And about that 18-month exit date in Afghanistan…
It is clear that the only reason for Obama to publicly disclose that 18-month exit date in Afghanistan was to address his own Leftist base and say to them: “please don’t hate me too much; this distasteful war thingee won’t last very long.”
It is also clear that the world also happens to be listening to his communication, including the enemy, the Afghans, and our allies and potential allies. The inescapable conclusion they must all reach is that Obama does not mean business. In strategic terms, that is a very bad thing for them to actually know, even if true.
So why telegraph it in this way? Because Obama puts his own political future before the good of the nation, the Afghan people, and the world. Funny thing is, I don’t believe it will work. If the chatter on the Leftist blogs today is any indication, his base is spitting mad at him.
[NOTE: This German wasn’t impressed by Obama’s speech, to say the least:
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.]
It wasn’t just a fig leaf to the parsan base in the way you mention (ie, I’ll get out soon… so stay calm). It was also part of the I’m ‘anti Bush’ game… as the left kept demanding a time table from Bush.
Overall I’m with the German guy, I kept hearing ‘party partisan’ in the speech. The time table was just part of that.
this distasteful war thingee won’t last very long.”
A decade seems fairly long.
NObama and the Leftists could very well get at least something of their cherished Vietnam redux under these circumstances.
Consider if you are some crazya$$ Taliban or AQ warlord – what do you know after this speech?
You know it’s a half-hearted effort.
You know there’s a self-imposed deadline.
You know you have approximately a year and a half to sit back and get ready for the exit to occur.
You WON’T be – if you’re a smart warlord – wasting your resources fighting the US military since you know they are going to leave anyway.
Since you are not wasting resources against a superior enemy, you are going to be conserving them, building them up, preparing…
The exit will not be here today and gone tomorrow – it will be a gradual decline in the numbers of US trooops.
This means the last troops to leave will be the most vulnerable.
Remember our crazy-a$$ warlord mentioned earlier?
He’s going to be sitting on a nearby hillside awaiting the moment he has any sort of military superiority, even if it’s shear numbers, and he’s going to attack right before the last troops leave in order to make an impression on the population.
Such an attack will also allow him to crow about how he “threw out” the US forces.
Hopefully in this case we won’t have anybody hanging from the undercarriage of helicopters…..
Neo,
There is quite a bit of mumbling about exit strategy here in Germany. The Obama buzz has not completely worn off in the population and sensible politicians are still going to have to weave their way between hope and changers and realpolitikers. I have no confidence that their moves will always be to the good of the US.
I mentioned before that Obama went from the far left to right of center the very day he won the nomination. He ran as a centrist and, in some respects, to McCain’s right. The way he did this, at least to me, showed a brazen disregard not only for the truth but for the intelligence of the voting public. Although I find what he does to be incredible and counterproductive, he obviously has a different take. It may be that, in his mind, so long as he holds tight to the far left (his home), and the MSM, he can always bamboozle his way through the 2102 presidential election as he did in 2008. After all, he won’t have to go through a beauty contest to be selected by his party to run for president and people have short memories, so he can and will say anything before the election to appear to be conservative and most people will not remember or care that he is anything but. Who knows whether he will be able to get away with this. I do know that those of us who follow politics closely are a tiny portion of the electorate and we have next to no ability to sway an election one way or another. But we certainly know how to blow off steam.
OOOPS, 2012. My bad tiping is surpast onli by my bad speling.
Instapundit linked to Austin Bay’s assessment that this is a surge in sheep’s clothing. I trust Bay, and will ponder long before I reject his judgement. It would be wonderful if true. However, the facts on the table as they look to me smack of something much grimmer.
So, my boy has to cancel his plane ticket and not come home for Christmas, which he (and we) would be fine with if he felt the trust that this president had his back and was sending them with the best hope of victory.
Sounds like your boy should look into another line of work.
“Half-assed”… that is the term that comes to mind after listening to Obama’s speech last night.
The best thing about the speech was the cadets sitting on their hands. Hardly any applause, and that lukewarm.
The Army may be called upon to deal with Baraq Allende. One can but hope they’ll come in on the right side.
I predicted that Gitmo would not close in January and we will not exit in 2011 from ‘stan.It’s just another lie to calm the leftist mob.
He’ll say that things have changed and the troops have to stay.He just can’t help but be a lying pol.
Half-assed is fine for political lifers like Obama, but seriously folks just what the hell CAN be done there? We all remember what the Soviets did in that place, and there were none of these cozy Nation-building exercises. I worked with guys from Brighton Beach who spent a little time there. The tales were, of course, always grim. If you got rid of Pakistan you might have half-a-chance. I find it all quite worrisome. But, Obama should not be sending the exit strategy signals, particularly for the poor bastards stuck on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th deployment. And certainly this will pander to the bad guys, only further emboldining this hide and seek death match they love so. Knowing full and well the dire situation, and given the setting, this should have been a speech that projected power and confidence. You don’t go into the locker room at half-time and announce “Well guys, hang in there, the game will be over soon”. This Obama business, wrong, just so wrong.
@will
We can win Afghanistan one tribe at a time, beginning with the strongest tribes which would be receptive to us: making alliances one tribe at a time, proving ourselves a better friend to each tribe than the Taliban would be. We must think of Afghanistan as a collection of scores of tribes. It’s a decades long project, yet it absolutely could be done: we absolutely could be better friends to each tribe than the Taliban could be.
The victory we need is not some mysteriously impossible thing. It’s doable. It would take time. We cannot win Afghanistan before the end of Barack’s time in office.
jorsh, this particular boy was abused in Romania, running to the military man who lived next door who protected him from his father. He came here as a teenager in 2001. His express purpose in going into the Marines is to “protect people who cannot protect themselves.”
If you really want a discussion, it is here. If you just want to show off how clever you are, I won’t bother.
His express purpose in going into the Marines is to “protect people who cannot protect themselves.”
That is outstanding.
Wow. Jorsh just got smacked down like an Aghan school girl in 2012.
That’s a nice story. But the fact remains that if he can’t do his job because of his politics he should change jobs. Most of the soldiers I know just want to do their jobs and don’t whinge that the President doesn’t “have their backs.”
Most of the soldiers I know just want to do their jobs and don’t whinge that the President doesn’t “have their backs.”
Liar. You don’t know any soldiers.
Being a soldier isn’t a job.
Gray, please leave me out of your weird fantasies about schoolgirls. Thanks in advance.
Gray, please leave me out of your weird fantasies about schoolgirls. Thanks in advance.
Unfortunately, it’s not fantasy…. The taliban kills a lot of Afghan schoolgirls.
Gray,
you can pass it on that its true.
on an island of java that my wifes family also lives on, they beheaded some young christian girls.
Three girls have been beheaded and another badly injured as they walked to a Christian school in Indonesia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4387604.stm
The fighting four years ago drew Islamic militants from all over Indonesia and many have never gone home.
Analysts say the militants have targeted central Sulawesi and believe that it could be turned into the foundation stone of an Islamic state.
if you have ever met such girls as i have, you would then realize that they are not like american high school girls, so worldly in their sexual antics… these girls are more like the innocent bobby soxers of the 50s..
by the way jorsch.
they opened up the records of the inquisition, and the tally of people were 300… 1/10 of what died on 9/11…
Jorsh said:
“Most of the soldiers I know just want to do their jobs and don’t whinge that the President doesn’t “have their backs.””
Interesting.
Neither the Marines I used to know down at Camp Swampy, nor the crazy airborne who I’ve met who jump out of perfectly good airplanes over Bragg, seem to have the outlook on their chosen profession that you describe….
Same is true for all of the veterans who live in my neighborhood.
Of course, you also more often than not have to take the time to get to know them before they will speak freely on political matters…have you tried that?
Getting to know them, that is.
Speaking ill of the C-in-C has gotten some guys in trouble before……
will Says:
“Half-assed is fine for political lifers like Obama, but seriously folks just what the hell CAN be done there?”
