Quoting Markos: Rather than being "what passes for bipartisan these days", maybe Obama's decision on Afghanistan - (in the face of an array of what most everyone believes are very difficult options) - is what he believes is in the best interests of America.
And maybe his strategy will deserve to be seen as more than "half measures."
Just because he probably won't decide on either extreme end of this issue doesn't mean that some sort of creativity or resourcefulness won't come up with a viable strategy that is not an extreme.

I did laugh a bit when I finished watching as I went through everything that was talked about and pretty much came to the conclusion that there really was not much new here but the quote you pulled out above was about the only thing still ringing in my head and there it was. You put a good spin on it...not surprising to most I will go the other way. He went almost 4 months (some might say 8) on telling us the decision was coming soon and has come as close to a non-decision

While I have seen the 80,000 in some news sources attributed to "anonymous" the mil blogs I follow have not approached that figure. Most say the assessment was along the lines of to accomplish X you need Y numbers of troops. As I have stated before; even a early decision wouldn't have made much difference as it takes months to deploy fully equipped and trained troops and winter is upon Afghanistan. He would have had to make this decision in the spring if the additional troops were to be making a difference today and at the time he committed the troops he was asked for. The need is for them to be in country, deployed and sufficiently trained to peruse the strategy come the spring thaw. While the military is very through at planing and tend to capture most of the details, they all come at it from a defined perspective. That perspective is strictly limited to the military needs to accomplish the their understanding of the goals given to them by the CIC. But the military side is only one part of the story. Yes at first

I was disappointed, if not surprised, by Byron York's defense of the filibuster and the electoral college. Along with the particularly odious practice of holds on nominees, I can't think of any institutional norms more absurd, undemocratic, and harmful to good governance. Sadly, York is now part of an unbroken streak of apologists for the most idiotic bits of the status quo who have been unable to muster a remotely persuasive argument.

I don't link this for serious consideration but for the humor value only. Some polling indices of which you may be unfamiliar

Quoting piscivorous: While I have seen the 80,000 in some news ...

I read a number of mil blogs myself and yes most of the discussions there do follow the same 40K however the 80K DID come from McCrystal (NOT your ill-vetted anonymous) along with the 40. McCrystal's request came with risk level assessments with 80K called low-risk, somewhere between 40 and 80 considered medium risk and less than 40K high risk of not being able to create a Taliban-less, steadfast situation there. Google it and if you have trouble verifying what I wrote, let me know and I will find it for you. This vlog had Mr. York asking or pointing out political ramifications or asking for political answers...well... I too hope the number works out and more recent assessments make it prudent, but to me there were too many political elements involved and it leaves me thinking that much was not done in strategic military methodology but in bad-faith political BS. This was a pretty important item on the table, and it has been sitting there since April (not just considering the troop numbers request in August which came almost as a "shit or get off the

And you have seen the report so you can definitively state that the 80,000 option is in there, because I haven't seen it and would dearly love to; it would answer some of my questions.

Quoting piscivorous: And you have seen the report so you can definitively state that the 80,000 option is in there, because I haven't seen it and would dearly love to; it would answer some of my questions.

I do not believe the actual report has been produced except in an unclassified, heavily redacted manner. I had read IT (so it is out there somewhere) when it first came out and the biggest thing that stuck in my head was a statement to the affect high numbers of troops cannot guarantee victory but that a low increase in the numbers will guarantee failure. So, yes a difficult decision. I have assumed that some have been made privy to the numbers because they ARE heavily quoted and not once did I see them attributed to "anonymous" sources but always to McCrystal himself. And there have been no denials that I have heard. Have you?

Not to put to fine a point on it but it is a matter of course that antonymous sources would claim the numbers came for Gen Mchyrstal and not Bozo the Clown. But as with most things the devil is in the details and without the details the numbers are essentially meaningless.

Quoting Don Zeko: I was disappointed, if not surprised, by Byron York's defense of the filibuster and the electoral college. Along with the particularly odious practice of holds on nominees, I can't think of any institutional norms more absurd, undemocratic, and harmful to good governance. Sadly, York is now part of an unbroken streak of apologists for the most idiotic bits of the status quo who have been unable to muster a remotely persuasive argument.

Well here's an argument: the less legislatures "get done", the better.

Quoting Unit: Well here's an argument: the less legislatures "get done", the better.

That's less an argument than it is the assertion of an article of faith from a particular point of view,

Quoting piscivorous: Not to put to fine a point on it but it is a matter of course that antonymous sources would claim the numbers came for Gen Mchyrstal and not Bozo the Clown. But as with most things the devil is in the details and without the details the numbers are essentially meaningless.

