Afghanistan: The “Dithering” Ends. The Soldiering Begins.
Nov 29th, 2009 | 68 responses
Tuesday night, after months of careful deliberation—some have called it “dithering,” Gen. McChrystal recently called it a “thoughtful process”— President Obama will, before an audience of resplendent cadets at storied West Point, announce to the nation how many additional American troops will be sent to fight in Afghanistan.
It is expected that the President will call for a phased deployment of between 30,000 and 35,000 new troops to Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months.
Such decisions on numbers, so-called “surges,” were made routinely and almost cavalierly by the previous administration for the war in Iraq, while at the same time failing to provide focus, material and human resources to the war in Afghanistan.
President Obama’s deliberations and decisions, however, have gone far beyond just numbers.
We understand that his announcement will include a clear rationale for what America is doing in Afghanistan, clear goals, performance targets and target dates, a clear strategy to achieve those goals and targets, and “exit ramps”: How to ultimately get our troops out—something that has recently proven much more difficult than how to place our troops in harm’s way. America deserves nothing less.
It is also expected that the president will outline political reforms, anti-corruption measures and demand a much more intensive and earnest participation and commitment in and by Afghanistan in their own self-defense. Also, that he will emphasize what he sees as the obligations and roles of our international partners in this joint effort. America expects nothing less from Afghanistan and from our allies.
No doubt, the sniping from his detractors on the far right will continue unabated. However, 10 months into his presidency, Mr. Obama should have developed the thick skin and the skills to let such attacks suffer the ignominy they deserve.
Some will continue to quibble over what the precise number of additional troops we commit to Afghanistan should be: less than 30,000; more than 50,000; 80,000; none…
But I believe that, to their credit, the GOP will support the Obama plan for Afghanistan, albeit perhaps reticently and conditionally.
More difficult for the president will be the stinging criticism he will surely receive from members of his own party in Congress, from Democrats and liberals in general, and especially from those on the far left who were his most ardent supporters during the presidential campaign and elections.
Anticipating his decision for a troop build-up, several prominent Democrats have already been expressing concern—opposition at times—not only about the expected escalation, but also about the significant cost and how to pay for it; about how the increased spending could adversely affect not only the party’s domestic agenda but also Obama’s own efforts to improve the U.S. economy; and about campaign promises made and perhaps not kept.
Tuesday night’s speech by the president will not stop all criticism, dispel every concern, or silence the debate.
General McChrystal, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen and others are expected to appear before Congress and congressional committees to testify on the new strategy. There will be lots more hearings, editorials, speeches, commentary, debate…
America is war-weary and Americans are skeptical and divided—right down the middle—on Afghanistan. While the president has promised—and will probably promise again Tuesday—to “finish the job,” he can not guarantee success, he can not deny the additional sacrifices that will be required of our troops, and he can not hide the additional costs to the taxpayers. It all points to a tough sell, probably the toughest of his presidency, but one that the president must clinch.
Just like “Hope” and “Change” were part of Obama’s campaign slogan, he must now hope that the GOP support he may receive is neither fleeting nor calculated, and that a majority of Democrats—legislators and voters—will change their views on Afghanistan and rally behind their standard bearer, now a wartime Commander-in-Chief.
While I personally have mixed emotions about our future role in Afghanistan, my hope is that, once the inevitable additional “dithering” is done, we let the soldiering begin, giving our generals and our troops the trust they deserve and the support they need to get the job done.
I’ll be watching Tuesday night. But, more important, I’ll be watching and listening the days and weeks to come.
Image: Courtesy west-point.org
opinions powered by SendLove.to
68 Responses to “Afghanistan: The “Dithering” Ends. The Soldiering Begins.”
“why shouldn't he be held accountable”
Because he is not accountable any more. Obama is now the accountable one. All presidents have to deal with both good and bad ramifications from presidents before them. As far as Afghanistan goes, a bipartisan Congress approved it. Their Intelligence committee approved the intel, and the American people (for the most part) were behind the invasion THEN.
Obama has to deal with policies put in place during Nixon, Carter, FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and now Bush. All we can do now is to see how he handles what he's been given. I held Bush and every other President up to the same criteria. I discounted those Reagan supporters that blamed everything on Carter, and those Bush supporters that blamed the Al Quaida mess on Clinton. It is totally unproductive for any party to keep pointing back to the “other guy”.
I got ya, Shannon. You are actually one of the better ones out there not to continually throw the “look at Bush” comments out there.
I don't agree about the war crimes for either president though. Waterboarding and most of the other methods were approved by law at the time. If anything it should be handled as individual counts against the Geneva Convention. Because no matter how the Johnny Cochran types out there dance around the subject, waterboarding and the like are against the Geneva Convention – a code all American warriors adhere to.