His hand picked general asked for 40 something thousand troops and didn’t ask for an end date. I’ll start and end with that. Had he done those things I’d have nothing bad to say about Obama on this….
jorsh, you misunderstand, perhaps rather intentionally. There was no hint of anyone saying they won’t do their job, and the Corps has served under good presidents and bad, good officers and bad. Politics doesn’t enter into it. Not for us, anyway. The boy is eager to go. It seems the politics is more an issue for you.
However, soldiers do wonder, and rightfully so, whether their leaders are putting them into situations where they will not have the resources (including other soldiers) to do the job correctly and not be sent to be killed unnecessarily, for personal political reaons. Liberals wonder that aloud whenever troops are committed, and in fact have encouraged troops to regard their deployment as a mere extension of corporate or conservative ambition.
Many in the armed forces are deeply suspicious of Washington in general, Democrats in specific, and especially Obama. Those suspicions are based on both real history and on soldiers’ rumors. This does not change how they respond. But it is simple kindness, even mere politeness on our part to remember that they also wonder and want to believe those who put them at risk do so from the best motives.
As to your interchange with Gray, I note that it was you who had the automatic response “weird fantasies” when presented with the word “schoolgirl.”
Of course, you also more often than not have to take the time to get to know them before they will speak freely on political matters…have you tried that?
Of course. They are my friends. They say that they mostly think about their day-to-day duties and responsibilities in connection with the immediate mission, and don’t really worry too much about partisan ideology. Because they’re trained professionals, not angry blog commenters.
Looks like Captain Spaulding is in charge.
Sorry, AVI, but I’m not inclined to believe you when you try to speak for soldiers any more than you are inclined to believe me.
I note that it was you who had the automatic response “weird fantasies” when presented with the word “schoolgirl.”
Actually, the “smacked down” bit, which you omitted, was pretty crucial to the creepiness.
Because they’re trained professionals, not angry blog commenters.
I’m a trained professional soldier and and angry blog commenter.
I think a CiC’s words and attitudes affect morale and motivation in the military for good or ill, as it should be.
I, and the people I know, and AVI’s son, will discount our feelings and serve professionally under Obama as we did under Bush, Clinton, and Papa Bush as I did. That is the mark of a professional. But it certainly doesn’t make it any easier….
Actually, the “smacked down” bit, which you omitted, was pretty crucial to the creepiness.
I’m sorry that joke was too clever for you.
Leaving Jorsh alone for the moment, the speech was another attack on the Bush administration, claiming that they did little to nothing for the “past several years”, but that the O arrived to save the day with careful deliberation.
What a blowhard.
I’m sure it was not lost on the sea of men in that room, men of integrity and service, not braggarts.
Jorsh:
The soldiers you “know” must be Royal Marines or some such. You and they are likely to be the ones that “whinge.”
When talking to Americans, it’s best to use American English.
Jorsh said:
“They say that they mostly think about their day-to-day duties and responsibilities in connection with the immediate mission, and don’t really worry too much about partisan ideology.”
Ya know, I used to get that same bull$hit response initially – til I got to know them better and they felt free to say what they really thought….
Here’s a clue – if you are hearing the same generic response from several people in the service you are probably being fed a line….
The soldiers you “know” must be Royal Marines or some such. You and they are likely to be the ones that “whinge.”
I’ve not seen Royal Marines whinge about anything.
stumbley,
I kind of wondered about that – I just assumed it was a misspelled “wince”.
Is “whinge” a brit term? I’m unfamiliar with it.
Is “whinge” a brit term?
Yeah.
Maybe “whine”?.
Here’s a clue – if you are hearing the same generic response from several people in the service you are probably being fed a line….
They don’t give the same generic responses. They give a variety of responses. It’s just that none of them parrot the generic partisan cliches that folks like AVI and Gray do.
When talking to Americans, it’s best to use American English.
Sorry, I’ll try not to confuse you with obscure words like “whinge” in the future. I’ll try to keep it monosyllabic as well if that will help.
I’m sorry that joke was too clever for you.
I’m sorry you think jokes about beating up young girls are clever and funny. Comedy is hard. You should leave it to the pros.
Did anyone notice in the course of using a thousand “I”s that he mentioned that he is closing Gitmo and stopped torturing. This is so new for him.
