Preview of Frontline's Obama's War

[joeycola]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101202761.html

A Riddle in a Powder Keg on a Quagmire
'Frontline's' Sobering Look At the War in Afghanistan


Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 13, 2009

In the puzzling (and for PBS, weirdly coincidental) wake of the American president's Nobel Peace Prize last week, "Frontline" begins its 27th season Tuesday with "Obama's War." It is a frank and even fatalistic primer on the buildup to a much bigger engagement in what the program portrays as a hopelessly corrupt, lethally fractious Afghanistan. ................




.............This will seem remedial stuff to anyone who's been following along, but "Frontline" rightly assumes most of America has not been tuned in. And people who have been following the Afghanistan saga will glean something new, too, or at least have their knowledge affirmed. "Frontline" is, after all, TV journalism for people who find "60 Minutes" too elementary yet still prefer moving pictures to think-tank paperwork. ("60 Minutes" also just aired its own similar story Sunday night about the cultural barriers to winning a war and nation-building in Afghanistan.)


"Obama's War" assembles the American brass for an honest-as-possible appraisal of America's chances here at anything resembling solution. "How does this end?" Smith asks Brig. Gen. William Mayville, director of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

"We're going to leave here under shades of gray," Mayville predicts. "We'll have a firm understanding here that more has to be done. But in the end, you'll have an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem." (Which is exactly what people said about Iraq.)

Not the least bit reassuring, but certainly required viewing. Meantime, as the U.N. determines the validity of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's reelection, there's actually very little in "Obama's War" about Obama. Except in the abstract, where it's perfectly clear: The Nobel Peace Prize recipient in the White House has a lot of war to consider. You'll be exactly up to speed on the issues when "Obama's War" is over, and thoroughly filled with dread about what happens now.

[elleng]

1. Thanks for the reminder, joey.

[joeycola]

2. IT will be worthwhile watching.

[jonnyblitz]

3. this idiotic war will be what besmirchs Obama's legacy if he

carries on as planned and a well deserved besmirching it will be.

[zulchzulu]

4. It should be required watching for all Senators and Congress Reps

I'm sure Obama knows that he needs to not allow the Afghanistan war to drag him down. After all, it's all about the TAPI gas pipeline anyway.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. Thanks for the heads-up.

[zbdent]

6. "Obama's War" ... but 9/11 was "Clinton's fault"?

[Kolesar]

7. "Obama's Peace"

We'll get there.

[unpossibles]

9. exactly.

How the hell does a person - even one which is closed-minded and petty - not see the obvious contradiction?

[IndianaGreen]

10. It was Obama who put 'cut bait' off the table. It is Obama's war now

and the dead and wounded are on his head.

[kitfalbo]

8. holy F

Bush had the war for almost 8 years and now it is Obama's war because he's been in office 9 months. That is messed up.

[IndianaGreen]

11. It was Obama who put the 'peace option' off the table. He chose to go deeper into the quagmire.

Many people will die on account of Obama deciding to follow the same disastrous path in Afghanistan that Lyndon Johnson followed in Vietnam.

[Jennicut]

13. It is both. Kennedy never had a full out war like Bush did.

The comparison is not the same. However, it is up to Obama to decide how to precede and he would be foolish to escalate it more.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Kennedy decided to pull out of Vietnam shortly before his assassination

LBJ and the "best and the brightest" he surrounded himself with, plunged into the quagmire.

[Jennicut]

15. Right, but the comparison to Kennedy/Johnson and Bush/Obama

is a difficult one to make as it is very much a different dynamic. That is the point I was making. Obama inherits an already big time war. Johnson decided to escalate Vietnam. It is partly Obama's War now because he controls what we do now. If you have seen any of my recent posts I am very against increasing the troops levels in Afghanistan.

[IndianaGreen]

16. This will not end well

:-(

[joeycola]

12. It is indeed his now.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Thanks for the heads up n/t

[bertman]

18. The Vietnam War with a different cast of characters.

Thanks for letting us know about this.

Rec.

[earth mom]

19. Yep-Vietnam Part 2. nt

[zulchzulu]

27. It's actually worse than Vietnam... it's been longer and the real "strategy" is hidden from view

It's here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8685600&mesg_id=8685600

[bertman]

33. Thanks for posting that, zulchzulu. The only people who know about this "minor" detail

are the folks who have been digging into the whole Mideast situation.

[Beacool]

20. Thanks for the heads up Joey!!

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

21. kick - should begin at 9:00 pm et - preview link at PBS ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

[IndianaGreen]

22. I watched all but the first 10 minutes. A must watch show on what we are facing

in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[bertman]

23. Well, I totally forgot this was on and tuned in to the Rachel Show instead. Anyone know

how I might get to view this?

[IndianaGreen]

24. They said to go to PBS website and join the discussion

[bertman]

25. Thanks, IndianaGreen, but I'm going to my big, comfy bed so I'll be coherent at work

in the morning. Maybe they'll have it in the PBS archives.

[zulchzulu]

26. Frontline failed to mention this OBVIOUS reason why we are in Afghanistan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8685600&mesg_id=8685600

Rest assured that the editorial team was muzzled into not reporting this obvious strategic reason for being in Afghanistan. Perhaps a follow-up show will at least try to unearth the sordid and many layered truth behind this horrific war.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Frontline detailed the situation as it is now, including interview with Richard Holbrook

Frontline's reporting was matter of fact, and if you had watched it, you would appreciate it some more.

IOW, the pipeline was not the reason we went to war in Afghanistan. We had a deal with Taliban on the pipeline.

[zulchzulu]

29. I just watched the show

You are mistaken if you think that the reason why we went into Afghanistan is anything other than trying to get the TAPI gas pipeline installed. All the other stuff is simply window dressing for the puppets to mimic.

If we are there to nation build in Afghanistan, let's follow the example of a village idiot building a sand castle in a raging hurricane, because that's indeed was is obviously happening now.

I feel sorry for our troops that are there. I also feel that the pipeline being constructed (as it has been attempted to have been done since the Reagan administration if you know the full story) would benefit the Afghan government and give us a perfect reason to leave the hellish place.

As the documentary portrayed, the reasons for being there are at best mystical and the end game is intangible.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Good idea, build a sand castle in a raging hurricane.

Then declare victory and go home!

[and-justice-for-all]

31. But I thought it was shrub and dick's war(s)??

I suppose if your not going to end it, you might as well own it.

[auburngrad82]

32. If Bush had finished what he started instead of moving all the troops to Iraq

It wouldn't be "Obama's War". It's kind of the attitude "It may be my fault but it's your problem."

[blm]

34. It's a shame Obama is giving so much weight to Gates and Clinton when he should be heeding

Biden and Kerry who know a helluva lot more about Afghanistan and war than those two hawks.