Tell me what you think of his speech and his plan.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
56 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
The White House just sent me an embargoed copy of the speech. Reading it now.
I think Fafblog nailed it.
I think he’s fallen for a lot of disinformation about the ostensible threats against America. I call BS entirely to the “imminent threat.” Where have we heard THAT before, eh?
And as for additional troops from other countries – he’s gotten gestures – several dozen in total. Nothing to brag about. This is the same crap Bush pulled on us – Iraq was a ‘joint effort.’ Yeah right.
I work (but do not live in) Orange County, New York, where West Point is located. I was lucky to leave with no traffic blockage, as my route takes me close to the area of the speech.
I think that the wingnuts (keyboard kommandos) are going to jump on his line about experiencing the results of war firsthand.
What a bunch of BS. I knew it would be bad, but I didn’t think it would be THIS bad. Empty. Nothing.
Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11. A bunch of Arabs did. And their leader went to Pakistan, by all accounts, assuming Bin Laden is even still alive.
The only reason to fight in Afghanistan is because of the desired pipeline, which our business people can only build if there’s a stable government.
This is neocon territory. Obama is a dupe or being blackmailed. I don’t think this represents his core philosophy at all. I didn’t feel conviction from him, to be honest.
This was indeed change we voted for. Am I the only one that understood that expanding the Afghan commitment was a pillar of his candidacy?!? He said it over and over, along with all that dandy other stuff.
That he did.
President Plenary Indulgence of the Exceptional United States takes Responsibility for Giant Pile of Shit, Commits to Expanding Dung Heep of Freedom Deep into Pakistan as well.
Nothing else to do really.
Shit.
The usual crew remains in charge.
It’s the brainchild of a liar – General Stanley McChrystal.
Obama continually disappoints.
Obama and the Democrats now have a real political problem. Failing in Afghanistan is not an option if Obama wants to be re-elected in 2012. So, no matter how badly the war is going, he will be forced to keep pouring fuel on the fire just to save face. This is not going to have a happy ending.
I also got an embargoed copy, so I’ve had an hour to digest it.
It’s far worse than I expected. Very discouraging. Lots of demagoguery (9-11 references and the idiotic dismissal of straw man Vietnam comparisons, particularly; the usual Vietnam invocation is over the potential – and existing reality – of a quagmire, which he doesn’t address). No recognition of a failed, corrupt narco-state, or the economic roots of the insurgency. No recognition of why the Taliban are gaining strength – or even who they are – and only passing commitment to investment in civilian infrastructure (which would be far more effective and cost far less). An unrealistic assessment of both the current situation and what can be done in 18 months solely with extra troops. No exit strategy. The same basic strategy, in fact, that the US has officially pursued for eight fruitless years, only with more casualties.
Except for the partisan swipes, Bush could have delivered this speech. Except for the geographic particulars, so could have Lyndon Johnson, or any other American politician rationalizing an irrational war.
This should be a call to arms for the peace movement. Any illusions that Obama supporters once had that he was willing (or even able) to break from the paradigm of military force as a first resort, without massive popular demand for such a direction, should now be over.
Fun times. F Cheney and Bush for calling off the dogs when we had bin Laden and his compadres nailed down in 2001. Now we’re making up reasons for chasing asshole religous fanatics all over the friggin country over there. Come to think of it, we should be doing that here.
No one commenting has come up worth a solution.
Just ignorant ranting.
He got dealt a shit hand from Bush on this.
But he’s digging in the septic tank for more cards and wondering why they smell funny. It’s the best we can hope for, I guess.
At least we have an exit strategy.
Just having read all of the comments above and not disagreeing with any of them, I’m still glad this guy is in charge of our country right now. In fact, for one reason or another, I don’t know if there’s been a day since Nov 4, 2008 that that same thought hasn’t crossed my mind.
All things considered, that one statement says a lot about how screwed up this country has become.
I wondered if people would focus on the part of the speech concerning The Cost of being in Afghanistan. I interpreted it as a plea to have an adult conversation (not holding my breath) weighing the costs vs gains of the occupation/war.
..and just how do you have an adult conversation about those costs? That conversation is a little late don’t you think? Is there something new that hasn’t been discussed one way or the other..except of course the 30,000 new troops? That makes 50k since he took office. A far cry from the 2 or 3 brigades he talked about in the campaign. I realize that was then and this was now, but what has changed to make this occupation viable?
Whenever Obama says “Let me be clear,” I shudder and prepare myself for another chunk of confusion. Can’t this guy speak plainly about what his exit strategy is and when the war in Afghanistan will be over? Vietnam here we go again; I think Afghanistan will cost the President a second term. Palin and Huckleby are already licking their chops.
I’ve heard a lot of folks say this and it would be the case either way with withdrawal or escalation. Plenty of fodder for the right.
Why do you assume there’s a politically acceptable solution?
Looks like the military dunderheads, the more insane of the neo-con lunatics and all those who want to refight Vietnam with a different outcome are in control of everything ably assisted by the worlds best propaganda system known as the “liberal” media
It will all end in tears but as it is announced by a Dem President who has made this his war they will have someone to blame outside themselves just like in the Vietnam debacle they blamed the people for abandoning the military without even looking at what really happened.
Assuming you refer to what’s now called The War On Terror, rather than just the engagement in/occupation of Afghanistan — then Obama & his entire cabinet can share that designation, since a nuanced justification is not the same as a solution.
That said, how about: a complete withdrawal of all US military from the entire region in as timely a fashion as can be coordinated?
We were well able to figure a righteous way in; we can sure as hell figure a righteous way out, given the same directed urgency.
I’ve got a lot to digest. I just off a 40 minute call with several senior administration officials from the NSC and Pentagon. I’ve got to reread the speech. I don’t think it is as bad as you think it is, but I have some very serious concerns, many of which you touched on.
Pretty sad call, I bet. They must be concerned. As well they should be.
Take away the melifluous tones and good looks, and it did sound just like George Bush to me. I feel ill. So far no one has been able to cheer me up.
I just saw this on Sully’s blog. I’m sure it doesn’t work for many on the left, but it’s the only thing that makes me feel like there might be strategy to the build-up.and possibly not make Obama a one term president because we need him for 8 years to get out of this shitty hole Bush put us in.
a reader writes:
I love the time line that Obama has proposed for withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. Crafty. The neocons (McCain for one) are already saying that it gives comfort to the enemy, that they will just wait until we leave and then attack again. And the reason this is bad is what?
I think the hope of the White House is that the Taliban will lay low. If the Taliban want to wait until we leave, perhaps there is time for the Afghans to train and begin to defend themselves. If the Taliban attacks, there are enough troops to counter their attacks and weaken them by attrition. A win/win for us.
Obama is also telling the Afghans in the street that we are leaving, which hopefully will say to them that we are not their enemy, not their occupiers, and hopefully keep ordinary patriotic Afghans from joining the Taliban.
Very cool.
What part of this, in my comment above, didn’t you understand?
You fight terrorism by drying up the sea that it swims in – classic counterinsurgency. I didn’t hear any real commitment to that. You also win by knowing your enemy. That part of Obama’s speech was flat-out embarrassing.
As for the GWOT, for starters, how ’bout treating terrorist groups as the criminal enterprises they are, rather than using them as a justification for open-ended military force? In the last eight years military action has elevated the risk of terrorism, by making people more hostile to us and sympathetic to our critics. It’s generally been police and intelligence work that has stopped the actual threats. Obama has committed himself to Bush’s endless war against a tactic. We need a complete paradigm shift.
Imho, either we make the shift willingly or we’ll be forced to do so by the facts of a widening conflict.
Btw – on replay – did you notice Obama nearly stumbles on “vital” when he says this is in our “vital national interest”?
I can’t help but think he didn’t want to give this speech.
He raced through it. It almost sounded like a corporate motivational speaker gig.
My fears exactly. Once you go down that path willfully, it’s really hard to turn back.
I was of draft age during Vietnam. I fought that war against the war. This is nothing like that. I don’t know if these proposals will work, but they are honorably made and represent real differences in American foreign policy. If it works, this speech–which on its own I consider a great speech–will be studied for generations to come as a turning point.
I appreciate your optimism, even if I don’t share it.
I was repeatedly tear-gassed in Washington DC as a teen protesting the Vietnam War, became a Quaker in order to become a Conscientious Objector if my number was called, was prepared to go to prison rather than serve in an utterly immoral war; but I was fortunate enough to have a low draft number towards the very end of the draft. As difficult as the situation is in Afghanistan, it is nothing at all like Vietnam, nor does Obama bear any resemblance to LBJ or Nixon, and certainly not to Bush. To splash that thought around here is idiotic.
This, to me, is an aggressive plan for withdrawal. It is much more about setting up diplomacy than it is about “succeeding” militarily. The all-important subtext is Pakistan and getting a grip on our relationship with its leaders. I think Obama has determined, after very careful study and armed with infinitely more information than we have, that for a variety of reasons, including many we can’t know, this is the best choice for stabilizing the region and leaving as soon as possible. Obviously most commenters here tonight would disagree with this completely. To those here comparing Obama to Bush, please take a little extra time and explain exactly how an instant withdrawal would work, what it might cost, and what you suppose then happens with Pakistan.
This is a straw man. There’s a lot of territory between calling for instant withdrawal and being happy with a dramatic escalation of troops.
IMHO what’s needed is exactly what RHLisa outlined – a massive investment in infrastructure and investment. Do the math. Simply for what the escalation will cost each year – not including what we’re already doing – you could literally put cash in every Afghan’s hand worth 120% of Afghanistan’s GDP. Spend it more judiciously, and you could completely remove the Taliban’s base of support, which is mostly economic privation and resentment of Allied forces’ indiscriminate violence. Given the terrain and culture, to rely so heavily on a military strategy instead is foolhardy.
Instead, I will lay good money that well before the 18 months are up, we’ll find out that the Afghans are better, but aren’t making progress as quickly as we’d like in developing their own security, and we need to push that timeline back. Anyone remember how the Bush cabal “turned a corner” in Iraq every three months or so? Same song, new singer. I’d like to believe this is different – really, I would. Beyond a few rhetorical nods, I just don’t see any evidence.
Sorry, that should’ve read per capita GDP. Big difference!
The solution cannot be military.
What if we offered to build roads? Teach people how to plant crops and harvest them? What if we shared energy technology so they could draw power from the wind and sun?
What if we tried to be the good guys, for a change, instead of the big bully?
What if we just tucked tail and ran, knowing we had no right to be there in the first place, once Bin Laden escaped.
What if we just tucked tail and ran, knowing we had no right to be there in the first place, once Bin Laden escaped.
That is the bitter, ugly truth that no one in power is willing to admit. Our mission in Afghanistan failed utterly when Bush and Cheney held our forces back and let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. Everything that has happened since has been a vain and feeble attempt to cope with that failure.
But isn’t that why they let him escape? The need an ongoing justification for war…
Yes, absolutely. Another of the many reasons Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others should stand in the Hague and answer for their crimes.
I think a convincing case could be made for going into Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden and al Qaeda. I was with the Bush Administration on that, as I think most Americans were. I also think we were not alone in that. If, when they had bin Laden et al surrounded at Tora Bora, they had thrown every available resource at them, smoked them out and captured or killed at least bin Laden and those around him, I think they could have with some justification claimed “Mission Accomplished.” I think at that point we might have rolled up our incursion and gone home with something resembling a success.
I think the justification for toppling the Taleban, destroying the duly elected government of Afghanistan, was much less solid. And having done so, any thought of a quick in and out went by the wayside. At that point I think we incurred an obligation to the people of Afghanistan to at least try to help them stand up something in the Taleban’s place. Whether and what we might have accomplished in that regard, assuming success at Tora Bora, we will never know.
Having let bin Laden and his associates escape from Tora Bora, the entire mission in Afghanistan became at that moment a total failure. Anything and everything since then follows from that. And if, as I suspect, Bush, or more likely Cheney, deliberately held back and let him escape, on the assumption that any support for the invasion of Iraq would have evaporated with his death or capture, that reveals a depth of premeditation and criminal conspiracy that cannot be ignored.
What’s the timeline here – at what stage was the Invasion of Iraq when Bin Laden was allowed to escape?
in Wolfowitz’s fevered mind?
So it was essential that Osama be still at large whilst the invasion of Iraq has to be prepared and justified…?
I think that was their calculation at the time, and probably rightly so. They were doing everything in their power to put Saddam’s head in the noose with Osama. Whipping up war hysteria by every contrived means at their disposal. Think Downing Street memos and all the rest. Cheney had designs on Iraq long before he became Bush’s puppet master. On 9/11 Osama bin Laden gave them a ready-made excuse. If he had been killed or captured before they got commitments from the American people and some of our more gullible foreign, umm, friends, it would have been much more difficult if not impossible to make their case against Saddam. And if –IF– they did indeed let him escape, on purpose, for that reason, then it is hard to imagine a punishment adequate to their crimes.
All the whining and crying in the previous comments and all round the net won’t change the facts. He was dealt a shit hand in Af’stan, along with the economy, Iraq, dismal foreign relations, etc…. All this is complicated by the "questionable" legitimacy of the current Afghanistan govt. The option of just getting out would do NOTHING about the real danger of a safe haven for al Q. Getting out too soon is why we got the Taliban and al Q in Afghanistan before 2001; and starving the effort in 2002 is why we are faced with the problems now. All during his campaign Obama stated that the war in Afghanistan would be beefed up. No news to me.
What is news is a very realistic and adult approach to the problem.
-A quick influx of resources with a timetable to be shown results, both militarily and politically and we are then on the path out.
-Finally! The recognition that US power is not military but economic. We cannot keep having wars to the detriment of our economy. This admin won’t put the country in the poor house to fund open ended commitments. (thus I think we will see a war tax as a way to shut up the born again GOP deficit hawks and "support the troops on the ground").
So my quick take? Exactly what I voted for. Calm, calculated consideration of difficult national policy decisions. Discussing those considerations to the Nation as adults. No black / white dichotomy . Scaling back in Iraq, ramping up in Afghanistan, worry about Pakistan (strong diplomacy, public and private, by White House and Sec. Clinton). And all this while working on HCR (which will happen) plus putting the economic fires out.
Is everything just as I want it? No, but then again, I’m not 10 years old.
Ridge
Well said, and grounded in the reality of the situation. There is no good answer here, only making the best of a bad situation. If people think that throwing a tantrum and screaming at the top of their lungs that they won’t support Obama is going to make our country better off, I respectfully disagree. I suspect these are many of the same people who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000. To that assertion, I also disagree.
Yes, the reality of the situation stinks – but without some sort of lateral thinking were stuck in a win or lose paradigm. The thing to do when you are dealt a shit hand is to put it down. Of course that would unbalance the whole notion and importance of power, and that’s never going to come from any of the game players inside that particular Boy’s club.
The more powerful you are the less free you are to act in meaningful ways. I get that. I also get that the only way to extend that message outward is to never support power (even, and perhaps especially, when it’s on your side).
If we’re only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and not challenging the paradigm that caused us to crash into the iceberg (hubris, perhaps?), then what’s the point?
We need to push those at the top to do something radical and heretical – like treating ordinary people’s live as if they matter for something more than a game of one-ups-manship among the elites.
I thought we got the Taliban in Afghanistan before 2001 because we supported the mujahadeen against the Soviets. It’s nearly impossible to imagine how far a few billions can go, but I think we’re now getting a sense of the scale of it.
In any case, as a declining superpower & we cannot continue to conduct international policy as if there’s no shift in the basic paradigm. We are, unfortunately, headed into the international ‘poor house’ regardless; what still appears to me very much as an ‘open ended commitment’ certainly won’t stall or reverse the inevitable.
So far, I’ve seen very relatively few contributions to this debate that acknowledge a dire need for a different construction of United States influence & that the risks of ignoring a re-shaped international power structure have to be figured in to any truly sustainable long-term policy.
Talk about crying & whining. We’re definitely set to see it on an incredibly massive scale if we don’t come to grips with the options available to the US as it is now. The options available to us even a decade ago just aren’t there any more.
Depends on what “fail” means.
Starting to withdraw troops by July 2011 can easily mask a strategic retreat.
And a lot depends on the response by Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and even Iran.
Indeed failing to withdraw to that timeline could be seen as a defeat – and meeting that timeline – by definition – a success – whatever the realities on the ground. He’s put the generals on notice. You have 18 months…
IMHO, this is an elaborate, face-saving political (2012) cover for a retreat. The Afghanistan government won’t be clean in 18 months, and the Afghan national forces are a sad joke; where they haven’t been infiltrated, turnover and desertion rates are high because their hearts aren’t into making war against their own people.
