President Obama never said or hinted that he would withdraw from Afghanistan.

[kentuck]

During the entire campaign, he mentioned over and over again that we got distracted from Afghanistan, the real war, to fight in Iraq. He did say he would get troops out of Iraq.

Also, he said that he would focus on the war in Afghanistan, by going after the people that attacked us on 9/11. We may disagree with him on that issue but he is doing nothing in Afghanistan that he said he wouldn't do.

I disagree with the President on sending more troops into that country. I disagree with keeping the present troops in the country. I think we should get out. However, he is not breaking a promise that he made to any of us.

The President will argue that the area needs to be stabilized because of the nukes in Pakistan. We cannot permit the radical Islamicists to get their hands on those weapons. We can agree or disagree with that premise.

Also, the President will argue that we cannot let the Taliban back in control in Afghanistan. I don't know how 35-40,000 troops will prevent that? They are in control at the present. I do know that there are no easy answers.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Kerry said exactly the same thing in 2004.

As did pretty much every other legitimate contender for the '04 and '08 nomination. This should come as a surprise to no one.

[mike_c]

2. that's the main reason I could not vote for him in 2008...

...and escalation of crimes against humanity is the main reason I'll be looking for someone else to vote for in 2012.

on edit: I am implacably opposed to Obama's wars-- and make no mistake, they became his wars the day he became "the decider." Those immoral wars, and the evil foreign policy they are part of, and the domestic tentacles of that policy via MIC corporate influence over government-- are my top issues in national elections and have been for many years. Obama's handling of those issues will determine whether or not I can vote for him.

[sandnsea]

8. You should put that in your sig line

Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Obama.

That way everybody knows your political philosophy right up front.

And for the love of god why don't you stop wasting your time with Democrats and start organizing the Greens into a viable second party so we can push the right wingers all the way off the cliff.

[LWolf]

3. That's correct.

It's also another reason why I never wanted him in the WH.

[Mz Pip]

4. He did promise

to get us out of Iraq and I have heard little about how that is coming along.

It's true about Afghanistan. I got the impression he wanted to put more focus on that. I sort of agreed at the time but now I'm not so sure it would really make any difference, except in terms of deaths. Al-Qaeda is long gone and I doubt we can do much about the Taliban with a few more troops. I agree with you on that.

This is one of those cases where there are no good solutions.

[sandnsea]

11. Combat troops out by Aug 2010,

all troops out by the end of 2011. That strategy has been in place for months and there are regular reports about Iraq in the news. You'll have to ask yourself why they're never posted at DU.

[Mz Pip]

18. Thanks for the update

I do get most of my news from DU and the links posted. I probably should get out more. It is true that little about Iraq gets posted here.

[mike_c]

35. so 2010 or 2011 is "the first thing I will do...?"

Please. I'll believe it when I see it. And even then it will be too little, too late. Every day that those wars continue is a crime against humanity. As I've said many times before here, we don't usually let the criminals set the time line for ceasing their crimes.

[sendero]

86. I'm going to pull out..

.... after I give you 1000 more thrusts.

Yeah, we're "getting" out of Iraq. Sure.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Agreed.

I think some of wailing and gnashing of teeth is the result of people hearing what they wanted to hear instead of what was said.

I want out of this mess too, but I am under no illusions that President Obama made any claims that we would withdraw from Afghanistan.

[AndyA]

6. I think most people interpreted his comments to mean both Iraq and Afghanistan.

He should have been more clear if he intended to continue to allow troops in Afghanistan.

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

He didn't say JUST THE TROOPS IN IRAQ. Nor did he say EXCLUDING AFGHANISTAN. When people hear "I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war." it's natural that they would not think that didn't mean Afghanistan.

Seems sneaky to me. Really, what bullshit...he's only going to bring SOME OF THE TROOPS HOME, but he doesn't state it in those terms. :eyes: This isn't change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

[sandnsea]

9. Oh bullshit, pure fucking bullshit

If you didn't hear him say Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan then you just flat weren't listening.

[AndyA]

13. And the Obama Cheerleading Squad Captain has arrived. Oh goodie.

In the context of that statement, he didn't say it only applied to Iraq.

Bullshit, pure fucking bullshit is exactly what the American people got. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

23. Of course he did

Why does everybody in the country know that except the extreme left who have done nothing but attack since Jan 21.

[AndyA]

28. Apparently everybody in the country that isn't on the "extreme left" is all for war.

Just the cost alone is worth putting an end to it. We can't exactly afford to keep funding this travesty, considering the economic situation.

