Very Smart Person to Make Very Dumb Mistake?

[Maineman]

President Obama is headed toward doing in Afghanistan what Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam. The outcome is likely to be just as bad, probably worse. My concern was reinforced by two guests on Bill Moyers Journal 1/30/2009, who provided very compelling information about the history of external forces in Afghanistan. History has shown repeatedly, repeatedly! that external forces fail there. Ramping up military efforts in Afghanistan would be a very foolish error.

I went door to door as a volunteer to help elect Barrack Obama. Much of what he is doing and will be doing is wonderful. But expanding and continuing war in Afghanistan or making war in Pakistan would be the height of foolishness. Is he trying to prove that Democrats are just as willing to make war as Republicans? Is that a good thing? Is he trying to fend off criticism from conservative war mongers? Does he fear Rush Limbaugh's big mouth? How is it that such a smart person could make such a dumb mistake?

[david13]

1. Ditto. Oh, sorry,

I mean, it does sound like Lyndon Johnson, doesn't it.
And I agree with you. Vietnam was a no win situation. Irag is a no win situation, and so is Afghanistan. And we should get out.
dc

[MADem]

2. Obama has been telling America what he intends to do in Afghanistan for over a YEAR.

Why is this news to some people?

Why didn't you listen to him when he said he was going to shift assets from Iraq to Afghanistan dozens of times over the past year? Did you think he was .... kidding?

He has always said we're in Afghanistan for the long haul. Why is this a surprise to you?

The one who made the "dumb mistake" isn't Obama. It's people who didn't listen to him when he very plainly articulated his intended course of action over the past .... YEAR. And even longer:

From a speech on the first day in AUGUST....

2007

: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

....When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq's leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need—and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

[david13]

3. It isn't news.

It's something that needs work, input, vocalization, debate, and rethinking. Obama is usually good at that.
dc

[MADem]

4. Obama has been "vocalizing" on this like a drumbeat for well over a year.

It's BEEN "debated" and "inputtted" and "rethought" till the cows come home. How many speeches does he have to give on the subject before you figure he's got a plan in mind? Two hundred? Three? More?

I think he's thought it through pretty well.

This is NOT a surprise. If he took any other course of action other than the one that he has cautiously, carefully, painstakingly articulated, that would be a surprise.

People who claim to be surprised should check themselves, and their own prejudices. Obama was NEVER the "anti-war" candidate. He was the "anti-that-dumbass-Iraq-War" candidate.

Shame on those who didn't listen if they didn't get what they thought they wanted in a President. Maybe next time, they'll pay closer attention to what the candidates are actually saying, and not try to overlay their own beliefs on the "cute" candidates.

I'm OK with his Afghan strategy and it's not a surprise to me, because I listened to him when he discussed these issues. It's not just a military approach. It'll take a long time, though. Make no mistake.

There won't be any "rethinking." The time for debate has LONG passed. This is part of the reason why he hung onto Gates--because Gates has skill in helping implement this vision.

[glitch]

5. Excellent point and belated welcome to DU!

In a dynamic system the debate continues.

[Maineman]

7. Wishful thinking - and many other great favorable characteristics

and qualifications.

[many a good man]

12. We were hoping it was merely phony macho posturing

After all, phony macho posturing is a prerequisite for being elected president in this great land of ours.

[Igel]

14. Ah. That's disturbing.

You voted and supported somebody who you not only thought was lying to you, but somebody you actually *hoped* was lying to you.

And now are upset that you weren't lied to.

In other words, the best deception must be the truth because nobody would ever expect that of a politician.

[acmavm]

13. Okay, you've hit on the thing that puzzles me most. Obama was NEVER

EVER gonna just pull out of anywhere. Certainly not Afganistan.

Now, I don't know if that's wrong or right because I just cannot see anyway that we can actually win in Afganistan. But I can be wrong here, I'm not about to think that I knew it all on this subject. But how, how can we win this? What can we do to turn it all around? There's Hamil Karzai, the ruler of about 6 square blocks of Kabul. There's the Taliban, a bunch of really dispicable mysoginistic brutes whose complete and total disappearance would be an sociological boon to the planet, a completely wonderful thing. And then there's the warlords who haven't exactly been our bestest friends in the area (even though we sure helped a few of them in the beginning of this 'war on terror'). They especially didn't give a damn when they saw an opportunity to score for themselves (even if/especially if) it meant screwing over the US & NATO.

I just don't have the faintest, all I know is that no outsider's have been able to take over Afganistan (and a few have tried).

[Two Americas]

16. there are a number of problems with this

First, people are not necessarily "surprised" and do not need to be surprised in order to speak out against it. Why are you surprised that people who were against this war before the election continue to be opposed to this war?

Secondly, people were told that Obama was not perfect, but better than the alternative, and that once he was in office we could "hold his feet to the fire." No one said that once Obama was elected we then must not speak out on anything unless it is precisely in congruence with his positions. Anyone daring to suggest before the convention that Obama might escalate either of the military actions overseas was promptly beaten to a pulp and told they were delusional.

Then, during the primaries the most zealous supporters of Obama continually and aggressively portrayed him as the anti-war candidate, when contrasted to the other candidates. It is disingenuous to now do a 180 on that, and then claim that nothing has changed.

Are anti-war views to now be seen as unwelcome in the Democratic party, merely because the people waging war now have a "D" after their names? If so, we have descended into the pit of moral depravity, and nothing threatens the future success of the party more than that does. This means that those demanding compliance and conformity in thought and word for the sake of party loyalty, while claiming they are promoting the success of the party, and worse yet claiming they are the only ones promoting the success of the party, are actually working against the success of the party.

