President Obama’s Muddle Path in Afghanistan .... Now it’s his war.

[Better Believe It]

Obama’s Muddle Path in Afghanistan
By Matthew Rothschild
November 25, 2009

Barack Obama is about to make a tragic blunder.

By all accounts, he’s going to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending about 30,000 more troops there.

After all the months of deliberations, he’s decided to do what he usually does, which is to split the difference, acquiesce, and go along with the Establishment folks he’s surrounded himself with.

Bold in rhetoric, Obama has proven, time and again, to be weak in substance.

But on this one, few people should be surprised.

Because he trapped himself in Afghanistan back during his Presidential campaign.

Worried that his anti-Iraq War stance might paint him as a dove, he quickly blurred the picture by saying that he favored Bush’s war in Afghanistan.

Now it’s his war.

It’s a choice that will come back to haunt Obama, as it did LBJ.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/wx112509.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. The Left warned about Iraq. The Left was ignored! The Left is warning about Afghanistan

Ignore the Left at your own, and the country's, peril.

[jaxx]

10. And the last 8 years?

Did I miss the warnings?

[ClarkUSA]

18. Where was "The Left" when Candidate Obama was campaigning on finishing the job in Afghanistan?

BTW, Barack Obama and I and most of the Obama supporters here were part of "The Left" who knew Iraq was wrong from Day One.

[noamnety]

20. As I recall, during the campaign

The Center was consistently harassing The Left to STFU about any criticism until after the election (usually followed by "Go ahead and vote for McCain, see how far that will get you").

I was one of the ones who recognized that "shut up during the campaign lest we spoil the election" quickly turns to "shut up during the first 60 days/six months/year, he hasn't even had a chance yet."

That turns to "STFU, now's not the time, we need to focus on the 2010 elections lest we lose control of Congress" and naturally, "Now's not the time to criticize, unless you want to see President Palin."

At every turn, the Left is order to STFU with their criticism, and simultaneously harassed for not speaking out earlier. Sometimes that happens by the same poster within one thread.

I don't expect that to change, I'm just pointing out the dynamics.

[ClarkUSA]

23. I don't recall any such thing happening. As if anyone here would listen to being told to "STFU"??

:rofl:

[noamnety]

25. I'm not saying I LISTENED to it.

But it sure did happen, and I am surprised you never saw it.

Old quotes:

"If you could keep a low profile until after the election, it will help.
The gay community is doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE right now. You are stirring up the rubes and it WILL HURT the Democrats!!!!"

"Anyone who wants to support Obama needs to realize that they are speaking to an uninformed and partially low intelligence populace...so they need to shut up until after the election."

"There is a noticeable hesitancy to really speak out now. (Dean) once said that he would more to say to the media after the election...half-joking. I believe they have told him to shut up until after the election."

"I agree w/those who say STOP all Dem (including DLC) bashing till Nov 8th! It is such a waste of time and effort to be bashing **** ANY **** Democratic candidate right now. I keep pleading for the my fello' DUers to please.. drop it until after the election! "

-----------
My favorite: "I swear, they could be rounding up minorities and shooting them and you people would say, "Wait until after the election." "

[ClarkUSA]

28. No one here would've listened to it, if it really happened.

Especially those who are members of the 24/7 Obama Outrage Club here.

You have only 5 alleged quotes? That's it? And you think that prevented all of DU to "STFU"? Gimme a break. eyes:

Do you have links to these quotes?

[noamnety]

34. I posted 5 quotes, yes.

It was a quick sampling, from a quick google of some specific search terms.

I don't plan to spend my day googling every possible search strand.

If you have that newfangled google thing, it wouldn't take long to find links to those quotes, but I wasn't looking to call out specific threads and link them. Just showing some samples, since you didn't seem to think it happened at all.

"If you really want to hash out all the wounds inflicted by each of the the two campaigns, can we please wait until after the election?"

Here's a preelection quote from some DUer named ClarkUSA who didn't want to hear criticism: "I think many of the whiners are PUMA whackos and McCain trolls. The rest need to get a grip, STFU and go do some volunteering for Team Obama where they can put their energy where their mouths are."

I'm surprised you didn't run into any comments like that.

