Obama Decides That He Cannot Decide When It Comes To Deciding What To Decide About Afghanistan

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Obama Decides That He Cannot Decide When It Comes To Deciding What To Decide About Afghanistan

Written By : William Teach

Somebody cue up one of those Brett Favre Sears commercials. But, he did rule out cutting and running from Afghanistan. Which wasn’t actually the current topic of discussion

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general.

Hey, no big deal, take your time. Will another eight months suffice, after all your campaign rhetoric?

Meeting with leaders from both parties at the White House, Mr. Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to “dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan,” as White House officials later described his remarks.

A straw man, huh?

Q: Should more US troops be sent to Afghanistan?

We need more troops. The situation is getting worse. We had the highest fatalities among US troops this past year than at any time since 2002. I would send 2 to 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan. Keep in mind that we have 4 times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in. That is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the US, and that the place where we have to deal with these folks is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s not just more troops. We have to #1, press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people; #2, we’ve got to deal with a poppy trade that has exploded; #3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. Until we do, Americans at home are not safe. Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

Q: The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating as the Taliban continues to reconstitute itself. Would you, as president, be willing to have a military surge in Afghanistan in order to, once and for all, eliminate the Taliban?

A: Yes. I think that’s what we need. I think we need more troops there, I think we need to do a better job of reconstruction there. I think we have to be focused on Afghanistan. It is one of the reasons that I was opposed to the war in Iraq in the first place. We now know that al-Qaeda is stronger than any time since 2001. They are growing in capability. That is something that we’ve got to address. And we’re also going to have to address the situation in Pakistan, where we now have, in the federated areas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban setting up bases there. We now have a new government in Pakistan. We have an opportunity to initiate a new relationship, so that we can get better cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda and make sure that that does not become a safe haven for them. Source: Meet the Press: 2008 “Meet the Candidates” series May 4, 2008

So, was Obama lying then or now?

One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. If we do not do that, then we’re going to potentially see another attack here in the US. Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Right now, Obama is focusing on that big screen TV after closing time with the night crew vacuuming.

(PS: Just for clarity, I have written and said that I am not so sure putting 40K troops into Afghanistan will help, for a long list of reasons. But, it is high time that The Barry make a decision.)

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

CoolCzech

Why… it's almost as if Obama has no real executive experience at all!

Sad thing is, the is as true on October 7, 2009 as it was way back in January. After all, Obama is too busy flying to "Copen-hay-guhn" to bother with running the country. That's what he appoints NAMBLA-loving self-confessed communist czars for.
http://arcadehomer.blogspot.com celebrim

It must be another one of those questions he considers to be above his pay grade.
http://redinktexas.blogspot.com Rorschach

"If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Freewill, Rush
Mike_M

At least Bush was The Decider.

Obama is what, the Buck Passer? The Abdicator? The Blamer-in-Cheif? He Who Hesitates? The Poobah of Policy Paralysis?
BIG

Let's give the President a break. They are still working out the logistics on how they will blame their failure on Bush. Once they have that, an Afghanistan policy is sure to follow.
CoolCzech

Can you imagine if Roosevelt, 6 months after Pearl Harbor, was still trying to decide on his basic World War 2 strategy?

Bambi is just SO in over those jug ears of his…
CoolCzech

Oh… my bad… I should have said, ten months after Pearl Harbor…

I guess this is just Bambi's way of voting "present!"
http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

Above his paygrade, if you will.
rmiller

Obama Decides That He Cannot Decide When It Comes To Deciding What To Decide About Afghanistan

(Read WP posts from William Teach) | (Read MT posts from William Teach)

You have to be kidding, right?

He decided long ago to bomb the Taliban in Pakistan.

You guys derided that as attacking an ally.

Pres Bush decided to imprlement candidate Obama's policy, and now you are questioning Mr. Obama's decision abilities?

Shouldn't you be questioning the policy of the previous administration?
http://www.thepiratescove.us William_Teach

Um, Rmiller, you realize that you just wrote that he decided what to do in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, right? Two separate countries.

I have actually written before that I applaud his decision to continue, and even escalate, the actions against the Islamists in Pakistan, and in Afghanistan. That said, he said numerous times during his campaign that he would send way more troops into Afghanistan, and now he cannot decide what to do. 8 months into his administration. Maybe he should spend less time being the Rock Star president and more time being the Chief Executive.
rmiller

Maybe he should spend less time being the Rock Star president and more time being the Chief Executive.

Posted by William_Teach

2009-10-07 15:20:20

Ummm, Mr. Teach…

Maybe the two wars are linked. And that it may be time to acknowledge that fact.

This has nothing to do with rock star presidencies or even liberal or conservatives…

Pakistan and Afganistan are going to vex the next several administrations, no matter what their domestic afficliation.

I can understand that some policical forces may want to take advantage of the situation…but I think that this situation is going to vex political administration of whatever stripe….

the very definition of a national security threat.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Eh, he's trying to vote "present" on this although I do wonder if President Obama is holding Afghanistan hostage to get GOP congressmen to vote for the government health insurance takeover.
rmiller

Posted by Christopher_Taylor

2009-10-07 15:33:22

Just the sort of political BS I would have expected from you.

Is the war in Afganistan a national security issue or a domestic political issue?

Time to weigh in.

Just so we can hold your feet to the fire in 2010.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

I'd prefer the president decided and you stopped being so defensive when people point out his almost total failure to deal with the actual important issues of our day.

Maybe if you'd stop worshipping the man for a few minutes, stepped back away from the candles at his shrine and thought about this objectively you'd be concerned, too. Afghanistan isn't a toy, its a war, and our guys are dying there while the Commander there is asking for more tools to do his job and President Obama is making noises like he won't even bother, while saying he doesn't care about victory and delays every day.

Oh, but I'm the bad guy for noticing. Thanks for your input.
http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

Just the sort of political BS I would have expected from you.

You embody the stupidity of the average Obama voter/supporter. Obama is above his paygrade and has no idea how to succeed as CIC.
rmiller

You embody the stupidity of the average Obama voter/supporter. Obama is above his paygrade and has no idea how to succeed as CIC.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-07 16:41:30

Yes…I am an Obama supporter. And I appreciate your supperiority.

Are you English?

I'd prefer the president decided and you stopped being so defensive when people point out his almost total failure to deal with the actual important issues of our day.

osted by Christopher_Taylor

2009-10-07 16:30:20

Oh…ok..having the opposition critcize every step of the way would be your preference. Because you are right and he is wrong.

Because you know he is a total failure…

No partisanship there…and it would encourage the administration to take your advise…

LOL…
http://www.thepiratescove.us William_Teach

Rmiller, I wrote Afghanistan, you said I was wrong and then preceded to discuss Pakistan. Can't have it both ways, bub!
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Thanks for dodging the issue and voting "present" just like your hero. Meanwhile, the men are dying while you laugh and play games with party politics.

The whole time President Bush was in office the left demanded he listen to (some of) his (most critical) Generals. Now that President Obama is in office, he's to ignore them? Its clear what you guys want: failure in Afghanistan and the death of the soldiers there for nothing. If you were for the success of the mission, the destruction of the Taliban, the freedom of the Afghani people, and the aggressive opposition to global terrorism like al`Qaeda, you'd back the general.

Since you don't what else can we conclude?
Bill_Dalasio

rmiller,

You're usually much more considered in your arguments than this. What we're criticizing here is not Mr. Obama's policy. Rather, its his execution of it. And that is looking increasingly like a fair subject to criticize. The President has, as the article notes, specifically ruled out a scaled down strategy. However, the chief general that Mr. Obama himself put on the ground has made clear that the execution of the strategy Mr. Obama himself decided to pursue will take a lot more men than they have to execute. This isn't politics or "the generals always wanting more men". This is the basics of the policy the administration has adopted. Counterinsurgency is a labor intensive strategy. It requires having a lot of guys out there providing security. When you understaff that function, you endanger the people you're putting there (3 guys are sitting ducks, while 30 will deter an attack in the first place). To say that he isn't sure whether he'll send more troops after reaffirming the strategy isn't an act of prudence. It's an abdication of responsibility.