Dec
2
Stylistic Differences
Filed Under Uncategorized | 61 Comments
On Obama’s speech.
Sending the extra troops – good
Putting more responsibility onto the Afghans – good
Politically convenient timetable for withdrawal – bad.
Obama’s speech – Tedious.
I have to agree with this commentator at The Corner:
I think I’m also just so fatigued with his endless lectures. Am I alone? So far, he’s not inspiring anybody with this grim intellectualizing. Do you want to rally around this reluctant call to arms. Do you hear trumpets blowing as he holds our flag aloft into victorious battle. How about some optimism? How about calling us to a higher purpose?
Obama’s no Churchill. It’s a personal thing, but I think a call to arms requires more than intellectual rationalisation; if the American people are to get behind this increased build up they need a more bullish and patriotic approach.
But like I said, it’s a personal thing.
Oct
4
Obama’s War
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 16 Comments
A 24 minute trailer to a new series about Afghanistan on P.B.S. Very interesting and well worth watching.
Sep
25
Biden Or McChrystal?
Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment
Who’s advise should Obama take on Afghanistan. As has been recorded, General McChrystal, the Commander in charge in Afghanistan has stated that without the addition of 40,000 new troops, the allied cause there will be lost. On the other hand, Vice-President Joe Biden is apparently gaining traction with his plan, originally rejected by Obama in March to:
scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan,
Leaving side Joe Biden’s rather unfortunate habit of picking the ‘wrong’ option on foreign policy, does his plan make more sense than McChrystals? A plan supported by General Petreaus. I suspect that if it was as easy as picking off Al-Qaeda one-by-one without the compensating factor of engaging them on the ground, that would have already been tried. Personally, I would err on the side of those who are the experts, the military men.
The Weekly Standard makes a stark contrast between the bona-fides of the two opposing factions:
Barack Obama……can’t possibly imagine that the generals who brought security and stability to Iraq are wrong while the politicians who would have abandoned Iraq at the height of the violence there — and who insisted that the surge could never work — are right about military strategy in Afghanistan.
Perhaps Obama’s equivocation is a political sop to the left, a glance in their direction to keep them happy before he listens to the experts. But this appears to be digital decision for him; either pull the troops out and interdict only from the air, or send in the cavalry. If the current situation is a losing one, then no purpose is served by maintaining the status quo.
Sep
23
The Democrats on Foreign Policy
Filed Under Uncategorized | 17 Comments
Rich Lowry of The National Review on the Democrats approach to Afghanistan:
Democrats are the party of extreme situational politics on national security. Almost every major Democrat with presidential aspirations voted to authorize the Iraq War, then turned on it. As the Iraq War spiraled downward, many Democrats called for more troops, then resisted the surge. It has practically been mandatory for all good, card-carrying Democrats to trumpet the centrality of the Afghan War since 2003, using it as a rhetorical club to attack President Bush’s focus on Iraq. Now that it is crunch time in Afghanistan, they’ve gone from resolute to flaccid.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t “think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops.” Once upon a time, she insisted, “We need to finish the job.” Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is touting an implausible plan to train the Afghan army without any more American troops. Forgotten are the days when he browbeat Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for a failure to provide “the kind of commitment of forces or resources that our commanders on the ground are asking us for.” And John Kerry, who used to be as gung-ho as John Wayne in The Green Berets, now sounds ready to revert to his usual martial role of leading the political charge toward defeat.
This was an attack that once worked against Democrats, that they were weak on National Security. I’m not convinced that it still will in an America generationally removed from The Cold War.
It does demonstrate their lack of integrity on the matter though.
Sep
21
Afghanistan Open Thread
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 50 Comments
Well I’ve now been up for 25 hours, so I’m not going to coherent in discussing what could be the big news of the next few days: General McChrystal’s leaked request for more troops, and Obama’s seeming reluctance to commit more troops to Afghanistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/mcchrystal-afghanistan-as_n_292941.html
Don’t forget, for Obama, during the campaign, Afghanistan was the “good war”. So the question is, if his appointed General in the field feels that more troops are necessary to win the war there, why is Obama hedging?
Are we talking logistical and practical objections? Or is this more about his pacifist base who dishonestly appropriated Afghanistan as the right war as a strategy to discredit Bush on Iraq?
But surely this can’t be the reason:
“Are we doing the right thing?” (Obama) asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday. “Are we pursuing the right strategy?”
Well if you don’t know that after eight months in charge, what was the point in electing you?
So use this as a place to debate this interesting news until a more detailed post appears.
Aug
16
Bush And His Wars
Filed Under American Politics | 16 Comments
During the last five years of Bush’s Presidency, the overwhelming rhetoric from the left was focused on George Bush’s wars. No other Bush policy (aside from possibly Guantanamo and torture) excited the left quite as much as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly Iraq, though even after the surge stabilised the situation there).
But under Barack Obama, not a lot has changed. Whilst American troops have withdrawn from Iraqi cities (a Bush administration agreement) and a timeline has been set for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops (similar to George Bush’s timeline), the war in Afghanistan has been escalated as have drone attacks on the Taliban in Pakistan.
But strangely, these are no longer serious issues for the left. A straw poll was conducted at Netroots Nation, an annual conference for liberal bloggers. The wars have fallen right down the liberal blogging agenda:
Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed. Greenberg presented respondents with a list of policy priorities and asked, “Please indicate which two you think progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most.” The winner was passing comprehensive health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was passing “green energy policies that address environmental concerns,” with 22 percent. Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was “working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Not only are the bloggers no longer concerned about the wars, they are no longer interested in doing anything about them:
Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues “do you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently?” The winner was health care reform, with 23 percent, and second place was “working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections,” with 16 percent. In 11th place — at the very bottom of the list — was “working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed that as their most important personal priority.
So in the space of a few months and a new President, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone from the single most important reason for opposing Bush to a relative afterthought. Why is that? It’s because it was never about the wars, it was always about Bush. The left used the wars as a weapon with which to bash Bush, now he’s no longer there to bash, their righteous indignation has become more nuanced.
And now they are criticising Republicans and conservatives for opposing Obama regardless of policy. Interesting how that works.
Jul
13
Damning Afghan Assessment From UK Right Wing Tabloid.
Filed Under American Politics, British Politics | 11 Comments
By Israel
The Daily and Sunday Express are not papers l give a first, let alone second glance at what with it’s Al Fayed financed conspiricy theories, overtly racistheadlines, Nazi saluting owner and his large stable of pornographic magazine titles.
But once in a while a squirrel finds a nut, as they have in this case.
While you can question why it took until there was a black President for rght wing newspapers in the UK to declare things lost it’s good that the subject has been raised.
The website Crooks and Liars has the full scoop and also links to a piece in the Daily Mail by British military historian Correlli Barnett who calls for unilateral British withdrawl from Afganistan.
The war in Afghanistan is lamentable mainly due to the waste of personnel and resources in Iraq. One of the arguments l have had is due to my support for action in Afghanistan but my complete opposition to what was decided by both Britain and the US over Iraq.
I was not swayed by the fearmongering about Balsa wood planes which could attack in 45 minutes, Colin Powell’s now refuted UN testimony, and the ever changing rationale for war in Iraq.
If the original reasons for going to Afghanistan were followed, ie getting Bin Laden and getting rid of the Taliban then l personally don’t think that the boondoggle that exists today would be there for us to deal with.
Six years on a mistaken foray for personal revenge and oil rights has cost the US and the UK billions which will be hard to replace, and because of the falsehoods told getting a coalition together to address this will be pretty much impossible.