Is “whinge” a brit term?
As is “berk,” which for some reason leapt to mind in reading some posts on this thread. (Or should I use authentic orthography and say “berk”?)
Jorsh,
So let’s see, you originally stated:
“They say that they mostly think about their day-to-day duties and responsibilities in connection with the immediate mission, and don’t really worry too much about partisan ideology.”
So I assume when you use “they” that you mean multiple individuals.
Then you go on to state what “they” are telling you – which appeared to be a singular viewpoint from your description.
That of course raised a red flag for me.
When I pointed out how that doesn’t square with the military types I have known over a number of decades, you come back and then claim the following:
“They don’t give the same generic responses. They give a variety of responses. It’s just that none of them parrot the generic partisan cliches that folks like AVI and Gray do.”
But the assertion that they are expressing multiple views to you, ya know, kind of undermines what you were asserting the first time around by stating what “they” were ALL saying to you….
You’re busted…..
No no no Ed Bonderenka, we were talking about what Jorsh’s numerous military friends were doing (whinging) – not what Jorsh was doing (whining).
🙂
jorsch,
it is the RESULT of the policies you WANT.
Afghanistan women/girls being beaten.
It is on your conscience not the person you think you are going after….
As is “berk,” which for some reason leapt to mind in reading some posts on this thread. (Or should I use authentic orthography and say “berk”?)
Berkley Hunt? What’s wrong with Berkley Hunt?
Hahahaha!
I’m sorry you think jokes about beating up young girls are clever and funny. Comedy is hard. You should leave it to the pros.
Yet young Afghan girls getting beaten post July 2011 will be Obama’s legacy.
War is hard. You should leave it to the pros; like me.
What’s wrong with Berkley Hunt?
Nothing with literal ones. A lot with the figurative ones.
“Whinge” is like when Obama says “Poki-ston” or “Tolly-Bon.” Far too complex for us neanderthals to understand.
I notice that Poland pledged additional troops to the effort in Afghanistan even after Obama slapped them across the face on the missile shield issue.
Of course, Sarkozy said “Non!”
Guess we know who our real allies are. Obama should consider this and act accordingly when dealing with those countries in the future.
spiegel is being brutal…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html
For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.
The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.
It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.
and this last line is a zinger..
The American president doesn’t need any opponents at the moment. He’s already got himself.
…a government which he said was “corrupt.”
A Chicagoan complaining that other places are corrupt. Proof positive that there is no God, or right after he said that a lightning bolt would have left Obama as a small pile of smoking cinders.
Chris Matthews CALLS West Point the “Enemy Camp”
—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ53HH4Hygo
jorsh, you made an effort to raise the level of your game for a post or two there, and I was encouraged. Then you fell back into attempts at condescending humor. Give it another try, now. I’m quite serious, not baiting you. I am a firm believer that many who attempt to grind out the arguments in more hostile discussions come over to the libertarian/conservative side in the long run.
We live in a democracy and with it comes some limitations. Even the President has to navigate the political waters and that’s what he tried to do with the “18 months” caveat. The reality is, however, Obama proved himself the pragmatist I’ve always said he was, and ordered a substantial troop increase — not quite what I’d hoped, but not trivial either, and if NATO does follow through with more troops it gets close to the 40K number McChrystal asked for. Ultimately I believe Obama is smarter than most liberals and has realized Afghanistan really is a war we cannot afford to lose, and is gambling that this “surge” is going to stabilize the country to the point that we’d start to draw down troops in 18 months anyway.
There is one upside to telegraphing his moves in advance, which is that it will put pressure on Kabul to shape up. If they know they have to get their asses in gear or risk having to fight off the Taliban with their less-than-formidable army amid decreasing American assistance, they might start to get serious about their own security. This would obviously be a good thing. On balance, however, I think Neo is right that the 18 month thing was primarily a bone for the left.
As I’ve often said I am a liberal but I don’t always agree with liberals. I really don’t agree with the stance of most liberals on Afghanistan. It’s illogical and betrays a total lack of awareness both of the threat we face and the security situation there. But then again that’s why I supported Obama and why I’m very glad Biden is VP and not President.