I disagree. You trying to make a point about where the numbers came from is what is meaningless. If they were being denied by someone, then maybe. Tell you what, I will bet you $100 right now that when the redactions become available via the freedom of information act or by release, they will reflect what these 100s of articles refer and the high number will be within 10K of 80K. [added] oh and found this.

The redactions, you speak of, were done for national security reasons and with out release from those restrictions not subject to FOIA. I'm not sure that other than with a select group of future historians and pundits the specific numbers of troops requested, to accomplish which goals and options, will hold the as much significance as it does with the contemporary commentariat. I thank you for the link as I had not seen this before. The document itself is good general primer on the problems the military see and the fixes it sees for them. It breaks no real new ground but is something I highly recommend to any and all that wishes to better understand the Afghanistan picture. Admittedly I have only had time to skim it but other than in general terms, calling for more resources, there is no mention of the size of the requested additional forces whether that be 80 or 80,000. It is not that I question that there was an option involving the 80,000 troops it is a matter of the specific involved in that option. Unless someone with credentialed authority, on the issue of

Quoting piscivorous: The redactions, you speak of, were done for national security reasons and with out release from those restrictions not subject to FOIA. I'm not sure that other than with a select group of future historians and pundits the specific numbers of troops requested, to accomplish which goals and options, will hold the as much significance as it does with the contemporary commentariat.

I thank you for the link as I had not seen this before. The document itself is good general primer on the problems the military see and the fixes it sees for them. It breaks no real new ground but is something I highly recommend to any and all that wishes to better understand the Afghanistan picture. Admittedly I have only had time to skim it but other than in general terms, calling for more resources, there is no mention of the size of the requested additional forces whether that be 80 or 80,000. It is not that I question that there was an option involving the 80,000 troops it is a matter of the specific involved in that option. Unless someone with credentialed authority, on the issue of

Quoting AemJeff: That's less an argument than it is the assertion of an article of faith from a particular point of view,

No I think numbers pretty much back it up...accept for those who want the government to be in more and more and more of their life and those that feel they have the right to the blood, sweat, and wallets of others.

Quoting Markos: Rather than being "what passes for bipartisan these days", maybe Obama's decision on Afghanistan - (in the face of an array of what most everyone believes are very difficult options) - is what he believes is in the best interests of America.
And maybe his strategy will deserve to be seen as more than "half measures."
Just because he probably won't decide on either extreme end of this issue doesn't mean that some sort of creativity or resourcefulness won't come up with a viable strategy that is not an extreme.

Oh and... For all the thoughtful deliberation credited President Obama by those who actually think he is capable of such...Why the slam through of the so-called stimulous...the attempt at slamming through of the healthcare vote before this summers recess...the slam through of the Obama approved Cap and Trade bill in the House...the eventual slam though in both the House and the Senate of healther votes recently...

Quoting AemJeff: That's less an argument than it is the assertion of an article of faith from a particular point of view,

Everything is an article of faith from a particular point of view, pretty much. But I can defend my assertion and I've done it before on these pages. Here goes again. Politicians are just a few minds in a sea of millions of minds. They might very well be some of the brightest minds, or they might be advised by some of the smartest people on earth, but numerically they're still a tiny tiny minority. They don't possess the point of view of "everybody", because knowledge is dispersed in everyone of our heads. There is knowledge as in scientific facts, "common knowledge", where we all know that we know that we know etc...and then there's knowledge "of time and place" in Hayek's terminology. Because of our evolutionary past we have a hard time capturing the immense disparity between what politicians can know and what millions of people know individually. As a result we ask them to do what they can't possibly do. Politicians are not super-human, they're self-interested like

Unit to AemJeff: drop dead.

Always funny to read a condemnation of the electoral college. The urban centers of this country have done more to bankrupt the treasury and accelerate the transfer of wealth from those who work to those who don't (socialism). The EC was put there as a very effective check on the power of population centers. And it's been working beautifully in that regard. Candidates and parties cannot ignore the small states and that's as it should be. As James Madsion said of the perils of pure democracy: "....by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights

My lord, Byron York is cynical. For him, the whole health care debate is about what is "politically smart," and what the "polls say." The moral implications of providing health insurance to those who can't afford it? York doesn't even bother to think this out. I expect this kind of "thinking" from pollsters and political hacks. But from a journalist? Pathetic.

Quoting nikkibong: ... political hacks. But from a journalist?

Pathetic.

You objectively separated the two concepts with a period. Byron York deserves no such distinction. Viewing or reading his work bears this out.

Quoting nikkibong: My lord, Byron York is cynical.