Where did he say this just applies to Iraq? Where did he say except for Afghanistan I'll bring the troops home. FIRST THING, too! We're almost into his second year, and this wasn't the first thing he did. If you don't mean it don't say it. If he was just saying it to get votes he's the same as all the others.

NO CHANGE. JUST MORE OF THE SAME. :eyes:

[TicketyBoo]

39. No, really.

He was talking about Iraq only in that clip, and he said that Iraq was a distraction from the necessary was in Afghanistan. During the campaign, he did state his determination to continue and escalate the war in Afghanistan.

However, this is not the same war that existed during the campaign. We now have al-Qaeda mostly across the border in Pakistan. They are, for the most part, gone from Afghanistan; very few remain there. Also, we now have an illegitimate government there which was installed after a fraudulent election. This, too, has changed during this iterim.

All President Obama has to do is step up to the podium and say, "This is not the same war we were waging a year ago. Our troops are not accomplishing much of anything except getting themselves blown up. Current circumstances in Afghanistan require that we withdraw, at least for the time being."

Never mind what the Republicans say. A huge majority of the American people would be behind this, especially if he explained it properly.

When LBJ pushed heavily into Vietnam, he was facing an election that very year and worries that the Republicans would paint him as "soft on Communism." This President does not have those time constraints as far as his own election is concerned. He has the time to prove his leadership, and standing down at this point in time is the prudent thing to do. Cheney has already tried to paint Obama as "soft on terrorism." That isn't going to stick, in my opinion.

Getting pushed into another war because of political concerns certainly smacks of Vietnam, come back to haunt us once again. I don't think the American people will turn on this President nearly as hard for bringing our troops home as they will if this turns into another Vietnam, which it certainly has the potential to do.

[sandnsea]

43. Being against the Afghanistan war is one thing

Lying and saying that Obama said he was going to end it is another. He simply didn't. Sad thing is, I expect you know better but YOU are the one who would rather use political rhetoric than debate anything on the merits.

He was referring to Iraq and a withdrawal plan has been implemented, as he also said. Get out responsibly even though we got in irresponsibly. Every single day for a year, several times a day, every campaign stop.

[AndyA]

73. Obama said he was going to BRING THE TROOPS HOME FIRST THING.

He. Has. Not. Done. That.

From Iraq OR Afghanistan.

Almost a year later, no change.

I've asked around the last few days since this all came up with the expansion of troops into Afghanistan. The majority of the people I've spoken to don't see Afghanistan and Iraq as TWO SEPARATE WARS. They see it as the same thing, and when Obama said he was going to bring the troops home, they thought he meant bringing them home from the Middle East, which includes both countries.

Search the internet, MOST people think they've been lied to. If he only meant bringing the troops home from Iraq, he should have been more specific.

Nevertheless, it was not the first thing he did. He still hasn't done it. Anyone who banked on that promise lost. Obama has not kept his word. Period. And there's more than this one example :eyes:

Put your pom poms away already, you're the left version of a Bushie. :eyes:

[BzaDem]

81. Wow. You are actually claiming that Obama didn't CONSISTENTLY talk about refocusing on Afghanistan?

In debate after debate, campaign stop after campaign stop, speech after speech?

As one example, on July 15, 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1259586788-T3aRwlNrkpzEkw9DL8xvdQ

--snip--

In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That’s why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

--snip--

This is one of at least 100 similar statements in the campaign.

Anyone who thinks Obama meant both Iraq and Afghanistan were the same war (and that we needed to withdraw troops from Afghanistan) is an idiot. If one person thinks that, then that one person is an idiot. If five people thought that, then all five are idiots. If 20% of the people of our party thought that, then 20% of the pepole of our party are idiots (though I assure you that not even close to 20% of the people of our party are that stupid). Anyone who banked on a "promise" to bring troops home from Afghanistan is ignorant, because Obama actually PROMISED to do the EXACT OPPOSITE. I will repeat the quote:

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat."

And just in case you selectively ignored it, I will repeat the quote again.

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan"

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan"

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan"

"Head in the sand" doesn't even come CLOSE to describing what you thought Obama's position is.

[Hansel]

42. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

In the context of the speech, he did say it only applied to Iraq.

It's not cheer leading to point out that you are misrepresenting the facts. It's just pointing out that you are either purposely or unwittingly misrepresenting the facts. However, since you have a quote from his speech, it would not take you that much effort to read the surrounding text. Unless you are not really unwittingly misrepresenting the facts. The defensiveness makes one wonder though.