[ClarkUSA]

35. You posted 5 alleged quotes. You have yet to provide any links as proof. I'm still waiting...

As for the alleged quote from me, I'm sure you'll also provide the link so we can see the context
because I know it wasn't related to the issue of Afghanistan. Oh, and your hypothesis that the
24/7 Obama Outrage Club members were so cowed by 5 alleged quotes to "STFU" is still
completely ludicrous. :)

[noamnety]

36. They are super secret links

that you can never find using the alleged google. ;)

[ClarkUSA]

37. Uh huh. You're full of it. My original point stands: where was the Outrage last year over this?

Because it's all about stirring up the latest Obama Outrage of the Month, that's why.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

30. It happened and it continues to happen

on here everyday. No more.

[ClarkUSA]

33. Bullshit. Link to the OPs from last year that expressed Outrage at his campaigning on this issue.

:eyes:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

44. I hope you realize that I and all the other comments were

referring to the left being told to STFU. None of them including myself were talking about his campaigning on "finishing the job" in Afghanistan. Anyone who was listening during the campaign knows he ran on this. Do you even know what you are commenting on anymore?

[Jakes Progress]

48. Talking to a loud wall.

Never sticks to the subject. Misdirects. Jump logic. And hours and hour and hours to spend in mother's basement at the keyboard. Never substance. Always abusive.

Your best bet is to be on the poster's ignore list.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

62. Someone with 2748 posts

is accusing me of spending hours and hours on here?

[Jakes Progress]

64. Read it again.

I was not referring to you. I was warning you about the keyboard warrior that you were exchanging with. He will suck up all your time and never post more than a twitter worth. He jumps around and changes topic and argues things that aren't in the post.

Sorry if you thought I was talking about you instead of to you. Your posts were concise and on point. But going after me by taking the time to look up my profile while not bothering to read my other posts to see where I am coming from is kinda rude.

Good luck and keep avoiding the turkeys shooting from the lip.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. Sorry I thought you were talking about me

no harm intended.

[tabatha]

2. Unproven assumption.

"Worried that his anti-Iraq War stance might paint him as a dove, he quickly blurred the picture by saying that he favored Bush’s war in Afghanistan."

[IndianaGreen]

3. Why did Obama put the peace option off the table?

Why did Obama refuse to even consider pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan?

[ClarkUSA]

19. President Obama "put the peace option" on "the table" in Iraq, as promised.

He never ever campaigned on "pulling out all of the troops out of Afghanistan". Quite the opposite.... he campaigned on "finishing
the job" in Afghanistan because Bush II "took his eye off the ball" to attack Iraq.

[smalll]

29. Exactly. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

Far more likely that Obama was, well, being honest! Get out of Iraq -- the war of choice -- and win the war in Afghanistan -- the war that, you know, kind of, like, ACTUALLY HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH 9/11???

I'm amazed how so many of our "leftbagger deviationists" around here are knee-jerking on this. Why assume -- with such vehement certainty -- that Obama was lying?

[avalonofmists]

67. I do not know the reason Obama went for Afgan at that time but I respect

Matthew Rothschild when he says that the war will now be Obama's war.

[ProSense]

4. "By all accounts, he’s going to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending about 30,000 more troops"

Yeah, all accounts except his, at this point.

How can his path be muddled when he hasn't made a decision yet?

[IndianaGreen]

5. Sorry bud, but the British government has already spilled the beans on the number of troops

unlike the Ministry of Truth.

[ProSense]

9. Yeah, because Obama shared his decision with the British government? n/t

[bigjohn16]

11. If he wants British troops in Afghanistan then of course he did. nt

[tabatha]

21. Obama was furious at leaks.

He will spill the beans on Tuesday.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Perhaps in his holy wrath he will break diplomatic relations with the UK

The biggest "leaker" in Washington has always been the White House.

[tabatha]

41. That is such a crappy reply.....

[IndianaGreen]

42. How about you read what the British government is saying

including plans for an Afghanistan summit in London in January?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x22650#23630

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. His decision most certainly has been made. It just hasn't been announced, only leaked.

Are you a betting person? What do you want to bet he'll announce somewhere in the neighborhood of 34,000 troops? Say oh, 34,000?

