Watching Dick Cheney and the Obama administration engage in yet another round of bastard slapping is, I'll admit, highly entertaining. This is not said to diminish the life and death reality of the issue at hand - Afghanistan. I say it to point out an absurdity in the middle distance: Both sides seem powerless. Cheney is. Obama loves his power until he needs to make a decision that will displease some faction. So, at least for the moment, Obama has created a sense of powerlessness for himself on this issue . The impending Afghanistan decision lingers around him wherever he goes. Obviously, I can not know if Obama fears tough decisions...but it sure as hell seems that way.
Both Cheney's unwillingness to sail into the sunset and Obama's increasingly indecisive streak are an interesting clash. One man is a know it all with a horrendous track record, the other avoids tough decisions.
I've no patience for the "blame Bush" brigade in the White House. Even in those areas where Bush lead us astray, it's Obama's duty to lead and not whine about what he got himself into. The man wanted the job. Then again, Cheney is a piece of work. The former V.P. giving anyone advice on Afghanistan is like getting marriage counseling from a Gabor sister. Cheney and Bush screwed the Afghan pooch...big time...if there is one arena where Obama can rightfully blame the bushies it is Afghanistan.
On the other side -
What Cheney exposes in Obama is an indecisiveness that belies his stance as wise and above it all. ( Does Obama have H.I.D. - Hesitantly Indecisive Disorder? )Asking for a 6 month review of Afghan policy after he took office was all well and good. Having the review land on his desk in August, then ineptly kicking the can down the road was foolish.
The mitigating factors here are the leak of the report to the press and the corrupt Afghan elections. Neither, in my estimation, should have been surprises and neither should have caused a delay in Obama executing the task at hand. That the Afghan government is corrupt is not news. Why was a corrupt election treated as a point of consternation? Of course, American soldiers are fighting in a corrupt nation. Of course, the long arm of American power might have to slap Karzai around a bit. How can this be a surprise to Obama Administration officials? Forcing Karzai into a run -off ought to have no bearing of our military policy. Obama has to decide on American policy regardless who wins. I repeat: Afghan governmental corruption should surprise no one.
As for the leak - well, in D.C. a leak is like shit - it happens. This particular leak can't explain the last 2 months - that look for all the world like stalling. One ought to be able to assume that Obama was up to date on the facts in Afghanistan and McCrystal's report held few surprises. One also ought to be able to assume that Obama discussed all the eventualities with the pertinent administration players before the report was due. Any good chief executive would have.
Right?
Or are we to glean that Obama ordered the review, then walked away, believing he'd bought himself the better part of a year to deal with other things?
Cheney's value in snarking at Obama publicly is not in molding a policy discussion. He has no credibility on this issue. However, he does remind us that Obama should be further along on this issue by now.
The thing about the newspapers that still land on many a stoop across this great land every morning is that there is rarely any news in them. Which is to say that news "breaks" elsewhere. TV, the Internet etc. The "news" of any big event in the paper is already known to most everyone.
Much has been written about what this all means for print media. The big city papers and the small town papers will survive and the middle level papers are in trouble makes the most sense to me. So what is print media's place? That's the question. Often, it very much feels like that of a life coach...whispering in our ears "Look over here! This is important!"
All this is my lead up to saying: OKAY, I GET IT. OBAMA HAS A TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE ON AFGHANISTAN.
Now, I'm NOT criticizing any potential Presidential decision on Afghanistan in this post. I'm observing that a large portion of the media narrative right now is not about the potential decision - it's about how seriously Obama is taking it. How he's "listening" and "taking all factors into account" and having meetings, reading books, and being terrifically responsible and "won't be rushed". All of which one would assume is the norm for a President thinking about an ongoing war.
The Administration has not helped matters - Gates, Clinton and others have been tasked with making public pronouncements about Obama's deliberations. They were, no doubt, forced by the leaking of the McCrystal recommendations. It may also be civilian push back against the military. A way of saying "look we are in charge here. Not the Pentagon."
"Listen to the commanders on the ground and do what they say" is one of those often repeated, rarely examined memes that feels right but may not be in all cases. Lincoln and Truman famously did not "listen to commanders on the ground" all of the time. Judge the outcomes in those instances for yourself. Regardless, civilian control of the military is an essential element of a democracy. Listen with respect to the commanders on the ground and question them with respect - is the proper stance for an elected Preisdent.
