Why Obama has waited to annouce the Afghan "surge"

[Alcibiades]

It should be clear by now that the administration had made up its mind with regard to the escalation in Afghanistan some time ago. Multiple trial balloons were floated, and proxies have been out for some time saying it's a forgone conclusion, while Republicans have accused Obama of "dithering." Now, comes the announcement of the announcement that the President will send 34,000 more troops, a number in line with all the various trial balloons floated by the administration and its various proxies very early in this process. Though there have been "strategy sessions," including one last night, there can be little doubt that the military has had these numbers for some time, and has been drawing up plans for the campaign to come.

That being the case, why did they wait so long? I have believed for some time that it is because of health care. This announcement is a signal that the administration thinks that the real battle over health care, Saturday's cloture vote, has been won, and that now it is time to turn to its other priorities. The administration probably suspected, quite rightly, that their choice to escalate the war in Afghanistan would alienate many Democrats, people they needed to call folks such as my own Senator Kay Hagan to pressure them to vote the right way. More chess playing, in other words, except that many of us may not like the game he's playing.

The good news is that we probably will get a flawed, but better-than-nothing health care bill passed. The bad news is that we have given Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted on 9-11: the involvement of the US in a never-ending, Vietnam-like quagmire on the terrain of his choosing. It may well be the case that the President will now turn to the "I'm the President in a time of war" strategy so popular with the previous administration, and that victories on the battlefield will give him the political capital he needs to accomplish his agenda. Those victories may be elusive. If we are committing more young American men and women to Afghanistan, I do hope we win, but this seems unlikely for a list of reasons as long as your arm.

In Iraq War II, Bush set out a clear goal: a stable, democratic government in Iraq that is an ally in the War on Terror. Problem was, he (or whoever it was who told him what to think) probably knew this, is that this is an impossible task: you could have a stable government, but it wouldn't be democratic, or you could have a democratic government, but it wouldn't be stable, and it certainly wouldn't be an "ally" in the "GWoT." What the President has said so far gives me little hope that he has learned this lesson. It has been claimed, for example, that one of the objectives will be to "reduce corruption." In Afghanistan. An Afghanistan that gets much of its national income from the drug trade, wracked by 30 years of war, ruled by warlords, rife with ethnic and tribal allegiances, beset with an ineffective government that has absolutely no incentive to reduce the corruption that is the main source of what political support it does enjoy. I doubt ANY number of troops could accomplish that, because it's akin to trying to solder delicate electronic components with an arc welder.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Maybe he wants to get rid of the Islamic bomb freaks once and for all

I wouldn't be against that. I just wish he'd slash the defense bill in half, and tax the rich as they used to be taxed pre-Reagan, and use that for the American middle class, to improve our country and bring it out of the chaos and depression decades of Repukes forced it into.

[mike_c]

3. "islamic bomb freaks...?"

:wtf:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. 9/11 and all the rest of their sort - were you here when 9/11 happened? nt

[mike_c]

16. by far, the worst "bomb freaks" in the world are American, and nominally...

...christian. Did it ever occur to you that 9/11 had a context bigger than "evil Islam?"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. Um... we had a Christian 9/11 here? oy you'd better explain nt

[superduperfarleft]

51. Iraq has had numerous 9/11s since we showed up

If you want to justify it by comparing casualties...

By your logic, Iraq should've invaded the US, killing scores of civilians in the process, all to take out Bush.

[Hannah Bell]

73. it's not about christians & muslims. bush killed over 1 million people,

none of whom had anything to do with 911.

[chimpymustgo]

49. Honey, you still believe in Osama? Your bomb freaks are in the mirror.

[arcadian]

91. +1

[bigtree]

4. I don't believe that's as static a group as some like to portray

What's changed since all of Bush's intelligence agencies concluded that our presence and activity was 'fueling and fostering' more individuals bent on violent acts of resistance (terrorists, in their estimation) than our military forces could reasonably put down?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Well, I'm sure their leaders change as they do in any group -

people don't live forever and time passes. Plus recruitment goes on, as has been shown in many, many documentaries including on PBS. Islamic terrorist groups recruit non-stop.

