The WH business of deciding and deploying troops before announcing is dismaying

[bigtree]

I've heard criticism since the first 'leaks' from the president's generals about escalating the force in Afghanistan that we should 'wait', or that folks will wait until the president actually outlines his 'plan' before passing judgment. Now you can see the folly in waiting to openly criticize these rumored deployments. Troops will be on the way before the president announces they're going. There's no congressional debate to guide his decision. There's no public forum to weigh his plan and offer counsel before he commits. We're only left with whatever opposition dared to preemptively rear up and challenge the assumptions behind his leaked intentions.

By their conscious choice, Congress has allowed the president to (presumably) alter the policy behind the Afghanistan deployments and escalate the mission without any prior deliberation or approval - choosing, rather, to try and retroactively parcel out the policy shoved down their throats with whatever money they decide to attach to the president's opportunistically autocratic ambitions.

Waiting, and not challenging our legislators to act in response to the widely anticipated deployments has been a waste of valuable time which should have been used to influence the developing policy. But misguided loyalism to the new president by many of his party members has feathered his unitary path to escalated military aggression abroad. Silence is complicity. Hope folks are right about their trust the president has advantaged himself of.

[BeFree]

1. Well

All along Obama has said that we need to fight them over there.

And probably 80% of the country agrees.

Hey, it's down from 90%, So we are getting somewhere.

[ShortnFiery]

4. No, Americans want our troops HOME. It's only the power elites in D.C. that DEMAND it otherwise.

:(

[BeFree]

6. I wish

I think most of America still thinks we need to fight them over there, rather than here.

It was a great meme, fer sure. And since most folks like it so much, I say we use it to get them to see what a bunch of BS it really is.

If, as you say it is just the elites, then lets make them say it aloud.
No more beating around the bush.

[NNN0LHI]

13. Last poll I seen MOST Americans would be for invading Iran

[blm]

2. I agree with much of what you've written here. I have to hope an exit strategy is

in the works.

[FrenchieCat]

3. There has been quite a debate on this at this point,

but the bottom line is that we are not the Commander in Chief.

If you don't like it, vote him out in 2012.....
till then, he gets to do the job we elected him to do,
and if congress has a problem, they can simply not fund Obama's plans....
which I will remind folks will (because it has to) include an exit strategy.

So some can cry that this is business as usal from the MIC,
but as long as I see a rational exit strategy,
than that is more than we have ever gotten when it comes to
the 8 year war in Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

5. The POINT is that Congress has abdicated it responsibility to declare war in both countries.

:grr:

[FrenchieCat]

9. and?

what's new on that front?

[ShortnFiery]

10. AND either Congress "declares war" and we give it all we have, to include universal draft ...

or we get the hell out of both sovereign Muslim countries.

Anything in between will make Americans LESS SAFE.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Obviously it isn't the "and/or" that you are demanding......

and hasn't been for decades now.

but I will say that you do sound very authoritarian considering that we live in democracy.

[truedelphi]

28. + 1. n/t

[bigtree]

7. no, we're not the CIC

. . . but he's not an island, either. And our responsibility to vigilance doesn't end with our votes in an election. If we don't like the policy we should appeal to our legislators in Congress. It's not like every deployment has preceded congressional action.

Anyone can draw a map . . . reaching the destination is the trick.

[FrenchieCat]

12. He doesn't think he is an island either......

which is why there has been a national debate (or an opportunity for debate) in this country.....
moreso than ever before on this topic, and Barack Obama encourages it with everything he has said and done....even the leaks were for the good, since no leaks means no opportunity for discussion.

Their will be Senate hearings on Pres. Obama's plan, the day after it is announce. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69793-senate-will-hold-hearing-on-new-afghan-strategy

All in all, it is moving at the right pace....slow initially, and questions asked quickly right after the policy is announce.

This is not a new war that Obama is starting; it is a 8 year old long neglected situation
that has gotten out of hand. It is his job to make a determination, provide the rational for the American people, and get congress to back his vision of what needs to happen to get to an end game. He doesn't have to wait for the polls and for congressional approval to than take action......cause Congress approved of this long ago; every one of them (including Kucinich) voted to give authorization except for Barbara Lee, and the polls are everywhich way. If congress wants to take that authorization back, then fine. If voters are mad at the Democrats in 2010 for this; fine, let them vote them out. If voters are still pissed at the Democrats in 2012 for this; then fine, let them vote out Barack Obama and choose someone else that they think would do better
.....cause that's exactly how democracy is supposed to work.

All told, I'm believe that we get the government that we deserve...
and I feel a bit better about that currently.

[bigtree]

27. If it's not a new 'war'

. . .it's the same old objectionable occupation he's criticized. You can't have it both ways. The way these 'wars' are waged these days, Congress shows their 'approval' by how much money they cough up after they've let the president send the troops on their way. Senate hearings afterward are useless if they're not prepared to cut the funding. Sending them before that debate is slippery and a way of forcing the deployment down Congress' throats as most will be loath to cut the troops off at their knees as they're deploying. That's how we got bullied into Iraq. Keep defending this phony process for committing more troops to this occupation - just to defend the new president. Let me know what we've gained when the casualties begin to mount.

[davepc]

8. We're you not paying attention during the campaign where he promised to increase troop levels

in Afghanistan?

This is no secret, he told us he was going to do this when he was running for president.

[ShortnFiery]

11. However, since the people who actually attacked us, al Qaeda, have moved back to

Pakistan, escalating the war in Afghanistan is INSANE ... unless your goal is to enrich the MIC and enjoy geopolitical advantages. Either way, we're sacrificing our youth for oil pipelines and corporate war profiteering. That's just plain VILE.

