Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan

Please help me here. Did Obama just screw the pooch -- or not?

Just as LBJ doomed his presidency by escalating the Vietnam war, Obama is dooming himself to becoming a single term president. Get ready for the first woman president to take over in 2013, with First Dude in tow. I wonder how the housing market is in Canada.

I my be wrong, and I sure hope I am, but we may be witnessing the official end of our aspirations for a successful Obama Presidency or any semblance of "change we can believe in."

It's said that it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all, but it my be worse - much worse - to have hoped and had those hopes dashed, than to never have hoped at all.

By escalating the Afghan war, a glacial pace on withdrawal from Iraq, refusing to effectively regulate the financial industry, playing cozy with investment bankers by such things as refusing to even consider a transaction tax, continuing secret prisons and government secrecy, seeming indifference (except rhetorically) for the plight of the middle class, continuing tax policies that favor the rich and pushing a weak and probably ineffective but nonetheless expensive health insurance "reform" lacking any sort of meaningful public option or restraints on for-profit insurers - if it passes at all, Obama and the Democrats should be prepare for a dispirited, demoralized and unenthusiastic base that will neither donate nor volunteer nor even turn out to vote in 2010 and perhaps as far as 2012.

Not a very smart way to maintain a majority, or even get re-elected.

The hyperbole in this thread is mind numbing. Obama campaigned on getting the job done in Afghanistan. And by the way this is also tied into Pakistan, its nukes, the Taliban there, India and our national security. Complicated, yes? I understand and respect the anti war sentiment here, but let's not go puking on this before we hear what he has to say. Over the past year I've been amazed at the fantasy Obama that many progressives have talked about. If you really want to know how he thinks and how he intends gets things accomplished go read both of his books. Until then stop making it up.

What scares me is, that after all his agonizing, he does not understand what he is getting himself into.

This seems to be a habit of this man's!

And what will he say to the families who's loved ones have died while he has been contemplating every navel he can find?

We did not get into WWII until it was too late and over 6,000,000 people were exterminated. Anyone who beieves the grave potential for further terrorism is minimal is delusional. We know Obama agonized over this decision, and I give him the full benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing and has good reason for his decision. We will know more tomorrow. Let us wait and listen.

How about spending the same amount of treasure and blood to build an infrastructure here in the us to become energy independent of fossil fuels.

That is the only reason we are in that goddamn place anyways.

None of the people defending this decision (NCSteve, CTVoter, VivaAmer, JenEsq) have answered the question I first posed:

How will we pay for this?

Another question: What percentage of the cost will be military personnel, and what percentage will be contractors?

And what country is likely to loan us the money for this? China? They're wallpapering the bathrooms of Shanghai nightclubs with U.S. Treasury Notes.

Further: what is the rationale for spending more money in Afghanistan when the unemployment rate in this country is through the roof?

And lastly, how many of the people defending this decision will actually be deployed to Afghanistan? How many of the people defending this decision would be willing to send their children into this fiasco?

I like president Obama but he is making a huge, huge mistake.

Lyndon Baines Johnson.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/obama-orders-30000-more-troops-to-afganistan.php?ref=fpa

Bookmark for overheated rhetoric... Actually, this thread does quite a disservice to the term 'rhetoric'.

Why wait to hear the rationale when you can decide, before the speech is given, that the decision is wrong?

I have invited those who defend the President's decision to answer one question - a question I have actually placed in various posts throughout this thread.

How do we pay for this?

No one who defended the decision to send more troops has yet attempted an answer.

Perhaps JenEsq is willing to hold a bake sale. NCSteve, do you have any belongings you could donate to a raffle? CTVoter, you live in insurance country, surely there are some plutocrats who could donate a marble kitchen counter for a swap meet.

