An additional 30,000 troops would be consistent with Obama's campaign promise made on August 1, 2007

[mcablue]

After doing a little research I found out that in 2007, President Obama said: "As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban.""

A brigade has approximately 3,000-5000 troops. Two brigades were sent in February of this year, but the key phrase is "at least," meaning two or more.

Whether you agree with this strategy or not, the President is keeping his word.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Pressure-mounts-as-Obama-seeks-Afghan-delay-8274326-60059947.html

Also in the "Obama for America" website:

Redeploy American Troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama will deploy at least anadditional two brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. By that logic if he sent every man, woman and child in the US to Afghanistan it would also be "more"

[DJ13]

2. He also promised to reign in the excesses of Wall Street

But I guess his word only counts when he wants to escalate a conflict?

[ClarkUSA]

3. How do you get 30K troops from "at least two additional brigades" said in 2007?

:crazy:

[mcablue]

6. If one knows what "at least" means, it's simple

There is no limit assigned to the phrase "at least." He didn't say "7,000 to 15,000 troops" or any specific amount.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Hmm... your logic is a bit skewed and your numbers are purely speculative...

... but I see your tortured point, however whimsical it is.

:)

[mcablue]

21. I'd say only one number (30,000) is speculative; the rest aren't

I'm willing to hear you explain how my logic is skewed.

The other numbers (at least 2 brigades) and at least 7,000 troops, are direct quotations of Barack Obama's campaign; therefore not speculative.

[Oregone]

4. Promises do not dictate sound policy

Who gives a fuck who said what whenever. Focus on the actual policy. I give two fucks if "the President is keeping his word"

[IndianaGreen]

5. Only a fool would adhere to a strategy overcome by events 3-years later

War plans become obsolete the moment the war begins. If you want a football analogy, this is like having a coach sticking to a game plan that resulted in the other team building a huge lead at half-time.

[Vincardog]

7. Did Obama know that he would be partnering with a corrupt unpopular regime that had to steal

elections to maintain its' power? Do you think he might have reason to reconsider his position given the facts that have revealed themselves between then and now?

Didn't he say he would end DADT? Didn't he say he would renegotiate NAFTA?

Is this the only thing we are supposed to hold him responsible for from the campaign?

[lapfog_1]

8. It might have been the right strategy in 2003 or even 2004

especially if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

But I was hoping for a President that can admit that things have changed, things which might have made sense even as late as 2007 (though, I submit, we lost this war before then) don't make sense now in late 2009.

He could even say "Upon further review... and after getting more information..." just like a NFL referee.

The best thing we could do at this point is let the Chinese send in 500,000 troops. And we need to concentrate on having both India and Pakistan give up their nuclear arsenals. Hopefully before Pakistan falls to a Taliban like government who would have no problem giving a few warheads to a Bin Laden follower.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Wow that is some tortured logic.

1) those two brigades already got sent.
2) the 30,000 is an order of magnitude greater than 'two brigades'.


Obama was wrong in 2007. Wrong in 2008. And even more wrong now in 2009. This history of wrong thinking on Afghanistan does not become right by being consistent.

[mcablue]

14. You talk about "those two brigades," but he spoke about "at least" two brigades

So let's not distort Obama's words, please. 30,000 is greater than "two brigades," but it's not greater than "at least two brigades."

[spiritual_gunfighter]

10. Promises kept do not equal sound policy n/t

[LooseWilly]

11. Yes, it would be consistent.

One can argue that the facts on the ground have changed... and perhaps those changes justify a change in policy... or you can argue that He Promised It on the Campaign Trail... so everyone can just Deal With It.

Of course, if you're going to argue the latter... what about this:
(http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS)

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full
equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not
stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal
only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I
have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as
married couples in our immigration system.

When's he going to follow through on this campaign promise, as quoted from his OFA site?

You know... just for the sake of consistency in living up to campaign promises, whatever the consequences might be...

[mcablue]

13. A Presidency lasts 4 years

So to answer your question about when he will follow through?...the answer would be by January 2013, if he is honest about his promise.

I just don't see how this relates to the war in Afghanistan.

[LooseWilly]

16. It relates merely to campaign promises. The underpinning upon which you are justifying escalation.

Forgive me if I seem a little doubtful that all campaign promises are born equal...

[mcablue]

17. I didn't justify escalation

I merely pointed out that he's keeping his word. Keeping one's word can be good or bad, and I did not take a position. I wanted to inform those who ignored what Obama said he would do. I said:

Whether you agree with this strategy or not, the President is keeping his word.

[LooseWilly]

18. I didn't say you did justify escalation. I said that not all campaign promises are born equal.

And I pointed out what can be considered to be a weakness in the robustness of your assertion about the integrity of campaign promises.

From a certain point of view, the fact that the increase in troops is in line with a campaign promise can almost make other campaign promises, which seem to be falling by the wayside, all the more of a slap in the face.

[mcablue]

19. You said "The underpinning upon which you are justifying escalation"

And of course I didn't justify it.

[LooseWilly]

22. Ahh, so I did... I stand corrected.

Ok... so you are merely saying that escalation is consonant with a campaign promise, without saying whether said escalation is justified or not.

Fair enough.

Is that the whole point of your OP then? Should I then infer that you likewise neither support nor oppose any other campaign promise? You are merely interested in reminding people what the promises were, while withholding any judgement as to whether or not any of those promises were good or bad ideas?

[mcablue]

23. Exactly

I'm undecided on this particular issue. And no, this does not mean I'm undecided on other promises.

[polichick]

15. Who cares what he said in 2007? The situation isn't anything like it was then. nt

[mcablue]

20. dupe n/t

[Unvanguard]

24. "Consistent with", yes, "derivative of", no. The 2008 election was not a referendum

on escalation in the Afghanistan war.

[burning rain]

25. That is an extremely fatuous argument & you should be embarrassed to make it.

It is the same as saying that since Obama campaigned for president as a supporter of the death penalty, no-one can campaign against capital punishment now. THINK!

[karynnj]

26. Only because it is open ended

He already sent an additional 21,000.

[LittleBlue]

27. Be consistent, be a one-termer!

Yeah, that's pretty cool.

When he made that statement, did we know Karzai stole an election and his brother is a drug-runner? Do emerging facts change a campaign promise?