What features, dduck?
Am I missing something?
I don't know how you can close one eye and still look out the other, and
speak out one side and not the other of your mouth. Yes all the
approvals were in place……..HOWEVER based on lies, told by the
highest officials in the land AND we are still paying in blood and loot
and will continue to do so for months if not years to come. And yes
there are policies that come out of the center world of nothing politics
that traverse many presidents………….so what, if people dies, if
laws were broken…………What would the center right say about
forgiving lawbreakers that took people's lives, stole a lot of
money…………..forgive and forget, heh? And Bush is a special case,
no one, NO ONE compares to him. Why in the world would anyone want to
set themselves up, without being on the payroll, as a protectorate and
apologist for GW Bush? You must think you are being fair……you're not!
I'm not closing one eye and looking out the other, Spriasol.
I'm not naive and I know everything that went down prior to our invading Iraq.
But we are not talking about IRAQ! We are talking about AFGHANISTAN.
There were no lies leading up to Afghanistan. It was plain and simple. Terrorist resources in Afghanistan directly lead to an Al Quaida attack on September 11.
So don't talk to me about lies and “illegal wars”. Save that for the Iraq debate. There were many like you that were attacking FDR for having pre-knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack but decided not to act on it to get us into the war. I don't buy that garbage any more than I buy the assertion that President Bush lied to the American people about WMDs in Iraq. As I've stated many times, I have personally SEEN WMDs in Iraq with my own eyes. But I digress…..
My point stands that all Presidents deal with past decisions. Get over it.
And there's no love lost between me and George W. Bush. I had many problems with his administration. But I felt confident as a soldier while he was Commander-in-Chief. The man had his pluses as well. I'm not an apoligist, merely a person who refuses to see him as totally evil as you do.
I meant the “Like' button. And, I don't know how to make those nice shaded boxes instead of using quotes.
Why not a BS button?
The features was for stevek. My reply to you was about too many Bushes.
A Bush behind every bush.
” I have personally SEEN WMDs in Iraq with my own eyes. But I digress…..”
That sounds like an extremely interesting experience, J.D. Could you share with us?
And I am not being fictitious or disigenuous, I am sure most of our readers would be fascinated by it, too.
How about a Guest Voice on this experience? I am sure Joe G. would be glad to have you
Thanks
Dorian,
As would the UN Weapons Inspector… Donald Rumsfeld… Dick Cheney… Oh, and George W. Bush, too.
I can only say what I “can” say about the issue. What I am allowed to say is this:
There's really no revelation to the WMD question in Iraq. Most of the WMDs found since 2003 have been documented, but not publised heavily for reasons beyond my comprehension.
Thos items found are mostly weaponized nerve/blister/blood agent in gaseous form. We have found literally tons of the stuff. The more dubious WMD's made their way to Syria in the months leading up to our invasion. The stuff we keep finding is the older stuff that he used on the Kurds.
During a visit to my alma mater, General Georges Sada, Hussein's #2 guy (Air Force), offered convincing arguments and illustrations proving that he did, indeed, witness the convoys of WMDs going into Syria – along with gold, top scientists, etc.
As I said, this is not really new data. I cannot comment on individual discoveries or caches.
“As would the UN Weapons Inspector… Donald Rumsfeld… Dick Cheney… Oh, and George W. Bush, too.”
They already knew and know about all of this – as does President Obama. You don't hold the highest office in the land without access to most of the information. A deal with Syria was most likely reached as to keep the stuff out of Hezzbola's hands – but I have no way of proving/disproving that theory.
comment removed
What did I say that amused you so much, Steve?
Just about everything you say JD.
WMD's in Iraq
A self acclaimed democrat (small 'd' intentional) who's every remark is against everything Democrats stand for.
God fearing Christian that goes against everything Christianity stands for.
etc. etc.etc.
This comment excluded, I stopped 'replying' to you several weeks ago and would appreciate it if you would do the same.
Best regards, SteveK
“A self proclaimed democrat (small 'd' intentional) who's every remark is contrary to everything Democrats stand for.”
Did you actually SEE what you just wrote? Did you even think about that statement?
I am not your type of democrat. I am a Democrat the way that democrats USED to be prior to the invasion of the social liberals and eco-biased “scientists”.
I stand strongly behind organized labor – not the politcal powerhouse national unions, but the actual local unions and laborers. I stand against unfettered and unchecked corporate political and economic domination. Simply put, I* am a Jefferson Democrat. You and your kind are neo-communists who want America to be transformed into a Euro-socialist state.
You, sir, are the imposter here. Not me.
comment (and all future comments) ignored
“comment (and all future comments) ignored”
Ahhh. The ostrich approach. Let me know how that works out for ya!