The Taliban is not al-Qaeda. It isn’t even the old Taliban anymore, it’s local resistance to foreign forces. And al-Qaeda doesn’t need Af/Pak. The horses have already left that barn. Left it far before 9/11, in fact. And invoking 9/11 without context continues to ignore/gloss the reasons behind attacks against the US, namely US foreign policy.
This escalation will bring combined numbers up to one-fifth of what Petraeus claims is necessary to ‘secure’ the country. Either this is the first instalment, or a setup for disaster. Considering how overextended the US military is already, if it’s the first instalment, next thing will be reinstatement of the draft.
So as I said, it’s cover for a retreat. But the bases, and the big prison at Bagram, will remain. “…Unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.” Right. The US has bases all over the world, precisely to control populations and resources. “… Taking into account conditions on the ground” leaves it all wide open.
Good luck with those supply routes.
Here is what I heard.
Troops essentially will be withdrawn into population centers and especially concentrated in the south and the border with Pakistan. Concentration in cities facilitates the logistics of withdrawal.
Development activities will be primarily in the area of agriculture–trying to improve the harvest in the parts of the country that are not and will not have the Taliban (i.e. areas controlled by the Northern Alliance). And presumably moving into areas that get security restored to them.
A damning by faint praise of Karzai and giving him until July 2011 to make his end of the deal work.
Opening the door to political settlement and participation by the Taliban in a unity government.
And covering off his right flank with the military, which will increase his authority as commander-in-chief down the road.
Committing to deal with the deficit (and it might include some reprogramming of DoD funds and not just supplemental appropriations or cuts in domestic spending).
Grandstanding with the usual American exceptionalism required of a president, but twisting it in the direction of saying that we are exceptional only when we act exceptional instead of when we demand exceptions to the rules we expect of everyone else. A baby step away from the arrogance the U-S-A bunch expects.
And he disarmed Karl Rove ahead of the speech.
At this point we will have to wait and see if this Solomonic decision actually saves the baby.
No clichés here. Don’t fool yourself. Just pure, plain Mr. O. brilliance.
Yes, they have. But you and the PotUS refuse to listen. Bob Herbert wrote excellent analyses of what’s been going wrong and these have been apparently consistently ignored or dismissed by the people in the W.H.
I’ve also repeatedly posted comments trying to explain what to me should be obvious to any informed eight grader: [FIRST] it is and has been from the start one of Obama’s most stupendous blunders to have needlessly fully adopted the Bush/Cheney patented disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and to have made these now wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Obama administration. Stupid, stupid, fucking stupid . And that stupidity is all the worse for the fact that history’s recent examples, from which it’s clear that Obama neither has learned nothing, make so manifest the gross errors now being repeated. [SECOND] Though it’s still far from evident to too many people in America and elsewhere, not only the best course but also practically the only remaining course is to recognize what a smart and honest person would admit at this point: our “troubles” with fundamentalist Islam and its relatively tiny corps of fanatics are of our own making, and born of our decades of blind, arrogant, selfish, domineering policies in the Near and Middle East (as well as just about everywhere else we operate what amounts to a de facto a military-based imperial rule. This should lead us to recognize the only sane course open to us and the only alternative to more years of uselessly wasted life and treasure: we should with strive to negotiate with those who are involved in the violent opposition of U.S. policy and bring to that effort the same determination which we are squandering on the wars. The centerpiece of those efforts should be the convincing demonstration that the U.S. are now determined to turn a fresh page and to dedicate themselves to the sort of promotion and defense of genuinely just, fair and mutually-beneficial world order that the world has so desperately needed, wanted and sought since the end of World War II and of which, since that time, the U.S have made themselves consistently one of the primary if not sole obstacles.
There. I’ve put the main points in boldface to help you spot them.
Now, do you care for any of that? My guess is that, no, you don’t. You don’t wanna know and neither does this amazingly disappointing president of ours whose only saving grace now is the fact that, but for him, we’d be stuck with John McCain as president and the sublimely unfit Sarah Palin as vice president.