Obama’s decision reminds me of a rhyme we used to chant in grade school:
The Grand Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again!
Even as a six year-old, I found that rhyme hilarious. Ten thousand men! And all he had them do was march up and then march down!
I’m glad the president has approved the 30,000 troop surge. I just wish he hadn’t put a time limit on their involvement – it’s going to get more people killed. And it’s delayed America’s realization of what kind of person they’ve installed in the Oval Office – a man with no convictions save those that will damage our country’s reputation and security.
By the way, jorsh is wasting everyone’s time. Disengage!
The money part of the rhyme comes at the end –
When they were up they were up
And when they were down they were down
And when they were only half-way up
They were neither up nor down!
I think we know where we are with Obama’s time-limited surge.
Mitsu, I have addressed the inherent problems of believing you can pressure a client-state government on the previous thread. It’s a mug’s game. Do you actually know anything about the topic?
It is obvious that issuing ultimata to your clients may be good domestic theater, but it is no way to get things done in the real world.
Mitsu with ——— wrote, “Even the President has to navigate the political waters ”
No. Even the Pres has to navigate the waters to victory.
If you were my advisor and I were the pres, I would’ve fired you on the spot with that kind of pandering statement. You are either for victory or not.
Mitsu with even more ——— wrote, “which is that it will put pressure on Kabul to shape up
Popular line among liberals. However this IGNORES the fact that Kabul has a 5th column that we need to help Afghanistan deal with to SUCCEED. Afghanistan hasn’t had a central government like Iraq.
My email above points out 2 options the enemy has. In reality, the enemy has 100 options. ALL of which includes continuing to infiltrate the 5th column inside the government.
Was listening to and watching the newest “Celtic Women” on TV tonight, and perhaps it was the wine as well, but I couldn’t help but reflect as I saw and heard these beautiful Celtic women sing their glorious and haunting music–product of more than a thousand years of our common Western culture and history–that if what we need to do to survive is to carve a bloody channel a thousand miles wide through the Muslim hordes that threaten us and our Western civilization, then that is what we should do, and without regret. I am pretty sure that my Celtic ancestors of thousands of years ago, some of them likely berserkers and naked warriors–painted blue with woad–running behind their chariots, would agree.
The reality is, however, Obama proved himself the pragmatist I’ve always said he was, and ordered a substantial troop increase – not quite what I’d hoped, but not trivial either
Alternatively, the reality is that Obama proved himself to be the pussy I’ve always said he was, by trying to split the difference and minimize the outrage both from liberals and from loyal Americans. He should’ve realized that it’s not about him, 1exercised his judgment (God help us), decided what he thought in the best interests of his country (to be clear, I mean the U.S. here), implemented his decision, told anyone who didn’t like it to get stuffed, and taken the heat. In other words, be a man.
He should have done what he thought was right, rather than what was popular. Kinda like his predecessor did.
>Kinda like his predecessor did
Too bad what his predecessor thought was right was so wrong much of the time.
Obama has to navigate the political waters because we don’t live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy, and that means for him to get things done he needs the political support of Congress and the American public. The left is already pissed at Obama on a number of issues and this has incensed them more than most. They are unlikely to work nearly as hard for him in the next election, and that is not good for Obama then. He has got to hope that this strategy works before the next election so my fellow liberals will work hard for his reelection. It’s just too bad that on this issue, Obama is right and most liberals are wrong, and I find myself yet again in the position of supporting a policy against the grain of many of my friends on the left.
Oblio, I didn’t see your comments vis a vis pressuring a client state — perhaps you can repost them or at least post a link to the thread you’re talking about. I agree that the 18 month timetable probably does more harm than good but I simply point out that any given policy can have both good and bad effects; it seems to me that pressuring the Afghan government is one of the good things that comes out of this, which isn’t to say that I think, overall, that it was a good idea to set a timeline at this stage. It’s too early in my opinion. We have a lot of ground to cover and it is likely to take a long time. I can only hope that we get lucky and Afghanistan does significantly stabilize in the next 18 months, so we can start drawing down the troops without destabilizing the situation there.