[bigtree]

21. much of the violence directed at NATO forces in Afghanistan is resistance fighting

. . . resistance to the U.S. presence and activity in their homeland.

Here's a good example of what our (offensive) forces are doing in Afghanistan (eye gouging):

September 8, 2009

MIANPOSHTEH, AFGHANISTAN – Just about every day, the Marines of Echo company trade bullets with the local Taliban. The troops set out on patrol, until the militants shoot at them. The Marines seize compounds, waiting for the Taliban to try to seize them back.

But Echo didn’t come here to get into gunfights, company commander Capt. Eric Meador insists. These Marines arrived in Mianposhteh two months ago to win the allegiance of this farming community by providing some basic security and economic development to the local people — part of top U.S. commander General Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes swaying populations over killing enemies.

The trouble is, Meador and Echo are too busy fighting the guerrillas here to execute McChrystal’s “soft power” approach. In one day in late August, Echo had six different incidents of “troops in contact” — milspeak for servicemen under fire. Three Marines serving with Echo have died in 60 days. Ten more have been wounded. Close calls have become nearly routine: Bullets missing arteries by quarter-inches, unexpectedly bursting on walls behind, slamming into chest plates without effect. All of which pushes chai sessions with local elders down the priority list. “The whole counterinsurgency, focus-on-the-locals thing – we’re not quite to that point yet,” Meador says.

Any fight against insurgents is going to involve some shooting, of course; there are guerrillas who can’t be reconciled, and militants who won’t be pushed out by mere public pressure. But Meador is using a very different tactic. He’s deliberately sending his Marines out to provoke fights with the Taliban, in order to keep the militants off-balance – and give some of the pro-government villages a chance to rebuild. “I call it the eye gouge,” Meador says. “To keep the good areas here relatively calm, you have to go to the enemy and punch him in the chest, punch him in the face.”

The approach would appear to be at odds with McChrystal’s guidance to his troops. “Sporadically moving into an area for a few days or even a few hours solely to search for the enemy and then leave does little good, and may do much harm,” McChrystal recently wrote. “Once we depart, the militants re-emerge and life under insurgent control resumes. These operations are not only ineffectual, they can be counter-productive. In conducting them, we are not building relationships with people, and we are not helping Afghans solve Afghan problems . . .”


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/tweets-are-comi-2

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. Unfortunate as war is, unfortunate as any fighting is, the fact of the matter is....

Bush the a-hole went into Iraq for profit-making desires, rather than do away with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is where he should have been. Because he is such an ass, he was not, and let the Taliban thrive there.

[merh]

31. Well, the truth of the matter Bush went into to Afghanistan because

the Taliban refused to give the US interests control of and a chunk of the pipeline, thus, they had to be removed from power and replaced by a US controlled government.

The Taliban offered us OBL and they offered to help destroy the AQ training camps. Bush could have simply accepted their offer, stopped the assaults on the people of Afghanistan and focused on destroying the AQ training camps.

Life would be so much better for all of us had Bush used diplomacy. Saddam would have gone into exile and OBL would be in US hands and the training camps in Afghanistan destroyed.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Bush probably doesn't even know what the word diplomacy means

He's an ignoramus. A greedy, evil, ignoramus born with a silver spoon in his alcoholic mouth.

[Hannah Bell]

75. our former allies, you mean?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/93


or perhaps our present allies?

[sendero]

83. Shoulda woulda coulda..

... and 5 years from now you warmongers will be singing the same tune.

The military will demand and get more and more men, without being held to account for producing lasting results. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce lasting results. But the hubris of the generals and the politicians far overshadows the loss of a few paltry cannon-fodder lives and billions our Treasury doesn't even have.

We've all seen this shit numerous times and we all know how it ends. It's just sad that we have to go through the whole damn useless process AGAIN.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

90. War monger? I believe in slashing the military-industrial budget in half.

I'm the furthest thing from a warmonger you'd want to see.

