture, but that’s an obligation Obama inherited.

On when to use force, Obama offered no comfort to those who might feel “a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause.” The president gave a list of potential causes that was actually quite comprehensive. He said that war can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as in the Balkans. He mentioned failed states, such as Somalia. He talked about the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

Obama concluded with soaring words of hope, but drew a clear distinction between the world as we would like it to be and the world as it is. No, it wasn’t at all the kind of Nobel lecture we usually hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. At least Obama's going to abide to the Geneva Conventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_conventions

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

* taking of hostages
* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
* unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.<8>


We should be able to get a goodly number of criminals off the street and behind bars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the families of the dead.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Of course who cares about Afgani dead......as long as they are just killing each other
or murdering or throwing acid on girls who attend school. I actually think we should pull out because its not our job to help those in need in other countries even if the result is genocide....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. So the solution to them killing each other...
is to send in our forces and kill more people?

Don't even try to pretend that there is anything "humanitarian" about the bush crusades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duende azul Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Let's see if words are followed by actions.
In his speech he admitted the Geneva Conventions were violated.
So prosecution has to follow.
Thanks for insisting on that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. How many llives lost for a pipeline and MIC profits? Obama should've had the decency to leave MLK's
name out of his misrepresentations of history and war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Or this: 'I think I might get re-elected if I appear 'strong on national security'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Yeah, you sound real smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
connecticut yankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. He was caught between a rock and a hard place
All his alternatives were bad. I think he picked the least worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. And how was he caught 'between a rock and a hard place'??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. I agree, I appreciated the Post because it gave me
more insite into the situation.

I'm sure I will get stoned at DU for saying this but I want PEACE and most of the people that want Peace post on this Board daily.

I truly believe that President Obama is of sane mind ( unlike GW) and I asked the question -- if he had a choice why not just " bring the troops home tomorrow?"
That is what would make all of us and the world love him ~

After reading the POST I can see why he could not bring them home now but I am not in the mood to bash someone who is listening to all of the facts and has an IQ that time and time again indicates that he is able to THINK/ LISTEN and he uses his gift to make people feel better - not worse.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks for posting, babylonsister.
thoughtful article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. Soaring
Bullshit soars too, just before it goes splat on its target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. Except he DID set out to be a "war President"...
... since I doubt he thought that "finish the fight with al qaeda" would be done through negotiation. But otherwise, as always, well said Eugene.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duende azul Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
13. Torture
It was not up to Obama to outlaw torture.
Torture is illegal.

Is it progress he calls it by its name? Those pesky details, hell, is waterboarding "enhanced interrogation" or is it covered by his orders not to torture?

Again, when will prosecutions start?
And how to do this if he already gave the CIA a free pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
14. Good stuff, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
budkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. The bottom line is that he's sending people to die so that he doesn't look weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That's your bottomline, but I disagree with him wanting to continue a war based on how it makes him
Look.......That would be a superficial, egotistic and dangerous reason,
and this President to date hasn't done anything that would give anyone the
notion that this is the kind of person that he is.

What I will say is that it appears obvious that whatever Pres. Obama stated in his speech
didn't get through any openings in your mind,
because obviously there are none....as you have decided to come to conclusions not based on clear evidence or even an inkling of any, but simply based on your gut instinct,
which if you will remember is the way that the last
president who was superficial, egotistic and dangerous reasoned.
So in essence, you are simply projecting motives to this president based on the way you think
...and perhaps that is the type of President you would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC