When making decisions about war and peace, the commander-in-chief needs to take politics into consideration. But the political question when opting for war is whether the American people will support the effort over time. It isn’t a partisan political consideration, but a sober assessment of how the mission stacks up against the likely mood of the electorate. Yet, as Politico points out, Obama is in a unique position. His political base was forged out of the most anti-war elements of the electorate. He made his way by distinguishing himself from candidates like Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden who had voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.
Obama was always careful to note that he didn’t oppose all wars, only stupid ones. And, as he campaigned, he was consistent in saying that we needed to be focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, not the sideshow in Iraq. But his supporters were less interested in his rhetoric about refocusing on Afghanistan than about his call to get our troops out of Iraq. As a group, Obama’s core supporters are temperamentally opposed to escalating our troop levels anywhere.
That means that a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is going to be met with the most resistance from Obama’s greatest source of strength– the movement he built for his campaign. It will be a demoralizing blow even if he explains it well and appears to have a solid exit strategy. And Obama doesn’t operate in a vacuum. His base has the most overlap with Congressional Democrats’ base. If his base is demoralized, so too will be the overall Democratic base.
That is why Obama can expect a lot of resistance when it comes time to appropriate funds for the troop increase. He will not get the money without a lot of complaining and ass-covering from Congress. It may prove to be the first time that Obama gets a truly bipartisan coalition to pass anything, and it will definitely cause a lot of bad feelings among Democrats on the Hill and all across the country.
Considering the political peril involved, it must be Obama’s considered opinion that he has a strategy that will not only work but that addresses a critical problem that cannot be avoided.
As a member of Obama’s base, I remain deeply skeptical that we can accomplish realistic goals in Afghanistan and I worry very much about the political damage a troop increase may do to Obama and to the Democratic Party. But I am at least willing to wait until he delivers his speech on this matter on Tuesday before I make any firm decisions about what I can support. I am nervous about it, because I’m not sure that there is a solution, nor that he has figured out a plan that makes more sense than folding our hand and withdrawing. But he deserves a chance to make his case.
even though I would rather we get out of there, end both wars now, I also understand a few essential facts.
the most important one being that they were handed to obama and are not of his choosing.
He also was handed a monumental mess in Afghan.
The place has been deteriorating for years and yet we are so wrapped up there that to disentangle is going to be ugly.
I also know more of this has to do with Pak then afg. and that it seems to be the biggest reason they are staying in.
It seems that Bush and Cheney did their best to make sure the next president was tied up in knots over many of the huge mistakes and mess they made.
i.e. – files of the gitmo people are all over the place and floating where ever…
See your previous post setting up an elaborate system of tribal graft. Our ticket out is to prop it up just long enough to say “See everybody? We won!” And then get the fuck out. This is the absolute best case scenario. Screw Hamid Karzai — he’s the mayor of Kabul.
I agree that waiting to see what he says, and how he frames his argument, is all-important. Remember his Iraq mantra from the campaign? To paraphrase, he said he wanted to leave Iraq with the care and planning that was so lacking in the way we got in.
For example, he may have decided that the best way to broker a diplomatic solution (as well as to get tribal interests to cooperate in a stabilizing but fragile “arrangement”) is to use additional forces from the US and Nato to briefly reset the chessboard, preparing the conditions for a heavy-duty diplomatic surge to follow very soon after. This would include the commitment of major funds going forward for reconstruction (wish we could do more of that here in the US!). Then we would get the hell out, all within a relatively tight timeframe (2-4 years).
An open-ended commitment with no exit strategy just doesn’t seem like something he’d do. My assumption is that this will be all about the best possible way to LEAVE, and that he’s decided that there is a smarter way–diplomatically, militarily, and yes, politically–to get out of this quagmire.
I think Obama is going deeper into Afghanistan because he is worried about what happens if neighboring Pakistan (with its nukes) becomes further de-stabilized. I foresee us being stuck there for decades. And I see Obama as a one-term President.
afghanistan is a land mass with tribes on it. it’s not an actual country, and we need to get the hell out of there. it’s not worth another soldier’s life to stay there.
My guess is that’s the plan. To get the hell outta there. I think Obama is going to tell us that is will be less difficult and faster to get Bush’s fucking SUV out of the ditch with 4 people pushing instead of just 1.
I’m nervous too, especially with the “previews” floating around that he’s looking at a 30,000+ increase in troops. Obama’s a smart guy, but so was LBJ, who got himself trapped in somebody else’s war that had no possible path to “win”. You just don’t do that, but no matter who’s in charge, we seem too arrogant and reckless to ever take the obvious lesson to heart.
I just can’t see any purpose in remaining there, except for aid-type activities, if that’s at all possible. We’re not going to wipe out the Taliban, and even if we did we’d just activate even more determination from other quarters to get revenge and teach us the lesson we seem incapable of learning on our own. I hope Obama presents a convincing case and plan for moving to an international criminal-law-enforcement approach to detecting and neutralizing terrorist plans and organizations. But demilitarizing, even over a short transition period, will be an extremely tough sell and get him flak from every side.
Politically, I think he’d have been better off waiting to have a big, popular win like a good HCR bill restoring the trust and enthusiasm of his party and independents. The temptation to just wave the flag and give into to war-lovers will be extreme. No president has ever really resisted, so it’s expecting a near miracle to think he might be the first. But I’m still hoping.
.
Bush administration was on the right track in the beginning of the bombing campaign. However, nation building should never have become the policy for Afghan warfare. The border with Pakistan is indefensible and does not separate different people. The tribal areas in Pakistan were not controlled by the military and least of all the Pakistan administration. When the Al Qaeda forces with Osama Bin Laden were allowed to escape in December 2001, it became impossible to achieve any goals in Afghanistan. A ground war does not lead anywhere except more civilian deaths and further troops increase. Cut your losses, get the troops out in a timetable with NATO forces. The mayor of Kabul should start taking responsibility and let the Afghan forces of his war lord buddies make the sacrifice for Afghan’s future state.
What is happening today in Pakistan, the military doing the fighting in Southern Waziristan, comes years late. The focus should have been the Af-Pak situation and the Iraq war push caused a massive failure with many wrongful deaths in Afghan warfare. Al Qaeda was made up of foreign fighters, leftover from the joined CIA/ISI support to bring down the occupation by the Soviet union.
The Taliban has been part of Afghan and Pakistan society, one can never win when fighting a motivated people defending their country. See the failures of the Vietnam war.
Holy Saudi Arabia is the terror state
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
FOB SHANK, Afghanistan — Veterans of Iraq recall rolling to war along asphalted highways, sweltering in flat scrublands and chatting with city-wise university graduates connected to the wider world.
Now fighting in Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers invariably encounter illiterate farmers who may never have talked to an American as they slog into remote villages on dirt tracks through bitterly cold, snow-streaked mountains.
“Before deploying here we were given training on language, culture, everything. I thought that since I was an Iraq combat veteran, I didn’t need any of that stuff. I was wrong. Both countries may be Muslim but this is a totally different place,” says Sgt. Michael McCann, returning from a patrol in the east-central province of Logar.
“The sheer terrain of Afghanistan is much more challenging: the mountains, the altitudes, severity of weather, the distances. That wears on an army,” says Maj. Joseph Matthews, a battalion operations officer in the 10th Mountain Division. “You can flood Baghdad with soldiers but if you want to flood the mountains you are going to need huge numbers and logistics.”
McCann, a military policeman from Enterprise, Ala., says that the highest he ever got during his Iraq tour was a five-story building. In Afghanistan, troops routinely cross passes 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) and higher, descending into valleys where they say villagers “hibernate like bears” for up to five winter months, cut off from the outside world by the snows.
Looking up the upper Keshem Valley“This is not an interconnected society. There is a complete separation of ideas from Pul-i-Alam and Kharwar,” notes Matthews, of Vero Beach, Fla., of the provincial capital and a district just 23 miles (37 kilometers) away. “The difference between a village and a city in this country is about 200 years,” says the officer, who served for more than three years in Iraq and is on his second Afghanistan tour.
Col. David B. Haight, commander of U.S. forces in Logar and neighboring Wardak province, half jokes that some frustrated Afghans come to him and say: “‘You can put a man on the moon so can’t we get a road here?’ and I have to tell them, ‘You know, it’s a lot harder to build a road in Afghanistan than put a man on the moon.'”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The base is already pissed off at Obama-hence the poll numbers about voting.
The is going to really get folks steamed up come Tuesday.
But, personally I doubt if he really cares about his ‘base” anymore. He is in the bubble, his handlers keeping him away from anyone who doesn’t agree with them-ie Rahm et al.
I have no idea what it will take to wake him up-maybe his poll numbers falling into the 30% approval rating.
Or not.
Yes, Booman, there is a certain logic in waiting till after he gives the speech. There might be some unforeseen surprise in the speech. But if the reports that he is planning on sending thirty or forty thousand more troops there are true, he’s officially lost my support. So we shall see.
If you read what PM Brown has been saying about Afghan policies, you can get an idea of what the US is going to do. I think that Brown is working in concert with Obama and announcing decisions ahead of the US announcements. It’s meant to take some of the heat off of Obama.