However, if you're another one of those diapered infants who wants "Mommy Obama" to change E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I=N-G for you, right now, and not wait one second more, or you'll get all mad and vomit your baby food and make poop, then by all means go right on ahead.

I ain't changin' you!

[Hannah Bell]

74. "their leaders" = our former allies.

[leveymg]

5. Are you talking about the Gov't of Pakistan, the Saudi Royals, or the Bush family and its henchmen?

All of whom were involved in funding and protecting AQ Khan, who developed the Islamic bomb in the 1980s during Bush1.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. I'm talking about everything from 9/11 to Entebbe, to all Islamic terrorists that make us very

conscious that they can blow us up if they wish.

[Hannah Bell]

76. ...

[DerekJ]

7. Is there a new group out there called "Islamic bomb freaks" that I am not aware off?!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Yep, my name for Islamic terrorists. nt

[DerekJ]

36. Tell me something Sarah; in the context of war, destruction, evil motives, lies and deceit, who do

You think is the bigger asshole, the "Islamic Bomb Terrorists" or the U.S.?

Let me put it in another way; imagine this scenario, where a bunch of innocent children is standing in the middle of nowhere. All of a sudden a terrorist with his long beard , wacky cloth, and his old AK-47 materializes out of thin air, throws a bomb, kills a small fraction of them, then vanishes without trace, and all you hear is the echo of the word "infidels".

Around the other side of the world, a democratically elected president of a powerful country called X is standing all spiffy in a vast hall, denounces the acts of such terrorist, and calls it a cowardly stance, from a religion that promotes violence. Wearing the most expensive suite, and surrounded by hoards of cameras he starts addressing his fellow democratically elected house or congress. He begins by explaining how he has to start a crusade against those children, because after few years, they will turn to critical radioactive mass, and explode in a mushroom looking cloud killing everyone on earth. Country X's Christian right hails him as the new messiah, while the pundits explain to every citizen of country X how their lives will be in jeopardy if they don't support it. He then goes to the U.N holding a jar of some undistinguishable material, explaining, that an equivalent part of those children in this jar would destroy the whole world. And asks other countries to help him kill those children, and some do.

Weeks later, a massive, extremely organised army, that awes whoever lays and eye on it, moves to exterminate those children, every and each one of them.

Years, later the citizen's of country X, and the rest of the world knew that they were duped, those children, were nothing but regular children, but were sitting on a massive stash of Gold.

Yet somehow the citizens of country X still see that terrorist as an inherently bad guy, with an inherently bad religion, while, they are because they are democratic, wearing normal cloth, and have a structured army, did nothing but a mistake.

Yah, well, my point is, you are no different, just each has his own means. One has an army, and a propaganda machine. Started a crusade supported by religious fanatics looking for the return of the messiah, and a terrified to death citizens bombarded by propaganda messages making them think that their massive country is under a huge threat from a bunch of kids. Killing millions in the process, not thousands. And a terrorist short on means, that all he can do is kill a few every now and then.

The funny thing, is that country X, after the first direct attack on its land, did each and every thing it critiqued the terrorists country of doing over the years. Extortion, renditions, torture, assassinations, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, patriot act, indefinite detentions, radioactive ammunition, guerrilla like army killing civilians indiscriminately, and the list goes on.

Christian fundies in the country X? Were saying n their news channel how those policies are the right way to go to protect themselves.

I hope you got the message. You're for sure not better, you are most likely worse.

[Ignis]

59. You mean our good allies, the Saudis? (nt)

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LooseWilly]

89. Bombs = Bad; Landmines = Good !

[bigtree]

2. we'll have to wait and see the details

. . . but you make a very good argument about the folly of expectations of this president and the last.

[tekisui]

6. You are right.

It is also a time when people are paying less attention to news. In the middle of the holiday season.