[AndyA]

74. Here are the facts.

1. Most people believe he meant bringing the troops home from the Middle East, which includes both countries. Check the internet, there are LOTS of people unhappy about this. Perhaps Obama should have been more clear in his intentions, but at the time he made the promise, it was to his advantage to be vague. No change.

2. It was not the first thing he did. Almost a year later, he hasn't ended ANY WAR. He promised he would. Want to try to twist that around to fit the facts? He couldn't have been more clear on that.

3. I'm tired of the war. We cannot afford it. It was based on lies. Too many have died. More will die the longer Obama takes to keep his word.

Wonder all you want, most people want this war (ALL OF THEM) to end.

[Jester Messiah]

80. Boy, those are some "facts".

1. "Most people." You don't even provide a link or any numbers. This is obviously your interpretation. NOT a fact.
2. Iraq is drawn way the hell down. He's working on it.
3. Yes, it is a fact that you are tired of the war. It is a fact that we cannot afford it. That's what you got right. What you got wrong is this: while Iraq was definitely based on lies, Afghanistan was based on us getting sucker-punched by a terrorist crew that came out of there. Have too many died? Assuredly. Did Obama promise to instantly quit the war and withdraw all troops upon his election? No, no he did not. He explicitly said otherwise, as OP noted.

You have failed.

[sendero]

87. A three fucking year timetable..

... is NOT "getting out".

And let me also say I don't believe he will actually have all the troops home from Iraq when he said he would anyway. There will always be the recognition that as soon as we leave Iraq, there will be chaos. Now, 3 years from now, 10 years from now YOU FUCKING NAME IT.

Oh and while I'm at it, it is a sad sort of schadenfreude that I have knowing of the hubris of these idiot generals that NEVER accomplish what they claim they will and now they AND Obama ACTUALLY THINK they can solve this problem with a few thousand more troops.

It's BEYOND LUDICROUS.

[mike_c]

15. in fairness, he also said what the DUer quoted him saying....

What do you think about that remark? Was he just pandering to the left? Or do you think he meant it? And if he did, why do you think his actions don't gibe with his promises?

[sandnsea]

22. Home from Iraq, as context would provide

And obviously omitted on purpose. Why?? Who is really lying here?

[mike_c]

31. I like Bill Hicks' explanation....

"No matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumf*ks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down...and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'"

--Bill Hicks

I've looked, but not found the full context for those remarks. I'm sure it's out there, but the first few dozen hits are for just the quote. It's all over the internet in that form at the moment-- google it and see. I'm sure you're right though. But even if he was ONLY referring to the Iraq war-- and the statement itself does not differentiate them-- there's still no indication that he told the truth about his intentions in Iraq. Events have certainly suggested that he did not.

[sandnsea]

46. This slays me. You're the professor

and I'm the broke idiot. And somehow or other, I know what the man said about his Iraq withdrawal strategy and that it is being executed; and I know what he said about Afghanistan; but you don't. :crazy:

[AndyA]

27. I really don't know if Obama meant it or not.

I suppose I would feel differently if that were the ONLY thing he'd promised that he hadn't done. Then I would assume he probably didn't have the information he should have before making such a statement.

But there have been other things. Transparency, for one. Where is it? He's covering up for Bushco, which to me is a fatal flaw for him. By not allowing justice to prevail, Obama becomes complicit in Bushco crimes because he failed to investigate and prosecute if facts warrant such a step.

He's made promises about gay equality. It still doesn't exist today. No biggie apparently if you're not gay, but just as serious as the racial issues of the sixties if you are gay. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you spread it.

He still has time to correct these things, but the clock is ticking, and people are losing patience. At some point, it becomes too late for him to deal with these issues, because people will have given up on him.

[seeinfweggos]

32. how did "most people" interpret this one?

"It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/06/obama_mccain_split_over_afghan_strategy/

[Hansel]

37. Sneaky? He was very explicit about saying that he wanted to focus on Afghanistan

And he was very explicit that he was talking about getting the troops out of Iraq.

I went to hear his stump speech and there was nothing sneaky about it. He made no bones about the fact the even though he was against the Iraq War from the beginning, that he thought Afghanistan was a just war and that he wanted to focus on it.

Taking things out of context in order to try to make Obama seem like he was being sneaky might actually the fix definition better.

[OKNancy]

7. All this reminds me of the story of the rattlesnake and the girl

The end goes like this:

How could you do this to me?" she cried. "You promised that you would not bite me, and I trusted you!"

