Fine-Tuning His War: How President Obama Arrived At Afghanistan Decision

While I am a fan of Keith O. I don't give a shit what he is calling for. We should not give such importance to a pundit.

"We also know that historically the American people will rally behind a president following a wartime decision."

Don't count on it.

"I don't see Obama conducting war because he wants to, and if Afghanistan is really over in a few years (and we have secured the area, is it worth it?) More questions than answers here..."

I don't see Obama conducting war because he wants to, either. In the same way that I don't see Obama making closed-door deals with big pharma and insurers because he wants to. In the same way that I don't see Obama doing the bidding of the largest financial institutions because he wants to.

He's simply not strong enough to stand up to them.

That's not entirely his fault.

We have a profoundly broken system.

However, that does not excuse an escalation (and that is what sending 30,000 troops into Afghanistan is) just because you can't say no to the generals and the MIC.

Especially given that the severe recession we are currently experiencing means the buildup in Afghanistan will present very significant opportunity costs.

And who will we borrow the money from to fight this war?

I am disappointed.

OK, let's hear him out tonight...

Will it take a Nixon to get us out of Afghanistan? ("RN, Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...")

Presidents mess up. Health care workers get to clean up.

We'll get to clean up the amputated stubs, the diapers, the vomit when people are going through chemo for whatever weird agents we're using now that will come back to attack the body decades later. And that's the easy part - the hard part is given to the mental health specialists.

For decades upon decades we'll all be cleaning up.

But the DC adulators who post here supporting the President no matter what? They'll be conveniently shielded from the stench and the pain of what they support. Because they're lawyers, or they work as lobbyists, or something else that protects one from the reality of the body.

Neat trick. But I'm not buying it.

All obama is doing is fine tuning his his one term in office.

Does he not understand that the Pentagon and his Generals have one intention and that is be in a continuous war. War is their bread and butter, so their budget stays in the high billions.

If he wants the truth about the war in Afghanistan, then talk to the grunts on the ground, with no rank in the room.

I don't understand what the mission is. If it is to create a secure Afghani govenrment, in the mold of democracy (rather than Dictators which we're good at) - where it is stable enough that it can resist the taliban and prevent it from becoming an Al quaeda stronghold (which is a farse cause they just go to the next weakest country and set up shop there) ---- then the Mission is asinine. If the 'mission' is to destroy, as best we can, the existing forces coming from over the border and give the Afghani people a good shot at a 2 year respite from the existing anti-American forces with help from the international community including their muslim neighbors - then maybe.... but I need to know what the damned mission is. All this talk of failure and success seems meaningless to me. And without it, our troops should be home.

Obama's plan for victory in Afghanistan is eerily reminiscent of Johnson's plan for victory in Vietnam:
In 1965, Johnson escalated American forces to 200,000.
Obama is escalating American troops to over 100,000, along with a similar number private contractors doing things that American troops used to do (only much more expensively).

General Westmorland promised victory in three years, by the end of 1967.
Obama is promising victory and to bring the troops home in three years.

Even the plan for Vietnam is virtually the same as the plan for victory in Afghanistan:

Phase 1. Commitment of U.S. (and other free world) forces necessary to halt the losing trend by the end of 1965.

Phase 2. U.S. and allied forces mount major offensive actions to seize the initiative to destroy guerrilla and organized enemy forces. This phase would be concluded when the enemy had been worn down, thrown on the defensive, and driven back from major populated areas.

Phase 3. If the enemy persisted, a period of twelve to eighteen months following Phase 2 would be required for the final destruction of enemy forces remaining in remote base areas.

The only problem is that it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

"Are the Pakistani nukes as mythical as the Iraqi WMD?

The nukes are not mythical, the threat of someone using them against us is. They don't have missiles with the range to get them here, and smuggling a big warhead like that would be no trivial matter. Not to mention it's unlikely Pakistan would just hand them over without a fight, or that India would just stand by and watch.
The point is that even if say Iraq HAD WMDs it still wouldn't be a threat to a country that has thousands of warheads.

You break it, you own it. We started the massive bloodshed in Afghanistan in 2001. We have an obligation to at least suppress it if not eliminate it before we pack our bags and go home.

The seeds of this conflict started decades ago, not in 2001. We have about as much chance of suppressing it now, as we do to obtain peace in the middle east. Far too many mistakes have already been made along the way. I forget who said this, but the very definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

hey? does anyone know what the mission is other than don't be another Vietnam? In the presidents speech did he state what the "Commanders Intent" is? So very sad.