Mitsu is a sad apologist for Baraq. Said he was “gambling”. Almost all gamblers LOSE. Admits he’s pandering to the Left.
Let’s just ask ourselves, What would an angry Left do against Baraq, except yell and scream? How much impact has the (more mannerly, unfortunately) Right’s yelling had? Zip.
So BHO has no reason to fear doing the right thing. McChrystal wanted 80,000 troops, felt it was maybe (maybe=maybe not) possible to do the job with 40,000. Got less than forty.
Baraq is doctrinaire, and he is lazy. Fortunately he has a hard-working Teleprompter to offset.
It’s interesting that Rove, Gingrich and Gates had positive things to say… While it’s still a black hole in the long run, which 18 months ain’t (obviously a time line only for current convenient political posturing anyway), the most dangerous major thing about Afghanistan (in the near future) is their poppies; Iran, with their surrogates and allies (Syria, Lebanon with Hezbollah now securely entrenched and protected by even the U.N., as well as Venezuela, North Korea, etc.) on the other hand… Of course we can conjecture about then having another reliable ally (ie. Turkey, hmm) and strategic staging positions bordering both the east and west of Iran, as well as a solid staging position to deal with Pakistan. Maybe Obama, the Chicago politico, is simply learning to think big, even if he is a day late and a dollar short; while he still publically has Israel to intimidate and betray to maintain his radical left-closet muslim personna and credibility. What more could a person ask for, the best of both worlds…
If you’re an Afghani and you’ve heard the United States’ stated aim to “surge” (or quasi-surge, or mini-surge) some troops into your country, and likewise its stated aim to leave after eighteen months, do you risk your life and your family’s life on that statement’s being “political expediency”? How much cooperation can we now expect from Afghanis?
I’ll have to read the Austin Bay piece, because frankly when I hear that our president has “committed” to even fewer troops than McChrystal’s minimum-for-a-chance-at-success and is calling it a “surge,” all I can think of is that the president really, really didn’t understand the Petraeus COIN strategy.
He’s going to throw some soldiers into Afghanistan so he can claim he “took action.” He doesn’t care how many American soldiers or Afghan civilians die, either in the rushed and pre-announced attacks against jihadis (who now can prepare and dig in), or after the withdrawal when Afghanistan once more collapses into a maelstrom of Islamist terror. None of those people are likely to vote for him so their lives are unimportant.
Sorry scottie. I didn’t realize you were unfamiliar with concepts like “paraphrase” and “summary.” I’ll try to dumb it down a bit going forward so as not to confuse you.
What’s amusing about this is that if George Bush or Sarah Palin had given this precise speech the crowd here would be singing its praises. Blind partisanship is so pathetic.
jorsh,
You initially claimed all of your (supposed) military acquaintances said the same thing.
When called on it you then claimed they gave a variety of responses – but now you are trying to claim you were just paraphrasing?
Accept it. You were busted, get over yourself.
I have serious doubts you have more than a casual association with anyone in the military – if at all.
And exactly where did I bring in Bush or Palin?
Your assertion that anyone would be singing their praises on this matter requires you to make some huge assumptions since neither of these public figures have, to my knowledge, spoken out on this matter.
It appears you are trying to shift the subject – which would be yet another clue that you know you stepped in it.
There’s certainly a figure practicing “blind partisanship” on display here – you.
And yes, you are pathetic.
Jamie wrote, “How much cooperation can we now expect from Afghanis?”
Probably nil.
They know that after we leave they will have to answer to the bully – with their head cut off if they are proven to have supported us in any way.
THAT Mitsu is why I oppose this plan.
It doesn’t do anything to help get afghan people on our side – it’ll make the situation deteriorate or seem WELL while the enemy rests for 18 months.
Which ever of those options…. neither are good.
Neither Mitsu.
Okay, scottie. Your sleuthing sure has busted me. It’s inconceivable that anyone would ever summarize a variety of responses that generally have a similar theme. Clearly the only explanation for the failure to parrot your preferred meme is that I am lying. Truly you are a modern Sherlock Holmes.
F*ck off, jorsh. You’re still in diapers.