"You knew what I was when you picked me up," hissed the snake as he slithered away.

-----------

I knew what he was when I voted for him. I thought others did too.
BTW, I'm not saying Obama is a snake.. it's just the line about "you knew what I was"
that I thought about.

[David Zephyr]

10. If this was a promise by Obama, he should break it. God knows, he's had no problem breaking others.

It's a colossal mistake.

It will be the ruin of his presidency morally and ethically.

And it will be the ruin of his presidency politically: The body bags will be coming back just in time for the mid-terms where Americans who have lost their jobs and homes will be voting.

If this was a campaign promise, he should break it.

Ronald Reagan had the good sense to reverse himself in Lebanon. Bill Clinton had the good sense to keep the U.S. out of un-winnable wars.

Afghanistan will make Viet Nam look like a smart war.

[kentuck]

14. Maybe?

But I think he has already made the decision. We will be there for the duration of the Obama Presidency, be it 4 or 8 years.

[David Zephyr]

16. You have it right, Kentuck.

He's doing everything General McCrystal asked him to do.

We are there for a long time now.

[kentuck]

20. That is one of the most distasteful things about the wars....

He kept the Bush leftovers in charge: Gates, Petraeus, and McChrystal. And I am convinced they are making the decisions, not the President.

[David Zephyr]

41. Bingo.

And with that crowd and his Wall Street Cabinet, it doesn't look good for working class who fight the wars and who pay the taxes.

[kentuck]

51. ..and vote Democrats into office.

Somehow we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

[shadowknows69]

12. It doesn't matter whether he promised it or not.

It's the right thing to do.

[mike_c]

21. I disagree with you completely....

How on earth can you think fighting a war against a medieval society who was never any threat to us is "the right thing to do?" Are you simply so enamored with killing that you'll embrace any war? Is it the faux patriotism of supporting bully good wars? Is it the white man's burden to lift the savage WOGs out of their deluded heathenness? What?

[glitch]

70. Maybe shadow may've meant withdrawing is the right thing to do. nt

[shadowknows69]

71. Yes I did. Sorry if there was confusion

[mike_c]

72. thanks for clarifying....

I thought you meant escalating the war was the right thing to do.

[shadowknows69]

79. Not just no, but Hell no. Vietghanistan will be the end of this empire too.

[JVS]

82. +1

[shadowknows69]

84. You missed the clarification JVS. He should have agreed with me.

End these stupid wars NOW!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. When he promised more of the same in Afghanistan, that was the deal breaker for me.

I'm not surprised, disappointed, or shocked at his decision. He ran as a centrist, backed the war in Afghanistan because it was "smart politics" and is doing the same now. He's a politician first and he bases his policies on politics.

The cost in lives and fortune is obviously secondary getting elected and retaining power.

It's small comfort to know that it's going to blow up in his face when the bodies come home and the country goes broke.

[sandnsea]

24. You didn't vote for him either?

Then why are you wasting your time here? Don't you have a political party to build?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Nope. I'm a Democrat. Have been since 1965. You?

[sandnsea]

30. Who doesn't vote for Democrats

What kind of Democrat is that?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. This kind.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[sandnsea]

48. You haven't supported Democrats in the 6 years I've been here

You have always been far to the left, further left than most Greens really. Why do you pretend otherwise?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. So? Am I bound to support policies that I disagree with because I'm a Democrat.

I'm not pretending anything. I believe that those who govern should be held accountable. No matter what party they belong to or whether I voted for them or not.

I owe no allegiance to the Democratic Party or Democratic politicians. I have the quaint notion that if politicians want my vote they have to earn it. If they fail to then they don't get it. And, the same goes for "support".

Obama said he would carry on Bush's policies on the war in Afghanistan. I opposed Bush for the same reason I'm opposing Obama now. I gave up on "not as bad as" during the Democratic Convention in '68.

[mike_c]

38. my kind....

People who vote for liberal principles, not party. Especially when the party sells its principles to the highest bidder and then denies ever having had them.

[sandnsea]

47. You're both Greens

and you know it so I don't know why you pretend otherwise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. I'm not a Green. And, I'm not pretending.

As I said, I've been a Democrat since '65. How about you?

I see "party" as a vehicle to a destination, a tool, not an end. You seem to see it as the reverse. As the destination.

I vote issues, not party.

