President Obama v. Afghanistan

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I know that opposition to our continued military involvement in Afghanistan runs deep here and there is some pretty heated rhetoric going back and forth about it. I don't plan on trying to convince anybody to support our continued involvement there (as I do- at least on a limited basis), however I would like to point out- particularly for those people whom are convinced without even hearing about what President Obama is planning that it's going to be (or already has been) the death of our "empire"- that President Obama has been reviewing and re-evaluating our strategy in Afghanistan, as well as our options for nearly the entire year now. In fact, he has been taking so long to announce a new strategy that his RW detractors have repeatedly accused him of "dithering" to the detriment of our troops (hypocritically, I might add, considering how Bush didn't alter his strategy in Iraq for over 2 years after things started to seriously deteriorate there). A majority of people here seem to believe that President Obama is just going to sink more troops into a failed strategy and that Afghanistan will become (or already has become) his "Vietnam"- that will help run him (and the party) out of office in 2010 and 2012.

The question that I'm interested in having answered is, why is "failure" in Afghanistan automatically assured? We've only seen the results of a few months of active engagement in Afghanistan followed by 6-7 years of neglect by Bushco, which has clearly NOT worked in terms of cleaning up after the Taliban/AQ and stabilizing the country but President Obama ran for office intending to refocus our engagement from Iraq back to Afghanistan- which I judged to the correct focus- and he is prepared to announce a change in strategy that will, hopefully, help to correct Bushco's mistakes in Afghanistan.

The fact that we are (or should be) getting a CHANGE in strategy should be highly significant IMHO, particularly when we consider that Bush and McCain would've probably only sent McChrystal all of the troops he wanted without insisting on ANY change(s) in strategy. Also, consider the fact that President Obama has already rejected 3-4 plans that have already been presented to him. While the nature of the plans presented are heretofore unknown, it's still meaningful IMHO that he sent his advisors "back to the drawing board" for new ideas instead of just latching onto the first plan(s) presented to him. When you consider this, as well as the fact that he has been "dithering" so long in coming up with a new strategy, it's hard to believe that President Obama is either ignorant of the historical nature of military involvement in Afghanistan (which, I should point out, was about conquering and occupying Afghanistan- NOT what he nor anybody else is talking about) or careless about our troops and our resources to achieve some kind of pyrrhic "victory".

Just some things to think about as we head into Tuesday's announcement.........:shrug:

[mdmc]

1. why failure? Because success is defined as

"standing down" when the Afghan's "stand up".
Victory = a pro-west, unified, secular, stable Afghanistan.

So we "fight" until "victory". Or we cut and run and admit defeat.

What I do like is Obama is asking the military "intelligence" to think in different terms of "victory". That is a good thing, as we can move the goal posts from certain failure to a "cut and run" with honor..

Any strategy that tries to use military force to meet non-military goals will fail.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Good points

I think that what President Obama may be more or less doing is trying to lessen our "failure" there rather than necessarily trying to set us up for several more years (or decades) of continued military involvement/occupation there. "Saving face" as it were IMHO (but also genuinely trying to make it better for the Afghanis- at least to whatever degree may be possible in a limited amount of time).

[mdmc]

5. I think that you and I were both against both of Bush's wars

I was more or less resigned that we would other-throw the Taliban. I was in full blown opposition to the Iraq war.
The reason I opposed these wars was because I knew that a successful exit from these conflicts was decades away.

The wars would be worth the effort if we could be successfully out (of the conflict theater) by 2011.

My anti war positions in no way effect my support of Obama. I support him and know he is trying his best.

The truth is that we cannot stop the wars. Obama cant. No one can. All we can do is try not to start additional wars.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. I supported going into Afghanistan post 9/11

NOT Buscho's handling of it after the first few months and definitely not his invasion/occupation of Iraq. I am all for getting out of both conflict theaters as soon as possible but I realize that we still need to do a little more in Afghanistan. We have nothing really left to do in Iraq other than getting out. The situation over there is never going to be perfect but Iraq at least has a history of functional government.
As for starting additional wars, I'm glad that we have President Obama and NOT McWar. I would imagine that we'd probably be in Iran sometime over the next 4 years with him in office.

[treestar]

2. At least we are focused on it

Instead of spread out in Iraq and yet other places McWar, the winner of wars, would have taken us into.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. "why is "failure" in Afghanistan automatically assured?"

Ask Mikhail Gorbachev. Or Alexander the Great. Or Genghis Khan. Or the British. It's called the "graveyard of empires" for a reason, and most of us here can remember when the Soviet Union collapsed because they wasted too much time and money there.

There is no valid reason to stay there. Oil companies, gas companies, and Bush Crime Family opium supply are NOT the United States of America.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. There's one fairly significant difference between us and them that keeps getting overlooked IMHO

We're not there to conquer/occupy the country indefinitely. As for other theories about why we're there/staying there, I'm not convinced that those are President Obama's reasons for wanting us to stay there right now. However, I could be wrong, I suppose :shrug:

[TayTay]

6. The definitions of victory or defeat are American-centered

And America is not the determinant of what eventually happens in Afghanistan. (Or Iraq for that matter.) We cannot adequately define victory or defeat because it is not ours to define. We can set the terms of our involvement in Afghanistan and how long we will be an occupying force.

What is victory or defeat without America in the equation? Answer that and we start to answer the real problem. What does victory mean to the Afghan people? What does defeat mean to them? What are they fighting or not fight for in these wars? What are the stakes for them in terms of their future, the future of their children, cities, culture, etc? That is the overriding question here and one that is decidedly not American-centered.

In a larger sense, what President Obama does or does not do on Tuesday is of small consequence. Obama is making policy in the best interests of the United States, which is his sole job and objective. (As it should be.) The larger questions of victory or defeat may sit apart from that decision. (We can have an American victory or defeat that does not relate to what happens overall to Afghanistan.)