News reports about the president rejecting options for Afghanistan don't say the escalation is off

[bigtree]

In fact, the reports I've seen say that 30,000 troops are still being considered. What appears to be the sticking point for the president is how he will frame (to sell) the mission in a way which promises to lead to some eventual 'handover' to the Afghans. That's still predicated by the military on using part of the increased forces to militarily train enough Afghans to assume whatever posture they decide is good enough for them say they won something. That's undoubtedly going to be framed as an exit point, but you can bet it will be the nebulous, weakly articulated 'goals' instead of some firm timetable.

What's worrisome about such a splitting of priorities is the prospect that our military can either bear down and commit all the way (something that our present forces are unable to bear without a massive infusion of troops from Iraq. The commanders say that without changing the dwell (home) time for soldiers, they can only guarantee about 11,000 to 17, 000 ready forces. Conservatives are already urging the president to waive the rule), or begin to pull out.

Just shaving the numbers of troops a bit and spreading them around to take on a priority here and there threatens the forces' safety and promises that whatever they are sent there to manage will not be adequately covered by the reduced force. It's naive for the president to expect that he can have it all in Afghanistan by splitting the difference between whatever reservations he might have about the use of force there and whatever his military leadership is insisting they need. He needs to be decisive about whatevercourse he ultimately decides on.

Given his apparent ambivalence to fully commit to a further build-up, his future policy there should be completely geared to leave as soon as our forces can pack up and move, and not so tied to whatever political changes Afghanistan's central government orchestrates. If he half-asses it just to hang on there for some perfect time to leave, he'll only be committing more troops to a loss of life, limb, and livelihood for an ephemeral gain. Our nation's defenders are too valuable to be sacrificed for some political compromise with his own subordinates at the Pentagon. In or out. (I say OUT) But, don't half-ass it.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Well put! It's time for STRONG leadership and a moral compass: Get OUT Now! n/t

[bigtree]

6. no "half and half?"

"Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup."

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/world/article/366738--administration-official-obama-not-satisfied-with-afghan-war-options-concerned-over-timelines?pageno=2

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Well, here we've got NEITHER

He moistens his index finger, points it up into the air, smiles broadly and looks for the exact middle of the road. He's set up a committee to determine whether a study group should be put together to assess the relative merits of dithering and waffling, and more and more people die by the light of the burning currency.

The only compass is the one that aligns with political expediency and the broadest appeal, as perpetual campaigning replaces actual governing and leadership.

We didn't elect a strong leader, we elected a guru of vagueness and platitudes, so we should just waft on with whatever non-policy is to be somewhat implemented in this pointless display of steadfast spinelessness.

There's no way to "win", but what's worse is that there's no will to even try to define what a victory would be.

The sheer pastel vapidity of this administration's breezy appeasement stands out like a ball gown at a cock-fight.

Good thing I'm as busy with work and family as I am; it's all too galling to watch.

[bigtree]

8. "it's not even shopping"

well said (on another thread)

[PurityOfEssence]

14. I think you've hit it: his whole career has basically been "splitting the difference"

He's both for and against most things that he can't outrightly duck. He's an ultramoderate. He's just what you want him to be. He is, in fact, you; he's you, me, and each and every one of us. He is the oneness and the true path.

It's all worked very well for him, and that's simply what he is: a campaigner. It's all one endless minuet to curry favor. Sure, his heart is in the right place in many ways, but what does it matter if this soul-sapping need to have consensus with those who won't bend is the principal driving force behind most of his actions?

This is war. This is death, subjugation, seizing of resources and forcibly bringing people to heel. Besides the fact that we simply have no reason or right to be there and doing that, it's just not something that can really ever be done in a way that isn't going to piss many people off, and that's new territory for him.

Very simple and repeated reapplication of the questions "why?" and "how would you describe 'victory'?" should drive home the insanity and folly of the whole enterprise. Cue up the brass band, though, 'cuz it ain't gonna happen.

This is going to be agonizing to watch: it'll be slow, drawn-out, punctuated by nasty flare-ups, rife with corruption, expensive, infuriating to the neighbors, plagued by news leaks, pockmarked with atrocities and badly contained by a generally compliant media. We need to withdraw now, but we're not going to. Even as the Little Orphan Annie-eyed stalwarts gush glowingly about his judicious chess mastery, it will be seen as flaccid non-leadership by more and more, and will further erode relations with our allies.

Rest assured, though: when we finally DO retreat, we'll do it right smack dab down the middle of the road.

[Teaser]

2. Dionne Warwick is offering the same counsel

.

[bigtree]

5. walk on by?

[mmonk]

3. Troops are asking not to escalate.

[bigtree]

4. not surprising

. . . the period that our forces have been in combat mode and operation is staggering. Even if he decided to end today, there would still be deployments to rotate troops out.

I just watched an MTV special about a family with sons re-deploying. heartbreaking, no matter how brave and noble the men are.

[mmonk]

15. Those that use them seem to forget at some point they are human beings.

[bigtree]

19. right

mucking around there waiting for some perfect regime to emerge behind our occupation is a death sentence for an increased number of our troops and Afghan civilians.

[rtassi]

9. agreed! with a rec n/t

[EFerrari]

10. Obama's deliberateness on this issue is encouraging.

It must be difficult to stay still and weigh options when so much power is coming at you to move in a given direction.

[bigtree]

11. he's the 'power' in this instance which is supposed to be controlling the military

The political winds are at his back as much as any Democratic president has enjoyed in my lifetime. His recalcitrance on this decision is either strategic or political. Dividing a force which is smaller than recommended and dividing his handful of priorities among them isn't as sound a military approach as it serves his political interests in placating reflexive right wing critics crying that he's surrendered something or other.

[EFerrari]

12. Obama is only one power center.

And while I agree with you that he enjoys a momentum I haven't seen in my adult life, he also lives in a high speed environment Kennedy didn't have to deal with.

I don't think I'd use the term recalcitrance or even ambivalence about his process and especially because his "process" has been so carefully staged at every point. That it is political sort of goes without saying, imo. Not recalcitrance because that implies opposition and he hasn't indicated opposition but dissatisfaction and not ambivalence because that argues a kind of tie between options when there is more than two. I don't know what he thinks.

And there is no sound military approach to Afghanistan. I think you and I and the president know that.

[bigtree]

18. If there's no sound military solution and the president knows this

I fail to understand why he's still insisting that they have some major role to play there. He's loath to leave. I think his concern is with the political implications of the power vacuum that's going to occur with the removal of our forces. (mostly the political reaction here at home. The rest is to keep enough other nations engaged so we don't LOOK like we're standing there alone) If he's trying to convince that he can engineer some perfect moment in Afghanistan where there's enough of a balance of power to declare some sort of success, he's either naive or just jerking us around. I agree that he has no clue what to do there. That, to me, would make the case for leaving.

[kenny blankenship]

13. It's possible that the "dithering" at this point is seeking leverage against the Karzai govt.

and is being used to secure agreement and cooperation on a schedule of political reform and military burden sharing. Allies in NATO have been extremely critical of the Karzai govt's failure to field a competent military force of the size projected and paid for already. The recently scotched election hasn't helped matters either. Americans may not care about fru-fru frilly stuff like "democratic legitimacy" but the crookedness of the Karzai govt. has a big impact on European public opinion. There has been reluctance to commit new NATO state forces to Afghanistan without assurances that the Karzai govt. will improve its performance (and what assurances can anyone really give over there aside from a guarantee that Afghanistan will continue be a corrupt skag infested hellhole?)

It's entirely possible that this pause is all related to negotiations between US and its unruly puppet theater in Kabul, and negotiations between the US and NATO allies that are also being held up because the US hasn't yet got assurances from Kabul that the Euros want to hear. If that is the case, the pause could go on for a while. On the other hand, I heard that the British govt. is expecting a definite plan from Obama in a matter of days.

[bigtree]

16. sure, it's likely

But, the delay is similar to the foot-dragging we've done in Iraq while waiting for the autocracy there to take on enough of a facade of legitimacy so we can exit saying we've had some success or the other. I can't really see the Karzai 'government' reforming in any way that outside observers and the allies we hope to convince to stay and play would decide there's a vital interest in their sons and daughters dying to defend them. The justification that our own government uses as their hook to remain militarily engaged is the president's stated 'goal' to 'dismantle' and 'defeat' al-Qaeda in the country and the region. That's awfully close to the ideological war that Bush and even Nixon used to justify continuing their ambitious military deployments and aggression.

I just don't know how many 'plans' the Brits are going to tolerate, but I do think that Brown is ready to go along with President Obama if there's a presentation of intentions for the future which includes some achievable 'goals' and 'benchmarks'. I don't think we'll see 'timetables' as the reports speculate. The citizens of these nations we're expecting to stand with us in Afghanistan are much less inclined to stay engaged fighting and dying there than their leaders. They will be clamoring (as we soon will) for an end to the seemingly perpetual conflicts they've committed their countryfolk to. The present effort, I believe, is nothing more than an attempt to buy time for some ideal point where we can point to the regime there and claim we've propped them up enough for whatever interests the president defines. I'm not convinced, though that there will be a lot of folks in our country or without who are willing to go along with this nation-building adventure indefinitely. Hence, the need and desire for the president to frame his foot-dragging as progress toward an end. 'Half-and-half' won't get us there.

[placton]

17. Karnak predicts:

more troops will be added! And Obama will give a stirring speech, sending them off to die.

[shadowknows69]

20. Not an hour ago I asked two soliders if the escalation was happening

Both agreed it was. Both were against it. Know where I met them? A disability certification office waiting, as was I, a psychiatric evaluation.

[bigtree]

21. very credible

these escalations normally begin in advance of the announcement