[mike_c]

53. I don't pretend anything....

I've been a democrat most of my adult life-- since the early 1970s. In 2002 I was so disgusted by the democratic leadership in congress, not to mention Bill Clinton's "centrism" to the right of Nixon, that I began voting for Green party candidates in local and congressional elections. In 2004 and 2008 I supported (and voted for) liberal democrats in the primaries and, when liberals were not nominated by the party, I voted for Green candidates who espoused the liberal policies that resonate with me in the general elections.

I'm a liberal democrat, with the emphasis on liberal, first.

on edit: but just to be clear, I'm PROUD to be called a Green, if that's what you prefer.

[usregimechange]

19. Yep

[anonymous171]

25. The president is not an elected king.

I am allowed to shit all over him for this because it is a bad fucking decision.

[EFerrari]

29. That's right, that's what he said. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

The Taliban is in control of Afghanistan and we have a choice of warlords to promote. That's it. We don't have the choice to defeat the Taliban on a battlefield.

[Hansel]

52. Is that he goal? I haven't heard his goal is to destroyed the Taliban.

I was thinking it's more a goal of stabilizing a region at risk of a take over of nuclear warheads by extreme zealots.

[EFerrari]

58. The Taliban in Afghanistan isn't even the same group as the one in Pakistan.

The group in Afghanistan don't want Pakistan's nukes. They want command and control over Afghan territory.

They are two separate groups of people.

[notesdev]

34. The simple calculation

Complete lack of coherent strategic goals +
Extremely expensive war doctrine +
Federal government on a trajectory towards short-term insolvency =

Escalation BAD


As far as what Obama specifically may have promised or not, he left, intentionally, a strong anti-war impression. Strong enough to be given a Nobel Peace Prize, even! Now our Peace Prize winner is escalating a pointless war in the most God-forsaken hellhole on Earth.

Of all the qualities of the Democratic Party, isn't the anti-war preference among its strongest and broadest appeals?

Is there a single person here who would have voted for this policy?

Wasn't Obama supposed to be cleaning up - not continuing - Bush's mistakes?

[kentuck]

36. Maybe he is trying to clean it up??

But just not at the pace that we would like?

[notesdev]

40. Maybe

but under what strategy? All we can do is guess, but Occam's Razor says this is a move designed for minimum political fallout, not a way to win the war or get out.

If we aim to win, then we need to throw humanitarian concerns out the window and get the job done, that's what war means. I don't see this being likely.

If we aim to get out, I'm having a little trouble reconciling talk of staying until 2017 and addition of new troops with that course of action. Actually I can't reconcile staying until 2017 with any sensible course of action.

The cynic in me says that the strategy chosen is one that maximizes revenue for defense contractors, and for that reason. Can't prove it, but it fits the pattern of how DC works.

[TicketyBoo]

65. During the campaign

he indicated his support for the war in Afghanistan. If you didn't see that, then you weren't paying close enough attention.

However, the war has changed since that time.

All he has to do is step up to the podium and say, "This is not the same war we were waging a year ago. Our troops are not accomplishing much of anything except getting themselves blown up. Current circumstances in Afghanistan require that we withdraw, at least for the time being."

Never mind what the Republicans say. A huge majority of the American people would be behind this, especially if he explained it properly.

When LBJ pushed heavily into Vietnam, he was facing an election that very year and worries that the Republicans would paint him as "soft on Communism." This President does not have those time constraints as far as his own election is concerned. He has the time to prove his leadership, and standing down at this point in time is the prudent thing to do. Cheney has already tried to paint Obama as "soft on terrorism." That isn't going to stick, in my opinion.

Getting pushed into another war because of political concerns certainly smacks of Vietnam, come back to haunt us once again. I don't think the American people will turn on this President nearly as hard for bringing our troops home as they will if this turns into another Vietnam, which it certainly has the potential to do.

It takes a bigger man to back us out of there than one who commits more troops. Maybe Obama is not as big a man as we thought or hoped. I pray that he makes the right decision; I fear that he will make the wrong one.

[HughMoran]

44. I don't know how we'll wrest control from the Taliban either

This is the argument we should be having, not whether Bush handed this mess to Obama who said he'd "fix" it.

[sandnsea]

49. Agreed

I don't see how anybody can have an opinion on Afghanistan until we know what Obama's strategy is. If he thinks he's going to fight the Taliban, battle by battle, then I don't support that either. I'm waiting to see, and wishing people would support the NGOs that are trying to help the Afghan women and children. That has to be done whether we have troops in that country or not.

[SmileyRose]

45. k and r

I want out of Afghanistan and my President has a different view at this particular moment. I hope he's right and that the knowledge advantage is in his favor.