[Alcibiades]

12. His announcement is next Tuesday

If they really wanted to bury this, he'd do it on a Friday. I expect they will actually make a big PR push to try to rally support for this move, to establish this administration's bona fides on defense and foreign policy. There will be a lot of talk about concrete benchmarks, yardsticks and metrics, and the delineation of a supposedly clear exit strategy.

What they won't do, because they cannot, is describe what they will do if this strategy fails. They might talk about withdrawing, but they did that in Vietnam, too.

[Romulox]

8. I detest how everything this admin does seems so orchestrated, manipulative...

We all knew you wanted to escalate the war, Mr. President. All that you've accomplished is to embarrass some of your true believers who have been saying "you don't KNOW that he's going to surge!". :eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Whom did you vote for, for president? nt

[Romulox]

22. What a frivolous response. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. The fact that you're not answering, tells me you're scared to say it nt

[Romulox]

26. Nonsense. It tells you that I find bullying tactics contemptible. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Bullying? LOL! You're the one bullying everyone to hate Obama because he won't do everything

YOU want, and do it instantly, on command. So please spare me the bullying accusation. Look in the mirror.

[Forkboy]

27. Grow up.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. I did. It's those infantilized comments

and all that infantile whining and weeping because "Mommy Obama" isn't giving you what you want instantly and right this second that makes me see how much growing up this handful of immature "libs" have to do.

[Alcibiades]

39. The war in Afghanistan may still be winnable

Winning depends upon what you define the objectives to be, as I noted in the OP. At this point, though, it does seem reasonable to ask the question: "Is it a quagmire yet?"

It isn't just that Obama isn't responding to the concerns of core Democrats: it's that he is promising us to escalate and maintain a military adventure that will go on for a long, long time. I think many folks would he satisfied with a gradual plan for withdrawal. This isn't it, it's an escalation, and I think it's reasonable, not infantile, to at least question whether this is a worthwhile project. If we aim for a limited objective, it may be, but an open-ended commitment without clear, attainable objectives is a formula for a quagmire.

I expect that the Obama administration knows this, and will outline something that meets these requirements. The question is whether they will stick to this line, or whether, in full LBJ mode, they will get sucked into the psychology of increasing the bet when you're behind.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. Why are *CERTAIN* Democrats such whiners?

If Obama had not shut down Guantanamo, they'd be whining up a storm. If Obama had not initiated the health care reform, they'd be whining. (Hell, they're whining now!) If Obama had not done a zillion things he did, they'd be whining. And whatever he hasn't done ALREADY, they're whining. Doesn't matter if he'll do it in the future. They whine and whine incessantly.

[Alcibiades]

70. I think different issues are salient to different people

Which is pretty much the same as saying that people are different. Formal models of political behavior tell us that the most advantage under out set of electoral rules is to be found by appealing to the median voter. This does not seem to have been borne out by recent experience, though, as Republicans have been able to run and govern as conservatives at the national level, but Democrats have not been able to run as liberals. Nonetheless, the median voter theorem strongly suggests that folks at either end of the political spectrum are prone to be disappointed, because elections are won by winning the middle, not the outliers.

This country hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ. If I were not on pharmaceutical-grade narcotics, I'd be upset, too.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. We need to be joyous that we don't have another nazi-style GOP a-hole

We have someone who has already changed mountains of things, things we never would've imagined, yet it's not enough. They have to have it ALL changed right now or else they consider him a bad president. Well, I say these whiners are just whiners. Or they're Republicans in disguise, and it wouldn't be the first time that happens.

[Hannah Bell]

78. you haven't talked about ponies yet. go for broke, why don't you?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

87. Pardon? nt

[Forkboy]

40. I repeat...grow up.

[Bluebear]

42. You're asking the tide to flow away from the shore.

[superduperfarleft]

52. Infantile?

Who are you to lecture people on "infantile" when your first so-called contribution to this thread was "islamic bomb freaks."