[ProSense]

8. I misspoke,

his decision hasn't been announced. As for your claim that it has been leaked, you have no clue as to what the actual decision is. Those so-called leaks could be misinformation.

[tekisui]

32. What is your primary deflection going to be after Tuesday?

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

13. Because if we don't go "full bore" and send at least 250,000 troops to secure Afghanistan ....

we will LOSE this "war."

You want to WIN? Then DEMAND that our Congress "Declare War" so we can pour every damn thing we have into it and win within 1-2 years. I mean OVERWHELM and pacify the place.

Do you know ONE, even ONE politician OR American who has the WILL to do the above?

No? Then get the hell out because half-step measure of 30,000 troops will be a drop in the bucket. In essence we are SACRIFICING these youth to "the quagmire" of the war/killing machine.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Is Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan? He is the one responsible for 9-11

Only an idiot would send troops to a country in which his primary target is not.

[David Zephyr]

7. Good article. Thanks Better Believe It

Thanks for the link. K&R.

[Lord Helmet]

12. Obama deserves to be heard on Tuesday BEFORE pulling out the long knives.

[ShortnFiery]

14. NO, no beautiful words will justify sending 30,000 more of our youth to be SACRIFICED to

this half-assed measure to keep The Mayor of Kabul (Hamid Karzai) and his THUG government safe. The foregoing is our mission.

We're inserting our troops in the middle of a UNHOLY civil war between the THUG Government and the migrated Taliban from Pakistan.

Do you want to bet on WHICH GROUP the "average Afghani citizen" is willing to SUPPORT? That's right, the local people FULLY SUPPORT the Taliban. Why? They KNOW that when all the killing and dying is done, they want to be on the side of the NON-INVADERS.

[Lord Helmet]

15. Leaks do not a policy make, but I see you're beating the rush on criticism before hearing the policy

[bigjohn16]

16. So the correct way to criticize a policy is to wait until it's in place then object?

Seems a little late to me.

[noamnety]

22. Yes, you need to wait until after it's in place to criticize

and then you can be scolded by the same people for not speaking out earlier. :)

[Better Believe It]

24. So it was wrong to protest Bush's planned invasion of Iraq before it happened?

Well, of course. How stupid of us to organize and participate in anti-war demonstrations days and weeks before Bush's invasion of Iraq began.

I take it that was your position before the Iraq invasion .... or was that somehow different?

[noamnety]

26. Please reread my post for sarcasm. (nt)

[Better Believe It]

27. Good to hear! I read the caption and thought it was serious!

Some people are actually using that argument!

:)

[IndianaGreen]

39. We must support Democratic wars! Vietnam was a Democratic war.

And LBJ destroyed his ambitious domestic agenda the moment he escalated the war in Vietnam.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Because I KNOW and YOU KNOW what the policy is ... we're already in the MSM cycle of

manufacturing consent.

[Vattel]

31. You are mistaken when you claim

that the "average Afghan[] citizen" supports the Taliban. The vast majority of Afghans don't support the Taliban. Or have things changed since the Feb 2009 poll that guaged support for the Taliban at 8% with 70% strongly opposing them and 20% somewhat opposing them?

[Orsino]

46. But...but...there might be a pony.

Surely, this time we can win a land war in Asia.

[IndianaGreen]

43. The British press has already published the outline of the new Afghan strategy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x22650#23630

Many DUers relied on the British press for information as to what our own country is up to. This is something we learned to do back in 2002 when the US press was a mere megaphone for White House pro-Iraq war propaganda.

[Baltoman991]

50. Yeah, sure.

I mean, I bet they have an inside scoop on what Obama is planning on doing.

Please, I trust the British press no more than I trust the American press. This isn't 2002. This isn't George Bush as much as you think the comparison is favorable.

Barack Obama has released nothing to the press, British, American or otherwise. But that won't stop you from spreading the false propoganda will it?

[polichick]

45. K&R I would so love it if he changed his mind before Tuesday...

...and got us the hell out of there!

[bvar22]

47. K&R ...UP to +1

Strongly AGREE.

[Jakes Progress]

49. K because it needs reading and R just because.

Any administrator knows that whenever you take over a post, you only have a few months to make changes and blame the former holder. Then every problem is yours. The idea is that if it was wrong, you should have known it and changed it. If you left it alone....it's yours.