I want the President do be serious and deliberate about such matters. Who doesn't? However, I wonder why we need such overt, loud reminders that he's being serious and deliberate. I hope it's because of the obvious: Whatever he decides to do he's going to anger many people and needs the country to know his decision was not taken lightly.
My fear is that Obama will attempt to split the baby down the middle and all this deliberation is to create cover for a half baked tactic masquerading as a strategy.
We shall see.
What we don't need is another week being reminded that the Commander-In-Chief takes war seriously. That ought to be a given.
In August 2007 Senator Barack Obama fresh on the presidential campaign trail made an impassioned promise at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars to wage what he dubbed the war that has to be won. The war is the war in Afghanistan.
The rest of Mr. Hutchinson's piece discusses Obama's commitment to Afghanistan and seeing the dangers through. It assumes (and was written just three weeks ago) that Obama meant his promises on Afghanistan.
Today, literally days later, there are questions all around as to Obama's intent. Most pointedly from the Washington Post which expressed serious concern that Obama is waffling on statements about the war he made in March.
I've felt for a while that Afghanistan would subsume health care as the main issue this Fall. Obama has to make a decision on troop levels and funding soon. On this issue I assumed he'd keep his campaign promises. He'd sell Afghanistan as the war that must be won. Now it appears he's stalling. McCrystal's report is nearly a month old. Obama has had one meeting with his national security team in the interim. One.
We are often told by the MSM that Obama has a lot "on his plate". This is true. He's got health care speeches, global warming speeches, speeches to unions, vacation time, Sunday chat shows, promos to tape for George Lopez's show on TNT, Letterman....still one has to wonder what he's up to in delaying a decision on Afghanistan. Is it a slow, deliberate process - as the White House insists? Has he decided more troops in Afghanistan is now a bad idea and needs to break it to the Generals (that he appointed) slowly? Is he being driven by polls showing the war in Afghanistan is increasingly unpopular? Is he playing the Left wing of his party for a few popularity points until health care is further along?
I do not know.
Here's are my thoughts on the matter - Obama is bad at making decisions. He's the anti-decider. He seems to avoid it. He punts where ever he can. The stimulus bill, cap and trade, health care, the 30 or so czars he's appointed are all examples of Obama shoving off the heavy lifting to others. It's only in the last few weeks that he's injected himself forcefully into his central domestic policy issue. Even then - his presence has consisted mostly of making speeches and appearing on TV shows. There is scant evidence that' he's committed deeply to any one part of health care reform. There is no line in the sand beyond a bill...any bill.
War is different for Presidents. The buck can't stop somewhere else. Presidents lead wars. If they go well they become national icons: Lincoln, FDR, Truman. If they do not they are vilified: LBJ, Nixon, George W Bush. There's no escaping the constitutional provision making the President the Commander in Chief.
Personally, I'm torn about Afghanistan. I supported the invasion in the Fall of 2001. Since then much time, wealth and blood has been wasted. Is an outcome we can live with even feasible any longer? Conversely, we can't allow the Taliban a free pass to return to power.
I'm allowed ambivalence. I'm not the President.
Whatever Obama does he may yet end up being clear and decisive. But so far his "deliberation" looks like fear.
NQ points out something very interesting indeed. How did WAPO get General McChrystal Afghanistan assessment? Leaks like that do not happen easily. Why has it been on Obama's desk for 3 weeks? As Kieran asks in the post below - Why is Obama playing class clown on Letterman while General McCrystal's letter sits on his desk?
Most important of all - Has Obama lost the military already? This is the most important question. The C.I.A. is not happy with the man. If the military higher ups are turning...well...the politics in D.C. will get brutal quickly. Rule one - even in this democracy - don't piss off the national security complex.
Rafa Rocks: Man storms on to the U.S. Open Court after match, he hugs then kisses Rafael Nadal. After he's taken away by security Rafa says ""For me, it wasn't a problem. The guy was really nice. He said, 'I love you,' and he kissed me."