[FrenchieCat]

16. considering that you've got all your emotional button words in there, hey?

Escalating war
insane
enrich the MIC
Sacrificing our youth for oil
War profiteering.
Vile

and that you go from thread to thread saying the same things over and over again,
seems like you are here to do battle....
and pummel with as many of us who don't quite see it like you,
as hard as possible.

It appears that there's no grey in any of this as far as you are concerned,
but it still doesn't mean that there is no grey in this, because of course,
there actually it is; and its there whether you address it or not.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. There is no pipeline. There's probably not ever going to BE a pipeline.

Would you invest in a pipeline through that hell hole?

[leftstreet]

18. Damn right! Just like he campaigned against insurance mandates!

wait...what?

[FrenchieCat]

19. If you trying to say he's not perfect,

you would be correct.

If you want to view this as a new war, that's your choice.

If you want to view him as an Emperor or whatever negative label he's assigned today,
so be it.

We knew this was coming; and it is now here.
We can explode starting a month ago if that's what we choose,
and work against making this happen, although it will.

Than we can vote this non perfect President out of office in 2012,
and get another non perfect President in there in his stead.

Those are our choices.

[blues90]

25. There has never been a perfect president or perfect human

The problem I have with this Afghanistan build-up is during Obamas campaign his thought's on these wars were over shadowed by his rhetoric and never ending hope and change slogans.

In the end only parts shine through and stick in peoples minds. People pick out the best parts and hold them up above all else. The wars were not the best parts and were lost in the mix until now.

It's just political game where any presidential candidate had to be tough war in order to win.

Obamas emphasis was aimed toward the hope and and left this impression .

I am never for war especially some idea like a war against terror.

I was not about to vote for the better of two evils when war is part of their mindset.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The lapdog congress is too timid to defund the new emperor's war.

"Support the Cannon-Fodder..er..troops" will win the day.

[FrenchieCat]

17. New Emperor = over the top

which doesn't do your argument any real favors,
unless you are just preaching to your own choir.

Soundbytes are really insulting,
in attempting to express one's point of view
on something that is important and complex to many of us,
even if its simple to you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Without a congress to control him, he is able to, and is, acting the emperor.

He is escalating a lost war to shine up his "tough" credibility and avoid the embarrassment of acknowledging another lost was. Just like LBJ and Nixon and Bush.

Unfortunately, the congress is also frightened of embarrassment and refuses to take their responsibility to stop it.

As for soundbites, "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" worked pretty well in ridding ourselves of another politician who didn't mind shedding lives to gain favorable PR. And, eventually forcing congress to act.

I was against Bush's war policies, against McCain's war policies, and I'm against more of the same from Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Good to know where you stand,

and I can respect you for it,

but I see it differently.....

I see an end strategy in the horizon,
a President who knows he will be held accountable in the end,
and who encourages debate from every which sides....

That's change,
and even if isn't going to mean Peace in the World as soon as we would like it,
it is a giant step in a better direction.

Using my analogy of building a house with bricks made of shit...
Obama is having to deal with a situation that has already been there for years.
He didn't start this war, and he probably doesn't want to continue to fight it as is,
and so he is doing the smart thing;
laying the groundwork in order to make the circumstances there better
for any future decisions, including ending this war that was authorized long ago
by every member of congress excluding one.
So right now, it is his responsibility to do what he believes under the present circumstances.

What he won't do is come up with the magical perfect solution that pleases everyone,
and that's not even his job. His job is to take those shit bricks and build that house,
and do the best job possible considering that when it gets warm, the house will stink,
no doubt about it, and he will be told he stunk it up, regardless of where the bricks came from.

So because he damn well knows at the end of the day, he will be held responsible,
and since that will most definitely be the case, he might as well do it his way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. As a pacifist, my focus is on the pawns sacrificed while the masters play chess.

I believe that Obama is seeking a way out. But, his escalation policy reeks of "Peace with honor" just like Nixon's way out. He's playing domestic politics with the lives of people. He has resurrected the Al-Queda bogeyman to justify the "surge" in troops, coupled with a vague domino-theory about Pakistan and it's nukes. He is neglecting the advice of those like Eikenberry in favor of the "more troops, more time, more money" failed strategy of the generals who also seek to avoid embarrassment.

The Europeans are rightfully wary of doing more than paying lip-service and offering more cannon-fodder to an already lost war. But, their citizens aren't shackled to party loyalty and letting the bosses decide who dies.

Not only is there no "magical solution" to Afghanistan, there is no "solution" of any kind that will turn out favorably for the United States.

We will continue to pour lives and money into Afghanistan until we are driven out. Then we will build another pretty monument to the dead for the next set of politicians to stand in front of, shed crocodile tears, and tell us how we need to be saved from the next in the endless line bogeymen erected to frighten us.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[optimator]

21. no declaration of war

and I assume its because they know this "war" is unconstitutional.
If it were so necessary and just, they would at least seek a declaration.

[Deja Q]

22. What if something happened in Afghanistan that necessitated this moving forward?

What if the President had plans to move in more troops, but something happened?

(I've not watched or read the news today so maybe nothing went boom-boom today... even still, not everything on the news is real, nor is it all fake, and nor is everything always told. I have to keen an open mind, either way.)

[branders seine]

26. Anyone to the left of George W Bush should feel betrayed.

Any notion of "benefit of the doubt" has been shown to be foolishly naive.