There isn’t a deep enough hole in which to place Bush.
.
The Afghanistan government will be given a timetable for securing British troop withdrawal at a conference in London next year. Gordon Brown today announced an International Conference on Afghanistan, to be held on January 28.
The conference will be used to draw up a timetable for Afghan president Hamid Karzai to commit himself to boosting the country’s army and governance.
Speaking at the Commonwealth summit, in Trinidad and Tobago, Brown said this would pave the way for the Nato forces to gradually hand over control to the Afghanistan government and withdraw from the country
Karzai, who was recently re-elected for a second term as president, will be set benchmarks for recruiting 50,000 more troops, improving the capacity of the police and force and reducing regional level corruption.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband will chair the talks, which will be attended by Karzai, Ki-Moon and other UN officials, along with representatives from the 43 nations involved in the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
Neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, have been invited, but the prime minister has ruled out any involvement of Taliban or former Taliban members.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I just find it incredibly odd, in a moment of reflection, to consider that after hundreds of years of supposed “civilization”, the kings and queens of different lands still CHOOSE to show dominance over others by asking their citizens to kill members of foreign tribes. Because the only solution after we are attacked is a military solution?
Trying to put this in perspective; a Michael Vick is convicted for teaching dogs to kill other dogs (rightly so) yet we spend billions teaching our citizens to kill people considered foreign to us and consider anything less than than unpatriotic. How very odd to call ourselves civilized. Our advanced literacy rate hasn’t proven to help us move towards any age of enlightenment, instead it has given us a self-determined attitude of moral and class superiority where less fortunate are reduced to being referred to as tribespeople (before we kill them for being ignorant and not understanding why we are in their country). Well at least we call them people! (snark)
Having said that, I’m willing to wait for the President to tell us why we should send more of our troops to Afghanistan to “help” them nationbuild (while our own country’s infrastructure disintegrates for lack of money and commitment and our own million dollar men). This is one situation where I would so love to be proven wrong. President Obama does not lose my vote over this as I know he gave this considered time and thought and is sincerely trying to do the right thing. I knew voting for him that I wasn’t crazy about his stance on Afghanistan but as he said, at this point we are left with “a choice between bad and worse”. Thanks again George Bush and all the nuts who voted him in the second time.
Staying in Afghanistan will prove to be a disaster. It is destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan and sucking up a lot of resources. It is draining us financially. It makes us dependent on Russia and, ironically, Iran to help or at least not interfere.
When it blows up, it will do Obama no good at all to blame Bush.
Obama could have shown some courage. He could have argued that the nation is in dire financial straits and can’t afford a long term commitment. That our military is being weakened fighting in hard terrain and is less ready to deal with other threats. That Pakistan’s stability is at risk. That China is chugging along economically because it isn’t wasting its money on foreign wars.
Obama could have made those arguments in front of the Public and he would have persuaded many in addition to the many who already agree. It would have been difficult. He would have had to confront the military and the rabid right. But it would have been the right thing to do and in 2012 he could argue that he got America out of two costly wars.
Full disclosure; while I always preferred Obama to most of the Republican field, I always was a Ron Paul man.
.
WASHINGTON (Times Online) – Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden’s escape laid the foundation for today’s reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.
“Cornered in some of the most fobidding terrain on earth, he and several hundred of his men endured relentless pounding by American aircraft, as many as 100 air strikes a day,” it says. “Bin Laden expected to die,” it claimes. “His last will and testament, written on December 14, reflected his fatalism. He instructed his wives not to remarry and apologised to his children for devoting himself to jihad.”
Tora Bora revisted: How we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today (pdf)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Please don’t waste your time – this isn’t about fixing a desolate tribal region, this is about keeping nuclear weapons in check – the rest of it is just something to yak about.
BooMan,
You are a better person than the Ol’ Chief here. I’ve suffered too many disappointments in the past 68 + years to keep believing in “Change You Can believe In.”
Needless, senseless deaths – both U.S. troops and women, children, innocent civilians in Af-Pak.
I live in the OH – 8th CD – John Boehner’s district. Why should I waste my time going to the polls next year.
It’s interesting, because I am much less of an Obama backer than you (though I try not to use words like “betrayal” because I knew Obama hated the netroots for years) but I am far more on board with the Afghanistan situation. I think if he applies the right strategy it can be salvaged to a point and the hints I’m hearing are that he is leaning towards the strategy I favor.
Afghan policy is a necessity to keep nuclear weapons in check – that’s why it is critically important to have troops ready for immediate action…. I don’t care where they are but Afghanistan is centrally located…I don’t care about changing the culture…they can have it.