Anyone who opposes escalation in Afghanistan has the burden of proposing an alternative policy that is more likely to keep the Taliban out of power. There is no way the Taliban could win an election in Afghanistan. Therefore, we have a legitimate interest in keeping them out of power, which they can only achieve by force. Allowing the Taliban back in power would not only be a threat to our security but also a terrible fate for the Afghan people. The last time the Taliban took power, women could no longer get an education, men could not cut their beards, and everyone had to bury their tvs and radios in their backyards for the duration. We really should try to keep that from happening again. I'm not sure escalation will be successful, but Obama cannot simply suggest pulling out and say that he doesn't care if the Taliban wins. That is not an option.

I am certain that Pres. Obama is making this decision with a heavy heart. I'm glad that it is he and not me.
One truth in history is that war is won by killing people; taking away the will to continue the conflict. It is tragic, heart wrenching and it often means wreaking havoc on the population in general.
Coin and Black operations are an attempt to sanitize and keep the truth from the public,to make it appear that we are being humanitarian in our cause
This "adventure" may prove one thing for certain....that no nation can afford a war on foreign soil. The costs today are astronomical compared to previous sallies abroad. The payroll alone is staggering.
If we are to continue this policy of "taking the battle to the enemy" we should have conscription and allow everyone to experience the burden of loss. All we have now is a military built on the backs of those who have little choice;very unfair in my opinion. I get weary listening to people yakking about policy and tactics who have never stepped foot into a field of fire.
I can assure you that bravery comes from the fact that an 18-25 year old is far more fearful of being labeled a coward than his fear of death.
It is unconscionable to send these young folks into a foreign land and make policemen out of them.
We stayed in Vietnam about seven years too long. "Vietnamization"....helping them to stand up and defend themselves under Nixon and Laird was a disaster. More americans and vietnamese were lost during the "Peace With Honor"period than in the early years.
Everything in this life has a beginning and an end,so I can accept what comes. Our history in conflicts such as this one give me little hope for a good outcome.

This is not a rebuttal per se to comments in favor of the president's decision, but I'd like to point out two logical fallacies that seem be popping up in arguments contra 'again' et al:

1) Because Obama announced his intention to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan way back in the campaign, this build-up was completely predictable and therefore warrants no protest from the anti-war crowd.

—No, his decision does not come as a surprise. But if you consider it a wrongheaded policy move, the fact that the President announced his intentions well in advance does not make it any less objectionable. Many progressives who disagreed with his Afghan war stance calculated that it was still in their best interest to support him in the campaign (on the basis of his domestic agenda, renewed commitment to diplomacy, etc.), hoping that he might come around to their thinking on the war. Was it a long shot? Perhaps, but there's nothing wrong about being disappointed by the inevitable.

2) Because Obama has studied this issue much more than any of us, his conclusions on the matter are necessarily superior to our own.

—This strikes me as a very dangerous attitude to adopt with respect to one's own government. Merely understanding the complexities of a military situation does not mean that you are approaching it with the dispassionate, unencumbered judgment that one would hope to see in the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The previous administration included numerous examples of officials driven by political considerations and ideological predisposition to ignore uncomfortable facts and opposing views. Simply being a policy expert does not mean that your assessments are in the best interest of the country (e.g. - health care industry lobbyists). So it's hardly beyond the pale to assert that Obama might have made a poor decision.

(By the same token, I do not fancy myself an expert on the Afghan war. But having read what I've read and knowing what I do about combat, my read is that this build-up is sending us down a slippery slope to no particular avail. I would love to be mistaken, but as a civically engaged individual, I will promote that viewpoint if/until I feel I am proven wrong.)

I am wondering whether Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have figured out the true cost of this Afghanistan expansion? If you follow the methodology in their Iraq war book, we need to add onto the combat costs: the cost of veterans disability pay, veterans health care, military equipment and weapons replacement, economic and social costs, extra Pentagon costs, payments to neighboring countries like Uzbekistan, and interest on the money borrowed to pay for all the rest. This means the total will be more like $100-$150 per year and soon enough it will be another trillion dollars. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS? IS IT WORTH IT? Congressman Obey seems to be the only sensible person in Congress, suggesting that -- dare I say it -- we actually PAY for this NOW instead of just adding it onto our childrens' debt...

7 stories Barack Obama doesn't want told....Shocking info: http://www.35energy.com/news/7-stories.html