For him, the whole health care debate is about what is "politically smart," and what the "polls say." The moral implications of providing health insurance to those who can't afford it? York doesn't even bother to think this out.

I expect this kind of "thinking" from pollsters and political hacks. But from a journalist?

Pathetic.

Right, what's there to be cynical?

Quoting nikkibong: My lord, Byron York is cynical.

For him, the whole health care debate is about what is "politically smart," and what the "polls say." The moral implications of providing health insurance to those who can't afford it? York doesn't even bother to think this out.

I expect this kind of "thinking" from pollsters and political hacks. But from a journalist?

Pathetic.

I took Mr. York's inquiries and statements about political ramifications to be just the sort of thing journalist's SHOULD do. Pointing out the wind before or as politicians stick their finger in it. They are part of the equation. I think you also jump to a conclusion about what are the overriding factors in his decision making. If you happen to be centering your opinion on the Fred Thompson filibuster statement... well... it certainly IS a political tool utilized by both sides and both sides recognize it as such. Accepting a political reality does not make you a hack, especially so in its honest admittence. With that said, I would give Mr. Noah a far higher degree of kudos if it was in fact true that he came out against filibusters while the Democrats were recently abusing (using

Well ok, fair enough. Why stop at a 60-vote requirement, then? How about we go to a 67-vote requirement to do anything? THen the whole country will have California's ingenious system. Better yet, let's require unanimity on every bill that comes before the Senate. That'll get us a legislature that doesn't accomplish anything at all about any pressing policy issues. What's not to like?

Quoting Don Zeko: Well ok, fair enough. Why stop at a 60-vote requirement, then? How about we go to a 67-vote requirement to do anything? THen the whole country will have California's ingenious system. Better yet, let's require unanimity on every bill that comes before the Senate. That'll get us a legislature that doesn't accomplish anything at all about any pressing policy issues. What's not to like?

You've got all my support.

Really? So you can't think of any problems that might arise from a Senate that can't pass a budget, can't confirm a treaty, and can't confirm a single executive appointment or judge? Why didn't you tell me that you were an anarchist, Unit?

Quoting Don Zeko: Really? So you can't think of any problems that might arise from a Senate that can't pass a budget, can't confirm a treaty, and can't confirm a single executive appointment or judge? Why didn't you tell me that you were an anarchist, Unit?

Well you didn't ask. I take 'anarchist' is a bad word in your vocabulary, but I grew up in a household were this label was given only to the most upstanding historical and cultural figures. So I feel honored that you think I'm one. This aside, yes I think I wouldn't mind if larger majorities were needed for all kinds of decisions, say 2/3? I don't really know what would happen if such a law would pass. Quite likely politicians would find ways around it, say by letting an "independent" body like the Fed take all kinds of arbitrary decisions, oh wait they're already doing that. Well more of it then. It would be an interesting experiment, I'd vote for it!

Well, I react to "anarchist" the way I react to "communist;" it indicates that someone has an intuitively attractive ideological attachment that is mostly impervious to contrary evidence or practical concerns. That's not to say that the adherents of these ideologies can't be wonderful people that accomplish good things through their political activism from time to time, just that they shouldn't be given real power. I think that California's current predicament is a good indication of the perils of this approach. If the minority has too much ability to frustrate the majority, you get gridlock that prevents the government from dealing with looming crises. It also makes it difficult for the voters express their preferences. Do you react to gridlock by punishing the party that failed to enact its agenda? What if you agree with the agenda? How do you know if a candidate really means to enact a campaign pledge, rather than cynically assuming that it will be blocked by the minority? Given our system's already immense number of veto points, the logic of maintaining the filibuster (or expanding it!) escapes me. We're already pushing the limits of how

Quoting Don Zeko: Well, I react to "anarchist" the way I react to "communist;" it indicates that someone has an intuitively attractive ideological attachment that is mostly impervious to contrary evidence or practical concerns. That's not to say that the adherents of these ideologies can't be wonderful people that accomplish good things through their political activism from time to time, just that they shouldn't be given real power.

Right, because govt apologists are such wonderful un-ideological people. They're so in tune with contrary evidence, have you noticed? Ever asked a politician if he/she thinks that they're doing more bad than good? What do you expect the answer to be. Come on, give me a break.

I think that California's current predicament is a good indication of the perils of this approach. If the minority has too much ability to frustrate the majority, you get gridlock that prevents the government from dealing with looming crises. It also makes it difficult for the voters express their preferences. Do you react to gridlock by punishing the party that failed to enact its agenda? What if you agree with the agenda? How do you know if a candidate really means