David Sirota: How Do You Ask A Man to Be the Last to Die for President Obama's Political Image?

[OhioChick]

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 09:15

I don't like to try to read the minds of politicians - mostly because with the automatons we have in office today, if you actually could read their minds, my guess is you'd find almost nothing actually going on in there. However, there are ways to ferret out the actual motives of politicians - and in particular, on the issue of the Afghanistan War.
Consider this fact that has been reported almost nowhere other than McClatchy (incidentally, one of the only news organizations that didn't propagandistically beat the drum for the Iraq War):


There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops. (emphasis added)
Yes, to run the kind of counterinsurgency operation that President Obama said he's aiming for in his West Point speech this week, the U.S. Army says there needs to be 600,000 troops in Afghanistan. President Obama obviously knows this - and yet his escalation means we'll only* have 100,000 troops there (And even if you insist that the 600,000 number is for an "all-out" counterinsurgency campaign and further insist Obama is not promising an "all-out" counterinsurgency campaign, he's still not proposing even a quarter of the 600,000 number - for self-identified goals that would clearly require nearly and all-out effort).

Therefore, we know one of two three things is going on. Either:

1) President Obama believes we can conduct the kind of counterinsurgency he says we need with one sixth of the troop levels his counterinsurgency experts say are necessary, or

2) President Obama is escalating the war with no intention of halting an escalation, but instead an intention of continuing to escalate to much higher troop levels irrespective of his vague promise to try to bring troops home in 2011, or

3) President Obama is risking the lives of 100,000 troops in order to prevent being labeled "weak" - but with no intention of actually waging the counterinsurgency strategy he publicly says is necessary.

More: http://www.openleft.com/diary/16287/how-do-you-ask-a-man-to-be-the-last-man-to-die-for-a-presidents-political-image

[Cant trust em]

1. If the war is as unpopular as the polls suggest, then what is the political upside here?

Through that lens, I don't see how this decision would help his image.

[ihavenobias]

3. The Republicans and some hawkish Dems would've bashed the admin mercilessly.

They would've pulled out all of the old BS lines about liberals not keeping us safe, that we'll be attacked again (and imagine if we were, tragic on its own but the ultimate gift to The Right politically speaking), etc.

[Cant trust em]

5. They already used that and it didn't work in the campaign.

I honestly see the public as fed up with our wars and want us out. Maybe Obama wouldn't pick up huge points, but I don't think that he'd lose any by pulling out entirely. I honestly think that pulling out would be the best move politically.

[ihavenobias]

7. And if we had the smallest act of terrorism, what then?

The right would EXPLODE and blame it on the 'weak liberals' who didn't have the guts to stay and get the job done (and we all know the MSM would repeat that BS over and over thus influencing plenty of moderates and independents). Hell, they'd say that anyway because of the proposed timetable which is why it's terrible politics. At any rate, generally speaking our Dems have proven very weak and often caved in based on right wing memes and pressure (see the healthcare debate for the most recent examples).

The bottom line is that all politicians (regardless of party) at least *consider* the political ramifications. Unfortunately I think there are people who are a little too eager to embrace or reject this fact based on their like or dislike of a particular figure or party. Obviously it's complicated and there are several things that factor into such a large decision. My point is that of course politics is one of them, even if only at the level of 1%.

[Cant trust em]

8. Think for a minute if we did have an act of terrorism.

And our intelligence actually did trace it back to al-Qaeda from the Af/Pak region.

Wouldn't that criticism from the right be warranted?

[ihavenobias]

9. The point is that the right is going to blame the Obama admin no matter what.

Which is again why bowing to them out of political fear is always a terrible decision. And the obvious answer to your question is "it depends". Actually no, that's being too easy on the right. Of course there could be constructive and even harsh criticism that might be warranted, but what are the chances that it'd come from the right?

They'd point to exactly the wrong things to criticize and move us further in the wrong direction. But my original point is that an attack after a withdrawal from Afghanistan (and Iraq) would be an enormous political gift. Any attack would be, but in that particular context especially so, I'm sure you agree.

[Cant trust em]

10. I do agree, but I also think that there are a lot of ways to slice this decision

but I think that first, and foremost, needs to be the reality of another terrorist attack. We can talk about political motives all we want, but I think that ultimately we need to think about an attack first. Maybe it's just the context of the conversation we're having, but I think that too much emphasis is being put on the political cover and not enough on the real security concerns.

[ihavenobias]

11. I don't want to get too sidetracked, but I'm far more concerned about the attack on our economy.

Like Bin Laden said on one of his tapes, his goal was to bankrupt us, and I fear that our continued involvement overseas is helping him achieve that goal. That coupled with so many other things (the Wall Street Treasury dept., the Fed., the bailouts, historically low tax rates on the high end, trade policy and so on).

Don't get me wrong, obviously we have to prepare for another attack and use our intelligence and other resources as needed. But the truth is that we can do far more long-term damage to our country with bad decisions (on the economy, healthcare, education, the debt, etc.) than any band of religious extremists can. That's not minimizing the very real threat of extremists, rather it's keeping them in context.

[Cant trust em]

12. I am too, but I don't think we can pick one or the other

The long-term goal has to be less aggressive about our foreign policy, but immediate security needs need to be seen within that context.

[Demeter]

16. Democracy Cannot Operate and Live in Fear of the Insane Remnants of a Dead Party

and trust me, the GOP is dead.

[elocs]

2. Check out this earlier thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7146718

[Myrina]

4. ... or its not about 'terra' and 'insurgents', its about protecting a pipeline.. .

... and 30,000 troops will do nicely, thank you Mr. Obama.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Describe in detail how Obama will benefit from that pipeline. (nt)

[O is 44]

13. Yes I would like an answer to this as well...

The President seems very confident in his own skin, I am not sure why some on the left push the weak meme. He is doing what he campaigned on, so all the psycho analyzing in this article is really over the top.

[Myrina]

14. The folks that really run this country would benefit from the pipeline.

Obama's the pitchman, just like Dimson was.

[O is 44]

15. I still don't get what Obama is getting out of this...

Bush and Cheney's cronies got rich.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. And who might they be and how did they influence Obama?

[zoff]

29. Can't import oil from an unstable middle east? ...

... Import oil from from an unstable Central Asia. Pipelines seem to be the way to avoid chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, and thus lower associated costs. But of course, energy companies aren't really going to reimburse the US Military for expenses like say, soldiers lives, are they? Yes Myrina, it's all about energy and money.

[democracy1st]

18. K & R

[Doctor_J]

19. Next November is going to be an electoral bloodbath

There is literally no reason to go to the polls for many of us

[OhioChick]

20. Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. n/t

[Skittles]

21. Mr. Sirota is absolutely correct

[grasswire]

22. Skittles, not to hijack this thread but I saw your name on a restroom wall today!

It said "Skittles was here"

Really and truly.

[Skittles]

23. well I probably WAS there

what's it to you? :7

[grasswire]

24. you peed on the seat (eom)

[KoKo]

27. OMG...I hope she didn't Scrawl on the Wall in Lipstick: "For a Good Time Call Skittles!"

:eyes: That would be TOO MUCH...and NOT something our SKITTLES would ever do.

Just funning... Anyone remember those "bathroom scrawls" with "For a Good Time... Call...?" I always wondered where those phone calls ended up.

[grasswire]

28. no

Just "Skittles was here." No good time offered!

[PurityOfEssence]

25. The only good thing about this is that others see it too and are speaking out

Depressing.

[KoKo]

26. Interesting Read...Kick