Stop wasting our time and blogspace.
jorsh: what’s actually pathetic is the weakness of your arguments. You certainly don’t know this crowd very well, nor do you know either Bush nor Palin. Neither of them would send troops into a war with a deadline of 18 months. Bush fought the Democrats tooth and nail who pushed for an announced deadline like that in Iraq. And in the exceedingly unlikely event that either Bush or Palin (or indeed, any other person on Right or Left) ever did sent troops to war with such an announced deadline, I and most of the commenters here would excoriate that person.
This is actually about principles rather than personalities. But perhaps that’s a foreign concept to you.
Jorsh = Snarky. Not worth arguing with.
Mitsu = An ideologue. Maybe can be shown the error of his ways by using facts and logic. Good luck, folks.
Matter of opinion. Snarky contemporaries of Truman, Reagan, and for that matter, Lincoln, thought the same thing. History has proven them wrong.
Good thing FDR wasn’t so craven. Pre-Pearl Harbor, Congress and the American public vigorously opposed any involvement in the war. FDR went out on a limb (and violated the Neutrality Act) to help Britain, because he foresaw how events would play out. That, and of course, because he was a leader, not a community organizer.
Ah, there’s the rub. It’s all about Obama, his prospects, his career, his aggrandizement, his hopes. This is exactly what’s wrong with Obama. He’s President (God help us); his duty is to make decisions in the best interest of the United States, not in those of Barack Hussein Obama. It’s called “statesmanship.”
Obama’s in exactly the same position as a lawyer representing a client, something to which you’d think a putative lawyer could relate. Imagine a defense attorney thinking that maybe he should go easy on a prosecution witness because otherwise he might blow his chances of a judgeship. It’s exactly the same.
jorsh stated:
“It’s inconceivable that anyone would ever summarize a variety of responses that generally have a similar theme.”
Ah, but that’s not what you said a while back. First you said they all said the same thing, then you said they gave various answers, and now you are claiming you are just summarizing what they all said – which would kind of go against, ya know, them giving you various answers to the same question.
Seems you are starting to qualify your statements long after the fact here.
“Truly you are a modern Sherlock Holmes.”
Another brit reference?
I mean I am familiar with Doyle’s writings, but I also recall Holmes is a brit literary character – which I guess does go along nicely with with your previous “whinge” comment….
Anyway, I’m just having fun kicking ya while you’re down.
Neo-neocon has done a superlative job of knocking you off your high horse already….
>all about Obama
No, it’s about getting the most good done you can, while you can. Obama chose a strategy after extensive review which he felt had a good chance of success, while accomodating some of the pressure from the left to establish an exit strategy. You have to realize the pressure within the Democratic Party is intense right now to end this war. I’ve argued forcefully against this, my small contribution to the debate, online, but my voice is definitely in a small minority. Unfortunately most people still tend to align in a dove/hawk fashion on military matters, which I’ve always thought was absurd; my view is you make a careful assessment in each case and you go to war reluctantly, but when you do go you go all out. In this case it is a war in self-defense so obviously we have no choice; I find it strange that my fellow Democrats don’t see it that way, but then again I’ve often diverged from my fellow Democrats.
But Obama has more decisions to make, in the future, and he needs to navigate these waters. If he can throw a bone to the left because he thinks the good that will do will outweigh the harm, then he does it. He plays a long game — this has always been my disagreement with the right; the right tends, as a whole, to play short-term ball. The left plays the long game, for the most part (though many on the left use short-term tactics which is dumb, in my view).
Mitsu: You seem to have shown up here to pat yourself on the back that your previous claim that “Obama is a pragmatist” has been vindicated by his Afghanistan decision.
So far this is about the only instance in Obama’s presidency that can remotely be considered “pragmatic.” Everything else has been your basic hard left/big government/soft power/Democratic patronage mishmash that has yielded no gains.
Other than where Obama continued policies from the Bush administration, just about everything else — his policies in regard to Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Honduras, Guantanamo, our European allies, Cash for Clunkers, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare can hardly be called pragmatic.