[bhikkhu]

6. If you look at the history of the Taliban, there are possibilities

at various times beset by poverty and isolation they were open to discussing an evolution of their ideologies. There is nothing in the Koran that requires them to think as they do about women's rights, education, technology, etc, and there is no reason to think that their ideology will remain static.

While I don't welcome talk of more troops, ramping up war, etc, I do think that Obama has a plan based upon his better understanding of humanity - which includes both us and the Taliban, and allows for common ground toward the common good. * lacked that understanding completely, and years of media hype has only followed his lead. I am inclined to think that circumstances and possibilities are other than they have been portrayed for so long.

[bertman]

8. Natural gas. Oil. Afghanistan sits astride the route from the fields to the consumers.

The oil and gas pipelines cannot be built, maintained and utilized while wars are raging in Afghanistan. There were lots of players in this drama, but one that is probably familiar to Americans is Unocal, which was bought by Chevron.

In other words, there are trillions of dollars to be made pumping oil and gas across Afghanistan. Whoever controls the country can make a lot of money and have a lot of power--including determining who does and does not get oil and natural gas. But first, someone has to control the country and stabilize the situation there.

Consider the fact that the Taliban are Sunnis who are strongly influenced and financed by Wahabbi fanatics from Saudi Arabia. They also get support from Pakistan and are often protected by the Pakistani government, or at the least, treated with a hands-off policy. Why in the world would the Saudis want to control Afghan oil/gas pipelines? Ummm, I wonder.

So, President Obama can build up the troop contingent in Afghanistan and attempt to lure other nations to join us there, or he can pull out. He is not going to pull out for two reasons: 1) the oil interests who have such a huge influence in our government will lose trillions if the pipeline is not built and used; 2) Allowing the pipeline to be built by ANYONE OTHER THAN US means that someone else will have the ability to cut off the economic lifeline to countries all around central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Now, the best our President can do is convince the American people that Afghanistan is a worthy cause and try to gain control of it with as few casualties as possible. Already we see that as we step up our involvement there so do the indigenous forces of opposition who are aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other muslim/arab nations. It's likely that we will continue our ongoing Middle East debacle in Afghanistan under the guise of rooting out terrorism, but that is only a smoke screen for maintaining U.S. control over more of the world's oil and natural gas AND holding a strategic staging point in the Middle East.

At least, that's my opinion of what's going on.

And MADem is correct that this should come as no surprise to any of us. Obama was always open about his support for ramping up the war in Afghanistan.

[northernlights]

9. consider the likelihood

that Obama has access to info that we do not.

There are significant differences between the situation in Vietnam, who was no real threat, and al Qaeda and the Taliban, who are.

The government of Pakistan is on the brink of collapse. The government and military of Pakistan are infiltrated with al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not just sitting around waiting for the collapse of Pakistan. They are actively working toward it. That will give them control of a nuclear-armed state.

The recent Mumbai attacks were just another symptom of what is brewing over there. Considered by many, Obama included, to be the most dangerous hotspot in the world.

[Vattel]

10. Is there any reason to think

that escalating the war in Afghanistan will help to stabilize Pakistan? (Serious question. I don't know the answer?)

[Igel]

15. Yes. there is.

One bit of evidence occurred a couple of weeks ago when a large group of Taliban "surged" over the border to mount a raid in Afghanistan.

The tribal and clan boundaries don't coincide with the Durand Line, the line on a map that the British drew over a century ago that is now the Pak-Afghan border. The ethnicity in the area, the Pakhtuns (also Pashtuns) straddles the border. The Taliban is pretty much a Pakhtun matter. There have been similar kinds of things in the past, always put down with a fair amount of bloodshed when tribal and clan equilibrium's bollixed up. Often they turn up masked as religion; sometimes there's no light visible between clan/tribe politics and religion.

In any event, think of Afghan and Pakistan as two tanks connected at the bottom by a hose. The water finds an equilibrium point where the level's the same in both tanks. If you add more in one tank, it flows to reach equilibrium in the other. If you fit a piston to one tank and push down, water flows to the other tank to equalize the pressure. When the US pushes in the S. and SE of Afghanistan, logistics and planning moves to Pakistan; if the Taliban are fighting in Afghanistan, it's men and materiel that can't be used in Pakistan; when they're wounded in Afghanistan, they take shelter in Pakistan. When the Pakistanis push against the Taliban, logistics and planning moves to Afghanistan, etc., etc. There are a variety of groups in the Pakhtun area that can be called "Taliban", and while they often disagree, they also often join ranks when confronted by outsiders. Such is the nature of tribalism.

[Dr.Phool]

11. Consider what Moyers guests had to say last night.

Obama wants to put 60,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The Soviets had 250,000. Couldn't do it. How many did the Brits have? Couldn't do it.

I tend to agree. Afghanistan is going to be for Obama, what Vietnam was for LBJ.

As for Obama saying forever what his plans were in Afghanistan, No Shit. He also said we'd continue strikes in Pakistan, and he has...already. And, they're not very happy about it either.

It's not like we had a better choice. I wish him all the luck in the world, but I don't see anything good coming out of this. Especially if fundies take over Pakistan, and control nukes.

[treestar]

17. He can't just stop that war, too right away

Closing Gitmo and ending iraq is enough for a start. Get the population to get over the "war on terra" bit by bit. It took * 8 years to build this up, and it can't be gotten over in one month.