[jefferson_dem]

51. The sanctimonious, doom-and-gloomers on the "purity purge" Left

are becoming more and more nauseating by the day

Matthew Rothschild's (a self-proclaimed "progressive") knee-jerky attacks on Obama would make the most right-wing blogger proud.

Here's a sampling:

Obama’s Muddle Path in Afghanistan
Obama’s Unhelpful Rhetoric on Jobs’ Forum
Obama Needs a Full-Employment Policy
Obama Undeserving of Nobel Peace Prize

[IndianaGreen]

53. The new graves in our national cemeteries caused by this war is what is nauseating

Those are lives that we could have saved by getting out of Afghanistan.

[jefferson_dem]

55. Perhaps so...

But the trade-off for total withdrawal is a greater security risk to the US national interests, some would argue.

Regardless of one's disposition toward war in general ... Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan is not Vietnam. Those on the right (Boosh/Cheney) and the left who try to conflate the two are disingenuous at the very least.

[IndianaGreen]

59. bin Laden is in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan

Sending troops to Afghanistan when our prime target is in Pakistan is either crazy or totally disingenuous.

[olegramps]

63. Is bin Laden even alive?

Has there been any definite proof that he hasn't died? Seems to me that it would be a major blow to the radical Islamists if they had to admit that he just shriveled up and died. To be a real martyr to the cause he would have to go down in a hail of bullets while killing hundreds of infidels.

[treestar]

52. That's unreasonable

Bush started it and kept it up for 7 years and you can't just ignore that 7 years.

[Better Believe It]

54. So the "Bush war "should be escalated with tens of thousands of more troops?

[bvar22]

56. The WAR....

...is in it's 9th Year.
We are losing.

And YES, you can write the whole thing off as a very bad idea,
and blame that on The Bush & the Republicans.

Obama seems determined to take ownership of this disaster, which he will do shortly.

[Aramchek]

57. The More You Hate!**************

[IndianaGreen]

58. Hey, hey, ho, ho

Osama is in Pakistan!

[VMI Dem]

60. At least it got tired of getting threads locked.

That's a plus.

[Aramchek]

61. you really are bitter. and will likely become moreso as Obama succeeds

I'm glad my thread served to lead many of you to reveal yourselves for what you are.

Don't worry. I'm not going anywhere.

[avalonofmists]

66. His speech to come sounds to much like "conditions on the ground"

speech we have heard for years. (If this is to be his speech).


http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_last-minute_meeting_on_afghanistan.php


Nov 29 2009, 9:13 pm by Marc Ambinder
A Last-Minute Meeting On Afghanistan

President Obama convened a last-minute meeting of his national security team tonight to discuss the language that his administration will use to describe its new strategy for Afghanistan. Two administration sources confirmed that the meeting, which began at 5:00 pm, included cabinet officials like Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The officials would not describe the meeting and said that no other news organizations were being given any background briefing. That suggests that the meeting was akin to a pre-game rally session by the commander-in-chief: he wants to get everyone from Gates to Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the same page before his Tuesday speech.

Before young officers at West Point, Obama will announce his decision about Afghanistan to an increasingly skeptical nation and a Democratic Congress that is threatening to condition its budgeting on identifiable off-ramps and timeframes. Obama is expected to announce that he'll order several Army combat brigades to Afghanistan -- about 30,000 troops in all, most of them to be tasked with more rapidly standing up Afghanistan's indigenous army. His speech, as described in broad terms by advisers last week, will be short and serious. His challenge is to persuade Americans that the war in Afghanistan is winnable, as Americans tend to give their presidents significant leeway so long as they believe that the president is confident in his strategy.


Officials said last week that while would outline a clear exit strategy, he would not tie troop withdrawals to any specific political developments in Afghanistan, which might run into opposition from Democrats in Congress, who are demanding benchmarks. Nor is the President likely to impose direct conditions on Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. An official said that Obama plans to try explain the interconnection between the the stability of Pakistan and the nexus of terror in Afghanistan. An explanation that the American people would accept has proven elusive.

[polichick]

68. Obama seems determined to piss his presidency away for the sake of pleasing...

...his political enemies. Wish he'd get some therapy.