Finally, Afghanistan may be pragmatic in the sense that it is not an ideological decision. However, I don’t really call it pragmatic when after eight months of inactivity and dithering since Obama announced his bold new Afghanistan policy last March, Obama has taken a sub-middle course that disappoints everyone, and looks to me like a sure way to lose the maximum American lives without being sure to achieve victory — a word not in Obama’s vocabulary when it comes to war/
Pragmatism also means “doing what works” and we haven’t seen much of that from Obama and I doubt we are seeing it in Afghanistan.
If he can throw a bone to the left because he thinks the good that will do will outweigh the harm, then he does it.
In this case, the “bone he threw to the left”, the 18 month timeline, will kill Americans and Afghans.
Wolla Dalbo, our western European ancestors generally solved the problem of belligerents in the Middle East by letting them wear themselves out fighting Orthodox Christians in the Balkans. Sometimes they even said thank you. Occasionally, they would go on offense and go to slay the Turk. Being easily agitated and confused, they would warm up by slaughtering Jews, Orthodox Christians, each other, etc on the way there.
The Crusades lasted a thousand years. We played defense for 950 of them. What we call the Crusades were the intermittent periods of the West going on offense. The real “crusaders” were the Muslims for 950 years.
As to the Irish, GK Chesterton said it best:
“For the Great Gaels of Ireland
Are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry
And all their songs are sad.”
If what we want to help create–for whatever reason, altruistic and/or selfish, i.e. to decrease our chance of being attacked–in the Muslim world, is some semblance of a modern, forward-looking, liberal, pluralistic, egalitarian, economically viable and no longer rabid and feral civilization, the fact must be faced that the Muslim world is basically irredeemable, especially and specifically by us, and has been deliberately designed to be xenophobic, inward-looking and extraordinarily resistant to change.
The fundamental fact is that progress of the type we favor is anathema and a deadly threat to Islam and all it’s stakeholders, and according to Allah, Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islam, we “unbelievers” are Islam’s eternal enemy, the source of all that is corrupting and bad, for we unbelievers obstinately deny Allah and his commands, and stand athwart the holy path to victory and world domination that Allah has decreed.
The stranglehold of Islam, and the coinciding interests of almost each and every stake/power holder in the Umma–large and small, organizations or individuals–in maintaining violent, woman fearing/hating Islam in power–Imams, government and military officials, ideologues and most of the intelligentsia, leaders and followers of every Muslim organization and group, even husbands and men in general–makes progress and “redemption”–especially progress and redemption advocated, carried out, or spearheaded by us, almost universally condemned and hated outsiders, the “unbelievers,” impossible.
The dangerous truth that we have been denying and repressing, that Islam and Muslims have always been our implacable enemy–down through 1,400 years of deliberately repressed, covered up, and “forgotten,” Muslim slaughter, slavery and destruction aimed at unbelievers in all corners of the world and to this day–and that commands to and justifications and techniques for converting, enslaving or killing the subhuman “unbelievers” are the focus of most of the Qur’an, and were the focus of Muhammad life’s work–must be brought into consciousness and faced head on. Thus, “nation building,” somewhat altruistically tried by the Bush Administration and currently a component of the Obama administration’s effort in Afghanistan, is both futile and ultimately injurious to the U.S., for who would suicidally strengthen instead of weaken their main, and growing enemy?
Instead of futile, soft-headed and ultimately lethal (for us) denial and trying to “make nice,” what we should be doing is making the central, essential nature of the conflict–as Huntington named it, this deadly thousand plus year “Clash of Civilizations”–explicit, and right up front for all to see.
We should be fighting the totalitarian, military-political ideology clothed in a veneer of religion that is Islam on every level, much as we fought the Soviet Union during the long Cold War by, first, containing current day Islam within it’s current boundaries, next, by trying to roll back those boundaries, and by trying to weaken and attack the basic legitimacy, ideology, doctrines, practices and behavior of Islam and Muslims at every turn and also, as a key part of this conflict, by immediately and permanently halting Muslim immigration to the U.S., and finding ways to convince those Muslims already settled here –who the Saudis call “[Islam’s] scouts behind enemy lines,” to return back to the Muslim world.