[Alcibiades]

62. Ouch!

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

Good one!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. Oh? I suppose 9/11 was done by Bush, huh? Gawd. Grow up. nt

[Hannah Bell]

79. heck, didn't you just call him a nazi? if you really think so, why would you find it so hard to

believe he did 911?

the nazis burned the reichstag, you know.

maybe you don't *really* think he's a nazi, maybe it's just for show.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

88. I like some conspiracy theories, but I don't think the entirety of life is one large conspiracy

I think the DMS describes that way of seeing life as "paranoia."

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

35. That did it for me. Obama can defend himself. n/t

[rubberducky]

10. I will never be able to figure out what the goal is in this "war".

If we are not nation building then what the hell else can be done over there to win an unwinnable "war". To call the mess over there a war is a farce. Who are we fighting against? Idealogical phantoms against whom we can never declare victory.

[Alcibiades]

15. It's bin Laden, dead or alive

If they were to get him, then they could claim victory. That may be hard, though, especially if he's already dead.

[leveymg]

20. Hard to do, especially if he's already dead.

That was a good one.

[Romulox]

25. Umm, that's not what President Obama said...

Couric: How important do you think it is, Mr. President-elect, to apprehend Osama bin Laden?

Mr. Obama: I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/14/eveningnews/main4722185.shtml

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

84. "technically alive or not" = wtf? "in a cave somewhere" - oh, it's back to bush's caves, is it?

what crap.

[MH1]

18. so because you are pissed about Afghanistan you won't call senators about health care reform?

not you specifically but the generalized you....

that seems to be what the fear is. Sadly it is probably true, there are probably many "activists" on all sides who are that stupid, they would lay down on one fight just because they don't like what is being done on a totally different fight.

[Alcibiades]

30. Not me personally

I was writing about the administration's perception that there is a price to pay with the base for escalation.

I'll still call my Senator as many times as needed, no matter how watered-down the bill or no matter what else this administration may do. My own personal expectations are quite low: no matter what this administration does, it will be 100000% better than what McCain/Palin would have done.

[Mari333]

28. he sends in troops, he loses in 2012

[tekisui]

34. Troops are going, no doubt about it.

It has been written on the wall for months now.

[SIMPLYB1980]

38. Hey look you made it to stage 5!

Congrats.

http://www.memorialhospital.org/library/general/stress-THE-3.html

1. Denial and Isolation.
At first, we tend to deny the loss has taken place, and may withdraw from our usual social contacts. This stage may last a few moments, or longer.
2. Anger.
The grieving person may then be furious at the person who inflicted the hurt (even if she's dead), or at the world, for letting it happen. He may be angry with himself for letting the event take place, even if, realistically, nothing could have stopped it.
3. Bargaining.
Now the grieving person may make bargains with God, asking, "If I do this, will you take away the loss?"
4. Depression.
The person feels numb, although anger and sadness may remain underneath.
5. Acceptance.
This is when the anger, sadness and mourning have tapered off. The person simply accepts the reality of the loss.

[bigtree]

41. troops are going to die there in increased numbers . . . no doubt about it

You go on and keep having fun with it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

44. And you think I don't know more are going to die?

I accepted that long ago when I was for Afghanistan before Shrub went into Iraq. It's war people die. I have family in Afghanistan that could die today or tomorrow, and that doesn't change my opinion because they are doing what they think is right.

[bigtree]

46. cousins there? Did I remember that correctly?

Any particular reason you've not enlisted or deployed?

[SIMPLYB1980]

47. 2 of them and a third in the Navy.

Suffice it to say I believe I have talked with you about this before. Don't care to explain it again. A DU search or reading some of your old threads would give you the answer. Or you can just call me a chicken hawk and I can call you a naive pacifist?

[bigtree]

48. nope, you've not discussed this with me

. . . not if you think I'd call you a chickenhawk.

[SIMPLYB1980]

50. Well I'll just make it quick then.

I though about joining after 9:11, but after * went into Iraq my dad, a Vietnam Vet, talked me out of it. Now I have finished college and have a careerer, and IMO have lost what it would take to be an effective war fighter. Not to even mention my blown out knee. So I support those in the military as much as I can. I even play taps for local military funerals free of charge. You would be surprised how hard it is to get together an honor guard in a small town.