Yikes! AP: 4 out of every 10 working age Californians unemployed. That's 40% unemployment. Severe. A bit of a stretch. But let's be honest, around the country the real numbers are much higher than the 9.7% reported and we all know it. There does seem to be an effort to keep the official number under 10%
2. Pimpin the Oval Office: Just can't get my mind around what's his nutdoing promos for a second tier celebrity host of a basic cable talk show. What's next? Girls Gone Wild in the Oval Office cuz the creep who makes those "films" donated 50 bucks? The Prez announcing a WWF match in Atlantic City cuz Hulk Hogan had an Obama house party? The Narcissist in Chief disgusts me no end. The moment I saw that Lopez ad I thought "If the choices in 2012 were W or BHO...I'd vote for W. My God, I loath this guy more than W." I did not think it was possible for me to loath a POTUS more than W.
3. Brown and Blue: However...all is not lost for the Dems. Here is a donkey I might stick my toe back in that murky blue water for...
#1. Request for book reviews: I loved Tamerlane's review of the Lincoln bio last night. Expanding on what he said - we do get a lot of book suggestions in the comments. It would be great to hear your thoughts on what you've read. Write a review! Here are some guidelines your review should contain...
Title Author Publisher & Year
Overview of -What does it cover? -How is the writing? -What type of reader would enjoy it? -What do we learn? -Is it controversial? Groundbreaking? Inspiring? A bunch of Crap?
-plus a few limited quotes.
500 words max.
Send here: John@liberalrapture.com
Don't make it homework. Have fun! The community here is consistent and opinionated. Open new vistas for us!
#2: An alarming charthere. Obama's White House...not so good with numbers.
French Open Closes for Nadal:Oh, Rafa - say it ain't so. Serena and Andy Roddick are still in - so I have reason to watch and root...but Rafa...oh Rafa...why you do this to me, Rafa?
The Survialist next door: Stock up on canned food and live ammo - everyones doing it!
Firstly, please read an update on this post. I took what can only be read as a swipe at Chris Hedges which I was unfair and wrong of me.
Over a hundred civilians were killed by - what appears to be - American air raids in Afghanistan yesterday. Pictures of the results are linked here with a warning that they are sad, sickening, and heartbreaking.
I am not going to write about what I think of this particular war - which is now clearly Obama's but it must be made clear over and over again that - whether the Afghanistan war is right or wrong - that innocents die. Young innocents.
Obama's stance on this war is one of the many things that was ignored by the Obama Pod-O-Sphere. His duplicitous stances on Iraq were also papered over by the dutiful minions on the Move-On Left. His strategy has always been to expand the Afghan war and move it when necessary into Pakistan. All along he stated that we would get out of Iraq. Though the timetable for that is now no different than Bush's. I've stated before what I believe to be true: He won't exit Iraq - or won't be able to - and there will be a continued expansion of troops into Afghanistan through out his term.
Of all the shuck and jive (go on call me racist, I'm well past giving a shit.) Obama and his minions threw down last year, the double and triple speak on Iraq, which made room for false hope regarding Afghanistan is the most despicable.
A long time ago reasonable people realized that we will be in what amounts to a permanent war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. A permanent war, that is, until this country simply has no more resources to fight it. I do not like the willy nilly use of the word "imperial" by anti-war commentators - but the war is about power and resources much more than it is about "radical Islam". We control the region or someone else does. That is how it goes with powerful countries in a world with other powerful countries.
Geo-politics were not changed on January 20th. No one should kid themselves.
It is the Code Pink ninnies and the other adjacent jackasses on the Left that refused to press Obama on the wars that deserve our contempt and a severe comeuppance
Make no bones about it. They sold their souls and their principals. Not by supporting Obama over McCain but by refusing to see the reality of their chosen one and demand answers before handing him the keys to the kingdom.
Obama took ownership of the Afghan war today. Lock, Stock, and Barrel. In general terms I agree with the President's plan. Destroying the Taliban has been the right thing to do since at least the late 90s. We would have achieved this goal long ago had W not taken our eyes off their balls.
I am supportive of Obama on is - in the most general sense. We must defeat those who attacked us and mean to do us further harm. Still, I can only do what we all must - wait and see. I've learned my lesson when it comes to supporting anything Obama proposes. After initially being supportive of the stimulus - Obama and Pelosi soon larded the bill up with unstimulating nonsense. It hard to say if BHO has the smarts, tenacity , or vision to guide this country through what will certainly be a tougher, bloodier war from here on out. The enormity of the Bush/Cheney lies about Iraq will haunt Obama. The country is sick of war. And sickened still by W's malfeasance in misleading us about Iraq.
