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.
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.
But as the war approached its eight-year anniversary on Wednesday, the session underscored the perilous crosscurrents awaiting Mr. Obama. While some Democrats said they would support whatever he decided, others challenged him about sending more troops. And Republicans pressed him to order the escalation without delay, leading to a pointed exchange between the president and Senator John McCain of Arizona, his Republican opponent from last year’s election.
Mr. McCain told the president that “time is not on our side.” He added, “This should not be a leisurely process,” according to several people in the room.
Amazing, we can pass a stimulus bill lighting fast that very few Congressional members had time to read. Congress is now trying to pass a massive health reform bill as fast as possible – voting down requirements to post the bill for 72 hours for the public to be able to read it, but we must take several weeks to make our mind up on troop levels for Afghanistan? I remember that a criticism of Bush (and rightly so), was that Bush was not listening to his generals when they were asking for additional troops. I’m no military expert, but it seems that this is a time to double down and do what needs to be done. We need to make up our minds that we will do what needs to be done to succeed, else we should go ahead and pull out completely – we don’t need to waste anymore lives if our policy leads to failure and pullout one year from now.
1, Agreed.
Good military strategy is bad liberal politics and vice-versa.
It seems that John McCain is becoming a key ally of Barack Obama on a number of issues, the military being foremost.
Whodathunk?
No one has ever pacified Afghanistan. No one. Not Alexander the Great, not Gengis Khan, not Tamerlane, not even the great Babur (he only controlled Kabul, but not Herat, nor Kandahar) before or after he conquered India. Iraq is pacifiable, but Afghanistan is not, and will never be. Best to merely guarantee its borders, withdraw, and fly over the whole place with drones continually while letting them be who they want to be.
[blockquote]Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, told a military conference on Tuesday that the president’s strategy review was progressing toward a decision. “It is moving quite rapidly,†he told the Association of the United States Army. “There is a recognition of the need to move through this.â€
The general said the effort in Afghanistan required “a sustained, substantial commitment,†but he declined to say if that meant more troops.[/blockquote]
How about that? Actually reviewing what’s going to be done rather than just throwing more troops at the problem. Intelligence once again the order of the day rather than just banging the drums and putting on a show.
What the POTUS wants is a nice war that he can leave on the back burner while he talks about health care, global warming, and apologizes for all the previous administrations…and our culture.
Afghanistan doesn’t work that way. My guess is that whatever decision he makes will be too little, too late, and we’ll be left with an expensive mess on our hands.
…a question here:
[blockquote]Iraq is pacifiable, but Afghanistan is not, and will never be.[/blockquote]
Are you saying that Iraq was the “good war”, after all?
Sr Priest, you are so spot on.
5. A Senior Priest
The war is not WITH Afghanistan, it is IN Afghanistan. The war is WITH the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Since they hide in Pakistan, the war is also IN Pakistan, though despite Mr. Obamas campaign suggestion:
we are not at war with Pakistan. Yet.
According to bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith). We spent the 22 years between 1979 and 2001 ignoring the reality of this “holy” war, culminating in the disaster at the world trade center and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
We can leave Afghanistan to it’s own devices. but we cannot leave Al-Qaeda in control in Afghanistan ( and by extension, nuclear armed Pakistan) to their own devices. That would be suicidal.
The issue of Arab and Muslim financial support of Muslim belligerents is what has not been publicly addressed.
I’m leaning toward what Senior Priest says–note that he uses the word “pacify,” not defeat or conquer. We’re not trying to dominate Afghanistan, but it kind of doesn’t matter as long as they don’t have the will to put down insurgents. We have to remember at all times that our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve a coherent purpose and strategy with political support behind it. Don’t get me wrong, they’re going to do their duty one way or the other, but on our end we owe them the support that comes from due deliberation. Of course, time is of the essence, but deliberation and political acumen are essential.
General McChrystal seems to think that we can achieve some level of containment and he is an expert at this type of war. The war in Iraq was all but lost until General Petraeus got it right. If we are not going to push the effort then the commanders on the ground “hunker down” to avoid casualties. I remember a campaign pledge about a “war of necessity”,”listening to the Generals” and giving the troops what they need! Political Reality meets idealism?