[bigtree]

53. I really admire the folks who assemble and participate in honor guards

. . . always a moving experience, exceptional service in support of our departed military. You have my gratitude for that. Thanks for sharing.

[SIMPLYB1980]

54. Thanks. It is a very little thing I do,

compared to what they have gone through for all of us.

[bigtree]

55. It means a great deal to the families

Thanks again.

[tekisui]

61. You are a pathetic twit.

I have never been in denial about troops going. Grow the fuck up.

[SIMPLYB1980]

67. BS. nt

[tekisui]

69. Prove it.

All my posts are saved. I campaigned for Obama, but knew the entire time he was going to screw up in Afghanistan. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[Mari333]

57. yeah, I have a son in the National Guard

I have a horse in this race. I am so disgusted with Obama right now I could scream . Bush all over again.

[SIMPLYB1980]

60. If you think this is Bush all over again,

you are a fool. But enjoy.

[Hannah Bell]

85. & you know it's not because.......?

[Hannah Bell]

77. personally, i think that's the plan.

[kenny blankenship]

37. He wanted to hold back this gift til Christmas, because he knew there wouldn't be much under tree ?

[Echo In Light]

43. _

[DonkeyHoTay]

82. Nah, he just want to digest his Thanksgiving turkey in peace...

And let us pray that there is no massive troop surge thereafter. That is NOT the Christmas present I want either for the country or for the world. I will continue, against all odds, to hope for "Peace on earth".

[phasma ex machina]

45. Soldiers from my home town knew about the escalation months ago. nt

[EnlightenedOne]

58. I would say the pressure is on

and frankly, after watching Collapse the other night, maybe this "has" to be done - although I still feel it was and is wrong and there was an opportunity for a much better/equitable way to go about it. Obama is certainly not Bush, but he is a prisoner of the wealthy elite, and shadow government and the status quo that has always run this country and made decisions. I feel for him - he is only one man, who has walked into the piled up heap of shit & stench that was embedded in the White House for the past 8 years. He obviously weighed all the options, and we should know that there are lots of things and information the rest of America just doesn't know. Had he "started" the war, I would feel differently, but he didn't and I don't.

[Mari333]

65. He can end it. he wont. the blood is on his hands now

and he owns this 'occupation'. and he will lose his base because of it.
Vietnam take 2.

[Stinky The Clown]

68. "I'm the President in a time of war"

Wow .... if true (and I am not saying it is. It is simply your opinion), that is THE most fucked up reason for war I ever saw. It is criminal.

You said:

It may well be the case that the President will now turn to the "I'm the President in a time of war" strategy so popular with the previous administration, and that victories on the battlefield will give him the political capital he needs to accomplish his agenda. Those victories may be elusive. If we are committing more young American men and women to Afghanistan, I do hope we win, but this seems unlikely for a list of reasons as long as your arm.

I'm not saying you're advocating this. I understand you're simply speculating. But wow. If that's true, that's as low as one can go.

[Alcibiades]

71. He didn't start it

though I think that the Bush folks did start both wars for pretty much those reasons, with the added bonus that they would be profitable to well-connected people.

I do think Obama believes in the mission in Afghanistan. I am also certain that people in the administration have asked themselves how helpful it would be in 2012 if Obama actually managed to win in Afghanistan. What I hope is that the stage is being set so that they can go in, rout the Taliban, and declare victory without predicating withdrawal on solving all of Afghanistan's problems before we can leave.

It would be nice if it worked out that way. In the meantime, win, lose or draw, we can expect to see more of this:

[Hannah Bell]

81. he could end it.

[Alcibiades]

86. I think he's going for peace with honor

Though not in so many words, naturally.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

80. My favorite part of this process was the announcement a couple weeks ago...

...that OBAMA REJECTS ALL! of General McCrystal's recommendations.

Who knew the squabble was over sending 40,000 or 35,000 troops?