From way out here it looks like Obama has set himself up with an impossible task. He attempted to lower the bar for success - but the bar is immobile. We must secure a region that has been for centuries not at all secureable. Defeating the Taliban is the only measure of success.
Further we must not be attacked again. This, too, is a nearly impossible goal. If anything, today the President ramped up the any plans that may be in the works in some cave over there. If I fault him it is for the announcement. Which had all the bells and whistles of "big news". The man has got to learn some subtlety.
Yet, being as fair minded as I can about BHO, I do not see another option that comes near acceptability except something that looks like a win. The other options? Leave. A non starter except on the Code Pink Left. Negotiate - which he's mentioned - and even in the mentioning is viscerally repellent. Or try to wind up the country for a massive increase in troops which is not only political suicide but probably not possible anyway.
This may be remembered as the day Obama truly claimed the Presidency. He has decided to fight a war that will not be over in four years. This is his war.
Danger is everywhere on this front. The analogy to Vietnam actually works with Afghanistan.
*Escalation is a sure bet. *We are fighting a home grown enemy. *The anti any war Left is already turning on Obama. *Further, with "official" unemployment numbers set to go past 10% the country is looking inward and in no mood for this battle.
Even with all that I don't see that he had much choice. Also, Obama never overtly lied about Afghanistan during the campaign.He is doing what he clearly stated he would do. I hardly commend him for this. The Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R. ninny Left were fed a line of hooey about Iraq and allowed, with the encouragement of the MSM, to transfer this "peace" jargon to Obama's foreign policy in general. Obama could have been much more forth coming during the campaign.
From my observation deck here in Koreatown, I will enjoy watching heads explode on the ninny Left. Perhaps throwing little acorns engraved with "told ya so!" on the seething fools.
This caused howls of protest from the Left, many who had already thrown in with the "man who pledged to end the Iraq war" -or so they chose to believe. The "America out or Iraq wing" of the Left embraced a single speech BHO made that was not even recorded at the time - as proof that he was one of them.
Fast forward to February 2009 current President Obama, has now embraced the Bush Iraq time line, having thrown 15 other Iraq war stances overboard. Further, he has ordered 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Let us call this a surge of troops. Though, they refuse too.
I do not fault Obama for this order. He campaigned on a pledge to increase American presence in Afghanistan. Nor do I fault him for the sneaky way he announced the buildup. (As an afterthought to the stimulus signing.) His week was about the economy and he played that up. "More war" would have been a buzz kill.
I do, however, fault all the pro-Obama peaceniks for their unbelievable level of denial. The fact is Obama is hashing out various plans for the troops he's sending to the region but he still has not settled on one. Sound familiar? W, Cheney, Rummy and crew pulled this stunt in Iraq.
As is too often the case, those, like me, who are generally, but not always, against interventions, are of two minds. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Still do. I think we should have fought and won Afghanistan in the first place before moving on to Iraq - which is is not a war against a government that harbored people who attacked us - but a resource war. The sickening truth about not vanquishing the Taliban in the first place is that now nuclear armed Pakistan is in peril. The drive to set up a pro American oil state in Iraq may now have horrific unintended consequences.
Do not be fooled into believing this is a change in strategy on Obama's part. This is an extension of the same strategy started by W in 2001: Control and dominate the region. Obama is fulfilling the next step. Or going backward to clean up the first, bobbled, incursion if you like that view better.
If Thomas Ricks is correct, and the Iraq war it is not winding down, it is entirely possible that in the few years we will fully engaged there and Afghanistan. The man who came to end the Iraq war will oversea a massive extension of war in general.
And why must we control the region? Simple answer: Oil. Slightly more complex answer: Oil and the need to check China, Russia, and Iran.
Have any opinion you like about this. I, myself, am torn. But getting out of the region is not on the table. The American policy argument here is purely one of where and how - not why and when to exit - as so many on the Left want to have us believe. We are not leaving. We can't, unless we are willing to cede a massive chunk of power to Russia, China, and Iran.
