Democrats in revolt over Barack Obama’s troop surge

[defendandprotect]

Democrats in revolt over Barack Obama’s troop surge
Christina Lamb in Washington

President Barack Obama
Barack Obama's much-vaunted eloquence faces the biggest test of his presidential career this week when he takes to the stage at West Point military academy to explain to a nation that thought it had elected an anti-war president why he is escalating the conflict in Afghanistan.

After almost three months of agonising, nine war councils and endless leaks, the president will finally make his views known on Tuesday when he is expected to announce that he is sending about 30,000 more troops. This will push up American forces to 100,000 and the total number of allied forces to almost 140,000, as many troops as the Soviet Union had in Afghanistan.

The carefully chosen backdrop cannot disguise Obama’s dilemma. Somehow he has to convince his own public that the United States has an exit strategy and will not become bogged down, as it did in Vietnam, while making clear to the Taliban and Pakistan that it has not lost its resolve and will stay as long as it takes.

Obama’s toughest challenge will be to win over his most loyal political supporters. He is facing a growing revolt in the Democratic party over why the US needs to be in Afghanistan at all when the real threat — Al-Qaeda — is in Pakistan, and over the spiralling cost in both lives and dollars.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6936327.ece


INCREASING TROOPS AND CONTINUING THESE WARS HAS THE POWER TO RIP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY APART --

NOT UNLIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE VIETNAM WAR --

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

1. Do we matter? The right is happy.

[Robb]

2. I like how this article implies everyone would be happy

...if we just put 100,000 troops in Pakistan. :eyes:

[icee2]

3. Don't worry. O will appear to move left in 2010

To appease his base, he'll send a $250 ObamaCare check to SS recipients, give some relief to irresponsible home buyers, maybe do
something about gays in military, abortion rights etc.

Then, come 2012, the sheeple will prove they ARE.

[mike_c]

4. I think you're entirely correct, except...

...I don't expect it to happen until late 2011.

[icee2]

6. That would be too late

Once you allow your opponents to define you and allow your base to slip (in size and attitude), it's hard to recover. O won't let
that happen. He'll start his feint in January (State of the Union)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Hopefully, the "revolt" in congress will include defunding a war fought for favorable PR.

[still_one]

10. I doubt it. Pretty much much the same Congress that gave the president the right to declare war /nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. So do I. They're too terrified of being seen as disloyal and not "supporting the troops".

[still_one]

31. I guess nothing has been learned /nt

[still_one]

7. Could anyone give me a reason why sacrificing more Americans in Afghanistan is worth it?

What are we fighting for in Afghanistan?

[RKP5637]

20. Amazing, isn't it. n/t

[eleny]

8. If Rahm Emanuel yanks Rep. Obey in for a "chat", I hope Obey tells Rahm to go fuck himself

[still_one]

11. This isn't Rahm or ANY advisors fault, this is solely on the shoulders of Obama /nt

[eleny]

17. Rahm will be the one to call in members of House who balk at adminstration policies

[still_one]

30. He takes his orders from Obama. For that matter he was hired by Obama. For better or worse

it is Obama who is responsible, and even if hypothetically Rahm was either not doing his job, or going against Obama's wishes it would still be Obama's fault, because Obama could always fire him if he thought he wasn't performing

[liberalpragmatist]

23. Rahm opposed more troops for Afghanistan - nt

[eleny]

28. How much you want to bet he'll change that position by Tuesday

:rofl:

[FarCenter]

9. When Pakistan goes Islamist, how do we get them out? Through Iran? Russia?

[still_one]

12. Pakistan already is Islamist /nt

[FarCenter]

19. No, there are currently a lot of British-trained ex-colonial types around

I mean really Islamist, as in the Sunni version of Iran. Full control by the Deobandist/Wahhabist/Salafist types.

[still_one]

29. I think you meant Shia version of Iran. Thanks for the clarification /nt

[kirby]

16. Islamic Republic of Pakistan since 1956 n/t

[Subdivisions]

13. Can't hold and defend poppy fields against the locals without an army.

[Mari333]

14. knr we need revolt now more than ever

[kirby]

15. Obama is consistent...

He ALWAYS said during the campaign that the 'real war' was in Afghanistan and that Bush lost focus by invading Iraq. Regardless of how you feel about it, this is not a new position except to those who did not listen during the campaign.

[anonymous171]

26. Correct, and we are opposed to that position. nt

[RKP5637]

18. One day this country has to come to the realization that it can not police all of earth. Our

paradigm needs to be reevaluated for the 21st century. Our thinking is obsolete IMO. Eventually, we will shred our country financially and we do need to bear in mind we are less than 5% of the population of earth.

...of course, war is good business so I would not be surprised if the MIC has their hooks well into Obama and his administration as with most. Corporations often give nice campaign contributions in USA, Inc. Average citizens in the NEW USA are just in the way.

[icee2]

21. It isn't policing. It's for corporate empire building. n/t

[RKP5637]

24. It is, isn't it. Quite true, as you say, all about corporate empire building. n/t

[aikoaiko]

25. What revolt?

Where?

[Kaleva]

33. The revolt is as elusive as a willy 10 point buck during deer season.

Some people claim to have seen it but it's still out there, somewhere.

[LWolf]

27. It's about time. nt

[Kaleva]

32. "Obama’s toughest challenge will be to win over his most loyal political supporters."

Hasn't he already accomplished that?