[spanone]

54. k&r

[Individualist]

55. He was wrong to say it and wrong to do it.

[chill_wind]

57. True. He said the opposite. He repeatedly painted himself in a corner

and it looks a lot like the Generals aren't going to let him out now.

Or. People can choose to believe he is the hawk on this war that he said he was.
This war that we can't afford.


edited for clarity

[dkf]

59. I honestly didn't think we were at war with the Taliban.

I thought it was just Al Qaeda who apparently number less than 100.

If we are truly at war with the Taliban, are we trying to kill them and destroy them? Or are we trying to keep people from liking them (not possible imo)?

I don't see what right we have to interfere with another country's governance, much less put in our own puppet who leads a corrupt government.

[mike_c]

60. but! but Obama PROMISED we would do those things...

...so doesn't that make it all better?

The incredible illogic of that statement is astounding, yet it's repeated several times a day here, and on Tuesday and Wednesday it will probably be one of the most oft repeated thread titles on DU.

[dkf]

61. When he made this promise I didn't know there were so few Al Qaeda there. I was tricked.

I would never have supported those statements otherwise.

[TicketyBoo]

66. I don't think there WERE

that few al-Qaeda there last year during the campaign. This is a more recent development. They knew the situation was going to change under Obama and that he would be coming after them for real, so they ran across the border into Pakistan.

It's almost like they're saying, "Nya, nya, nya! Catch us if you can!"

We need to withdraw and when they come sneaking back into Afghahistan, go back and get them at that point.

I just don't see the need for more of our troops right now unless they plan on setting up bases to lead incursions into Pakistan. That has a potential of working, but I doubt it's the plan (and it probably shouldn't be).

[dkf]

67. That is why I think the focus should be on Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

And Pakistan has enough of an infrastructure that they can do something about these guys. All we should be concentrating on is making sure they can't get back in, and let the Pakistanis do what they must.

[TicketyBoo]

85. I don't think that will work.

Because I don't think Pakistan will ever carry through on that.

[salguine]

62. I'm sick of posts pointing out what Obama never said he'd do.

[Echo In Light]

63. Exactly. After all, ways of empire are obvious, given, a matter of course.

[kentuck]

64. With so much disinformation, it seemed necessary...

We can be for or against the war in Afghanistan but let's not pretend that the President said something that he did not say.

[mike_c]

68. but what DIFFERENCE does it make?

Does the fact that he was wrong about Afghanistan during the campaign excuse his mistakes now that he's president? Mistakes that ALL Americans have to live with? Don't we get any say?

The election was between two pro-war candidates, chosen by their party elite to reflect the priorities of the party leadership, and both were dedicated to preserving the profits of the military-industrial complex and U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. So now we're supposed to not be dismayed that the democratic pro-war candidate is going to escalate the war against Afghanistan? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

I suppose I have a bit of a moral advantage in that I didn't vote for Obama, so I can honestly say that I wasn't fooled in 2008, but what now? Should the people whose names are being used to justify crimes against humanity-- all U.S. citizens-- simply stand by and shrug unconcernedly? If not express outrage, what would you have us do?

[Techn0Girl]

69. B. S. !

We ALL know what Obama promised. He promised to end the war. He promised to bring the troops home. He promised to do it by last March.

We ALL know that.

This ain't a used car.
These are American lives being lost every day.
This is health care money being burnt up in useless war.

We KNOW what we were promised.
We recently had a thread with over 450 recs saying how disappointed they were.

Democrats - END. THIS. WAR.
Or face the next 6 years without the people who elected you.

[tekisui]

75. I knew his stand on Afghanistan and voted for him despite that.

I knew, too, that when this decision came, I would be opposed to it. Its here now, and he is doing worse than I expected.

[MadHound]

76. He also said that we should "go out and make me do it"

That implies that he is, at least nominally, open to changing his mind.

Therefore, since this is a democratic country, we the people have the right, no, the duty, to raise our voices for him to change his mind, on this issue and others if we don't agree on his current path.

Sitting back and doing nothing just because the President is doing what he promised does not fulfill the democratic ideals which this country was founded upon. Obama recognizes this, all of the rest of us should too.

[Orsino]

77. So we need to lobby him until he says it. n/t

[L0oniX]

78. I'm sure you all will be so surprised if he doesn't get us out of Iraq within the 18 months...

that he said he would. Are you holding your breath? Maybe after that we all can make up our minds about any Afghanistan bull shit.

[bigtree]

83. this point is being used as a deflection

It's a small point, really. The question before us is not going to be resolved by revisiting the campaign.