Daniel Schorr says Obama will send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan
Daniel Schorr, speaking to Scott Simon on NPR this morning, says that the British have been informed that President Obama will grant the request for 40,000 more troops. I really hope this isn't true. If it is I've really had enough of compromising single payer before negotiations begin, having Obama read books explaining the nightmare of escalation in Vietnam then escalating in Afghanistan, stalling around on "don't ask, don't tell", not regulating the "too big to fail" financial institutions that are destroying us, etc. We (and he) can do better than this.
Advertisement
I heard it too. What's the deal with Biden? I thought he was trying to get the WH message out in a sneaky way. Surely he isn't going off the reservation when he talks about needing to do more for Pakistan than Afghanistan.
Why are we in Afghanistan now, anyway? I forgot. Is it some kind of Domino Theory?
October 17, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to decide if I like Dean/Sanders or maybe Dean/Feingold better for 2012.
October 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about Feingold/Kucinich?
October 17, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuckit, I want Dean Martin.
October 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should believe it, tlees. Daniel Schorr has no reason to make shit up.
October 17, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recently heard someone say that Obama's strategy truly is that of a community organizer. Something like: "You can't push people to decide to do the right thing. You have to help them come to that realization on their own."
Maybe so, and maybe it's a strategy that works in some cases. But the evidence of the adamant stands he's taken on too many matters belies what he says he believes.
These appear to be more of the same Bush Doctrine decisions, and it looks like they are water under the bridge, as far as he's concerned.
The question presents itself: Can we take Barack Obama at his word?
October 17, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bu$h pushed the Taliban/Al Queda problem out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan as if that were a battle maneuver Napoleon would have admired. Too bad Bu$h and the military screwups he positioned in the Pentagon didn't have the strategic mindset to realize Pakistan was not were they should have herded them. Pakistan is not a very stable country and they've always been at war with India every since the day they assassinated Gandhi. And they have between 70 to 90 tactical nuclear devices - something no one would like for Bin Laden to get his hands on. And to add icing to the cake, Bu$h let it simmer for years - now it's about to boil over.
Afghanistan is a hopeless and lost cause - it was in the beginning and is now and ever shall be. Pakistan, on the other hand, has a strategic importance - those damn nukes! We can't go in and take them cause we have no idea exactly were they are. But we can't leave the Pakistan goverment to fend for itself either - militant religious fundamentalist are just as wacko as our birthers and tea partiers, but armed and willing to die for their religion. And the Taliban would gain control over Pakistan as well as make gains and recoup their losses in Afghanistan.
Bu$h made a real fucking mess out of this solely for the glory of calling himself the Commander in Chief simply so he could ignore Congress and do as he damn well pleased and not be held responsible - so far it's working and no one is even thinking about holding him accountable.
If we don't help Pakistan, we could be facing a nuclear Taliban with a militant Al Queda armed with nukes. So quibble all you want, but the problem isn't one that the US might and military prowess can easily over come with money and numbers - it's a whole new mindset we're not capable of understanding nor combating. And ignoring it will only make it worst.
October 17, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are in Afghanistan now because Bush went in, admittedly for good reason, 7-8 years ago and then ignored that war for the one he really wanted. The country (Afghanistan) is totally changed as a result of our actions but at the same time not "working" on its own. Remember during the campaign when Obama talked about, regarding Iraq, being "as careful getting out as we were reckless getting out"? Well, it's a very similar situation here. No one believes that al-Quadea is still in Afghanistan in great numbers BUT whether we withdraw, how we withdraw and when we withdraw are going to have tremendous consequences for a country that WE invaded and for a volitile region.
It's really a bit more complex that the comments here indicate and there is really a great deal more at stake than pleasing or displeasing the most liberal and certain-they-know-what-is-right of his supporters. Speaking as one supporter, I am tremendously pleased that he is giving the decision this much time and attention it deserves, that he's listening to all voices and opinions, and making the decision that he feels is best, for all interests involved.
Since I haven't seen any evidence of poor judgment or hidden motives or unthinking stubbornness in his other decisions (not that they have all been perfect)and am prepared to support him on his decision, whatever it turns out to be, on this issue.
Just thought a different point of view needed to be represented here.
October 17, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liz2 - Thanks for adding some thoughtful commentary regarding a complex and difficult situation with no best approach but only "least worst" ones. You're right, I believe, in advising us to avoid dogmatic prescriptions about what should or shouldn't be done. My guess, and it's only that, is that President Obama will decide to add to troop levels in Afghanistan, but probably not at the very high levels requested by General McChrystal (althougn, I believe Obama has actually asked McChrystal for a set of alternative recommendations rather than simply a single one). Among the analysts, the boundaries of the debate between those most committed philosophically to a limited Afghanistan mission and those favoring the most aggressive approach are not as separated as in the blogosphere. Biden, for example, who strongly favors a limited mission, would not reduce our troop strength but merely maintain it at current levels, while using drone attacks and other mechanisms to further pursue Al Qaeda - particularly Al Qaeda migrating across the border from Pakistan in response to pressure from the Pakistani military. On the other end are the hawks who favor the advertised 40,000 troop increase as a minimum. All agree that an eventual goal is to train indigenous Afghan elements to replace us; no-one looks forward to a very long term presence.
October 18, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to Mr. Schorr and his anonymous British informant, I find it hard to believe Obama would make a final decision on this before seeing some of the results of the southern Waziristan offensive by the Pakistani military which only just started today, something that the U.S. has long been pushing for and may have thought would never happen.
October 18, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink