Quoting Wonderment: Double "progressive" Obama adulation. Terrific! Just what we need from the critical-thinking BH intelligentsia. (Do make sure you can back away from it, if things go horribly though.)

(...)

Clear your heads. Take a deep breath. Stop enabling the warmongering. You are both desperately needed on the front lines of renouncing war and making peace.

I think your characterization of Farley and Cuss is a bit biased. Both argued from the perspective that President Obama's decision was the "least worst". But, I'm struck more by the report from The Rachel Maddow Show that the 30,000 figure was Obama's "high" option. I assumed this week, that Obama would send in a contingent of some size - I'm dismayed nonetheless - but now that I know he actually had withdrawal on his list, I'm disappointed. Regardless, most of the post-speech debate handles all the issues in greater depth than Obama's "buffet" speech did.

Give me a break? Can we say pretentious? Thanks so much for thinking for the rest of us. For the record, many of us are thankful to Bush/Cheney admin for protecting the country and appalled that Obama is "changing" the U.S. into a weak target for the rest of the world to overcome. Maybe you both should spend a little time with the rest of the U.S. instead of all of the people that pat you on the back, and you'll hear another side of the story. You're heads are getting big and you are losing perspective. Pride comes before a fall. To say that 9/11 can be "milked" is very disrespectful of the thousands of lives that were taken that day, and takes culpability from those that enacted such an assault against the U.S. Can Obama do any wrong in your eyes, or is he above critique? If this is what you think is progressive, gag me with a spoon, I feel like I'm listening to a bunch of valley girls ("clearly", "right, right","essentially", "delighted", "granted", "guess what"(???)). "We were more than pleased for them to show us their resolve" There's nothing profound that you are bringing

Aside from Wonderment and Baltimoron, the silence in this room is deafening. I imagine that if McCain/Palin were in office and announced a substantial troop build-up, there would be a lot of angry chatter here. Does silence mean assent? Or is everyone stunned and disoriented?

Without knowing what the correct path is, it's hard to get blustered over whatever path is chosen. Personally, I wouldn't go over there, but if other people wish to, more power to them. It's been a number of years since all this started, so at this point, I imagine that most people that join the services have contemplated the possibility that they may end up in Iraq/Afghanistan, and are okay with that.

Quoting what?: Give me a break? Can we say pretentious? Thanks so much for thinking for the rest of us. For the record, many of us are thankful to Bush/Cheney admin for protecting the country and appalled that Obama is "changing" the U.S. into a weak target for the rest of the world to overcome. Maybe you both should spend a little time with the rest of the U.S. instead of all of the people that pat you on the back, and you'll hear another side of the story. You're heads are getting big and you are losing perspective. Pride comes before a fall. To say that 9/11 can be "milked" is very disrespectful of the thousands of lives that were taken that day, and takes culpability from those that enacted such an assault against the U.S. Can Obama do any wrong in your eyes, or is he above critique? If this is what you think is progressive, gag me with a spoon, I feel like I'm listening to a bunch of valley girls ("clearly", "right, right","essentially", "delighted", "granted", "guess what"(???)). "We were more than pleased for them to show us their resolve" There's nothing profound that you are bringing

Quoting Simon Willard: Aside from Wonderment and Baltimoron, the silence in this room is deafening. I imagine that if McCain/Palin were in office and announced a substantial troop build-up, there would be a lot of angry chatter here.

Does silence mean assent? Or is everyone stunned and disoriented?

The problem is that the "buffet speech," as Balt put it well, offered no new evidence that might counter anyone's preexisting assumptions on AfPak. It is impossible to take it as anything other than faith that we are in grave or increasing danger without escalation. It is near impossible to argue against Wonderment's point that the military voices spoke loudest. And how could political considerations not be factored in? That being said, it may be counter-intuitive, but sending more troops may actually hasten a quicker and more successful withdrawal. The speech spoke to various intended targets on different levels. So its Rorschach qualities require fleshing out.
I agree with the idea that it was least/worst from a political standpoint. But from a practical standpoint... more troops is more war is more occupation is business as usual.

Quoting graz: It is near impossible to argue against Wonderment's point that the military voices spoke loudest. And how could political considerations not be factored in? That being said, it may be counter-intuitive, but sending more troops may actually hasten a quicker and more successful withdrawal. The speech spoke to various intended targets on different levels.

Wonderment's comment (above) did not reference military voices, but placed the responsibility squarely where it belongs -- on the President. I believe the speech was very skillfully constructed. But the question is: are we doing the right thing? I don't know either, but I have grave concerns about this path.

Yeah, Obama is now just as guilty as Bush and Cheney... yet so many people support it. Surprise!

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, Obama is now just as guilty as Bush and Cheney... yet so many people support it. Surprise!

Maybe they just wanted a second opinion from Dr. Obama?

Along the lines of the point raised in this diavlog -- why does anyone bother listening to Dick Cheney anymore? -- there's this:

Only .125 Percent Of Republicans Say Cheney Best Reflects GOP’s Core Values

As you know, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham has taken a fair amount of flak for arguing that Dick Cheney should be taken seriously as a 2012 contender because he’s a “man of conviction” who has a “record on which he can be judged.”

Here’s a data point that makes this fantasy seem even more far-fetched than it did at first glance: Significantly less than one percent of Republicans think Cheney best reflects their party’s core values.

That astonishing number can be found deep in WaPo’s article about their new poll on the state of the GOP:

Just 1 percent pick George W. Bush as the best reflection of the party’s principles, and only a single person in the poll cites former vice president Richard B. Cheney. About seven in 10 say Bush bears at least “some” of the blame for the party’s problems.

The WaPo polling unit tells me that approximately 800 Republicans and Republican leaners were

Quoting Simon Willard: Wonderment's comment (above) did not reference military voices, but placed the responsibility squarely where it belongs -- on the President.

I should have said implied - and of course, referenced proir comments by Wonderment. As for squarely on his shoulders... yes indeed.

But the question is: are we doing the right thing? I don't know either, but I have grave concerns about this path.

Agreed.

Quoting Simon Willard: Aside from Wonderment and Baltimoron, the silence in this room is deafening. I imagine that if McCain/Palin were in office and announced a substantial troop build-up, there would be a lot of angry chatter here.

Does silence mean assent? Or is everyone stunned and disoriented?

Your choices are far too simplistic. Here's how I see it, and I suspect my view isn't unique. First, I supported the initial Bush-directed invasion of Afghanistan, for two reasons: capture (ideally) or killing of bin Laden and others responsible for 9/11, and the recognition that the US had to respond forcefully to the attack. Second, Obama ran, partly, on a platform of dealing with Afghanistan in the "right way" and I believed that was the best (least worst) option available. I am not completely sure that adding more troops is the "right way," but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has made a considered judgment, given far more information than I have, and I'm willing to see how it plays out. When all is said and done, he does, in fact, have to clean up a mess his predecessor left him. Third, I cannot imagine that McCain/Palin would have put the amount of thought into this

Quoting Simon Willard: I imagine that if McCain/Palin were in office and announced a substantial troop build-up, there would be a lot of angry chatter here.

Yes. I have a hunch that the standard liberal line regarding the Afghanistan surge - "I'm not sure if this is the right decision" (like Duss in this diavlog) - is only a result of the fact that it is Obama making the decision. After all: the Iraq surge, which seemed much more likely to efficacious than the Afghanistan surge, occasioned near universal liberal opposition. (Including from, er, Obama.) But I don't think that's a bad thing. Obama inspires more trust than McCain/Bush -- I think there is at least some reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. So even if McCain and Obama made identical decisions, it would still make more sense to trust Obama. His history and temperment demonstrate that.

I missed the speech, but from the above I gather that Obama originally opposed the surge in Iraq, continues to criticize the conduct of the war in Iraq, and wants to effect a surge in Afghanistan. Is that the basic summary? Because watching these guys makes me want to dash out for a frappucino.

Quoting nikkibong: Yes. I have a hunch that the standard liberal line regarding the Afghanistan surge - "I'm not sure if this is the right decision" (like Duss in this diavlog) - is only a result of the fact that it is Obama making the decision. After all: the Iraq surge, which seemed much more likely to efficacious than the Afghanistan surge, occasioned near universal liberal opposition. (Including from, er, Obama.)

But I don't think that's a bad thing. Obama inspires more trust than McCain/Bush -- I think there is at least some reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. So even if McCain and Obama made identical decisions, it would still make more sense to trust Obama. His history and temperment demonstrate that.

This sums it up pretty well, especially the second graf.

If the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist, then poppy-fields gives you warlords. Illiterate, poor, probably overpopulated, and divided by religion and culture, Afghanistan is going to have warlords for a long time to come. The best hope for the country is for the warlords to come to an accommodation to divide the spoils with a minimum of violence. It's a shame they don't have the class to call themselves barons and lords because then we could help them negotiate a classy-sounding compact like the Magna Carta. Somebody call the Carter Center. I don't know, maybe this is where Obama is heading with this. I doubt that he could really announce that we'll defeat AQ by finding some agreeable Pashtun warlords and dividing the Taliban. I can see how having 100,000 peace-keepers around could help the process. But as it looks now this stinks.

Quoting Salt: I missed the speech ...

Video of the speech (about 35 min) and transcripts available here. [Added] The streaming seems a little bogged down, so note that both video and audio files are available for download on that same page.

This is interesting. So you (and BJ and nikkibong) won't judge the policy directly, rather you make a judgment about your level of trust in the men in power. I guess that's OK in a representative democracy, but it's not an answer I was expecting. I've been thinking too hard about the facts on the ground. Let's hope the taliban are similarly charmed by Obama.

Quoting Simon Willard: This is interesting. So you (and BJ and nikkibong) won't judge the policy directly, rather you make a judgment about your level of trust in the men in power. I guess that's OK in a representative democracy, but it's not an answer I was expecting. I've been thinking too hard about the facts on the ground.

Let's hope the taliban are similarly charmed by Obama.

How can it be any other way? When Bush walked into this theater eight years ago I felt pretty much the same way. Even during the buildup to Iraq I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As that engagement progressed, the question of veracity changed the equation, and my estimation of how much trust I was willing to invest began to change. This is a representative democracy. We gave these guys the job (both Bush and Obama.) They deserve the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that they won an election, and have literally taken responsibility with our blessing. As a political matter, and as the facts change, or it becomes empirically apparent that the choices they've made are bad ones (or that their decisions were made

Quoting AemJeff: How can it be any other way? When Bush walked into this theater eight years ago I felt pretty much the same way. Even during the buildup to Iraq I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As that engagement progressed, the question of veracity changed the equation, and my estimation of how much trust I was willing to invest began to change.

This is a representative democracy. We gave these guys the job (both Bush and Obama.) They deserve the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that they won an election, and have literally taken responsibility with our blessing. As a political matter, and as the facts change, or it becomes empirically apparent that the choices they've made are bad ones (or that their decisions were made in bad faith, or without a sound factual basis), we can decide how well they've discharged that responsibility, and judge them accordingly. In the meantime, we gave them the job. We need to grant them the leeway to do their duty.

I'm reminded of Daniel Davies's pre-war position on the Iraq: he'd be for war if it was run by anybody

Obama inspires more trust than McCain/Bush = Obama is a Democrat, or Obama is a Liberal, or Obama is my guy (like I campaigned for him!). Nonsensical way of looking at, in my opinion.

Quoting AemJeff: In the meantime, we gave them the job. We need to grant them the leeway to do their duty.

Agreed. Now, someone needs to have a talk with Wonderment...

Or he takes time to make important decisions after giving them careful thought. That's the big reason for me. And I don't think that's nonsensical at all to base my trust on that aspect of someone's approach to decision-making. And it's not new. Even before his election that was cited by his peers as one of his strongest qualities. I would add that Colin Powell and others in the GOP have it too.

Matthew Hoh, the former marine and foreign service officer in charge of counterinsurgency, wrote in his letter of resignation from the State Department: "In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan...I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. ... I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul." There you have it. And there you have the reason why Obama's strategy is doomed to fail. As I am sure he already knows.

Quoting Lyle: Obama inspires more trust than McCain/Bush = Obama is a Democrat, or Obama is a Liberal, or Obama is my guy (like I campaigned for him!).

Nonsensical way of looking at, in my opinion.

yeah. becuase you trust everybody in the world exactly equally? or do you occasionally make judgments about how trustworthy different people are?

Quoting Francoamerican: ... Obama's strategy is doomed to fail. As I am sure he already knows.

Do you want to explain that last sentence?

Quoting Simon Willard: Do you want to explain that last sentence?

I assume that like LBJ Obama is more intelligent than his military advisors and would probably have told the American people that Afghanistan is a lost cause if he were not so afraid of the Rabid Right. But it is difficult to be an intelligent Democrat in a nation of Chicken Littles.

If I'm feeling pollyanna-ish, then I would argue that a big escalation in troop numbers is the only way to get the domestic political situation to the point where withdrawal is possible. If Obama is perceived to have given McChrystal everything he wants, and the situation remains bad, then I could see a sufficient turn against the war for more-or-less full disengagement to take place. This makes it something of a win-win: either we succeed, or we remain for another 18 months and get out with minimal rancor. The trouble is that I don't think this will actually happen, and it seems far more likely that we settle into a status quo of 80-90 thousand troops treading water for several more years, and still wind up leaving with the same result as if started heading for the exits today. I'll grant, as Farley and Duss did, that I may be overly pessimistic about the prospects for success, as I was with regard to Iraq, but I still think that there are a number of reasons to believe that the insurgency in Afghanistan is more intractable than it was in Iraq. I'm also deeply skeptical

Well, with different people running the details of the operation, you might make different assumptions about level of competence with which the strategy will be implemented, or expect other actors to react to different leaders differently. This may or may not be the right way to think about the problem, but it's certainly not irrational or obviously stupid to have greater trust in Obama to implement policy well than Bush. Also, Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

Yes, of course. Because clearly the only things we know about Bush and Obama are that one is a Liberal and the other a Conservative. Clearly we have no other information about them, their backgrounds, or their advisers that might influence our perceptions of their competence.

Quoting Francoamerican: I assume that like LBJ Obama is more intelligent than his military advisors and would probably have told the American people that Afghanistan is a lost cause if he were not so afraid of the Rabid Right.

But it is difficult to be an intelligent Democrat in a nation of Chicken Littles.

This is complete nonsense. Obama is in charge. He has no higher office for which to aspire, and no reason not to do what he believes is right. He could be wrong, but it can't be intentional.

I think an important distinction tends to get overlooked on this subject. There is a huge difference between making a horific mess, and cleaning it up. I think Cheney's six year neglect of this situation has left our military in a very tight spot. I could be way off base here, but I am under the impression that our troops are in great danger there, and we must gain back some presence or our withdrawal could go very badly for our troops. Can you imagine what kind of political hay would be made of a botched and hasty retreat that yielded high casualties?

Quoting Simon Willard: This is complete nonsense. Obama is in charge. He has no higher office for which to aspire, and no reason not to do what he believes is right. He could be wrong, but it can't be intentional.

Sancta Simplicitas! Do you really think the intentions of politicians are so transparent? His motives are most certainly mixed: the desire to appease the rabid right and appear "strong," wishful thinking, submission to the military. His chosen policy--escalate now, withdraw later--- is a perfect reflection of his wishy-washiness.

Wonderment's comment (above) did not reference military voices, but placed the responsibility squarely where it belongs -- on the President.

I should clarify that I do think US militarism is the main problem, but that Obama is --- like many of the posters here and 90% of the BH guests -- under its spell. The basic premise of the militaristic ideology is that America can, should, and must dominate the world with its armies. We must be an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent force. Our economy depends on global military hegemony; it is the pillar of our self-esteem. We must feed the military beast constantly and unleash it on the slightest pretext in order to maintain supremacy and prove to the world how virtuous we are. We kill to promote peace, human rights, democracy and prosperity. Our commander-in-chief embodies the ideology. He's our war lord. Obama is beloved on the left because, unlike Bush and Cheney, he is smart and sophisticated. But he's been seduced by the military. Like Bush. That's why the West Point venue (waving the baton among the best and brightest adolescent and barely-post-adolescent war pups and hyper-patriots) was particularly disturbing. It's exhilarating and apparently irresistible to Commander-in-Chief Obama to preach

Quoting handle: I think an important distinction tends to get overlooked on this subject.

There is a huge difference between making a horific mess, and cleaning it up.

I think Cheney's six year neglect of this situation has left our military in a very tight spot.

I could be way off base here, but I am under the impression that our troops are in great danger there, and we must gain back some presence or our withdrawal could go very badly for our troops. Can you imagine what kind of political hay would be made of a botched and hasty retreat that yielded high casualties?

Surely you aren't saying that we need to add 30,000 in order to withdraw safely. We don't suffer great casualties arriving. I think the Army can withdraw without great casualties.

Quoting Wonderment: Obama is beloved on the left because, unlike Bush and Cheney, he is smart and sophisticated. But he's been seduced by the military.

You seem to think the military wants to go to Afghanistan. Discounting the enthusiasm of the pups at West Point, I don't think there's a lot of evidence for this.

I hope you are right. I just get the impression that a troop buildup with a withdrawal deadline means we are trying to avoid a Vietnam style pull out... which was not necessarily bad for our guys, but the messiness of it haunts us to this day.
Plus, we lost a lot of expensive gear.

Quoting Simon Willard: Surely you aren't saying that we need to add 30,000 in order to withdraw safely.

We don't suffer great casualties arriving. I think the Army can withdraw without great casualties.

Oh no, that's not true at all. Retreat is especially dangerous.

Quoting claymisher: Oh no, that's not true at all. Retreat is especially dangerous.

Plus, lot of the field reports I've seen gave me the impression many of our outposts are struggling to maintain.
I think the Taliban would love to make a grand parting gesture as a warning to others. Added: I think too we are making one last effort to not leave the country in Taliban control.

Quoting Francoamerican: Sancta Simplicitas! Do you really think the intentions of politicians are so transparent?

His motives are most certainly mixed: the desire to appease the rabid right and appear "strong," wishful thinking, submission to the military. His chosen policy--escalate now, withdraw later--- is a perfect reflection of his wishy-washiness.

Yes they are transparent to the degree that the highest priority of professional politicians is to get themselves and their political allies reelected. As to his mixed motives. Pleasing the "rabid right" does not enter into his cerebral folds and is one of the dumbest bits I've seen. Probably up there for competition is "submission to the military" as the defense budget of President Obama's makes patently clear, giving the military what they want is not one of his higher priorities. The "escalate now, withdraw later" bit is pure sop to his base and given his "conditions on the ground" qualifier has no real meaning. With his tenuous endorsement of a counter insurgency strategy that is surely to result in greater casualties instead of fewer, as counter insurgency will guarantee greater exposure to larger numbers of troops to hostile actions, will only further aggravate

You seem to think the military wants to go to Afghanistan. Discounting the enthusiasm of the pups at West Point, I don't think there's a lot of evidence for this.

You're absolutely right, Simon. I see regular active duty Navy guys very frequently (my daughter's boyfriend and their friends). They don't like going anywhere, least of all a combat zone. This is not WWII. (Even WWII was not the WWII portrayed in the movies, but that's a separate story.) I have also seen many veterans of the Iraq war. They tend to be dazed, suicidal, major alcohol and substances abusers, agonizing about divorces and break-ups -- running the whole gamut of PTSD. And those are the "healthy" ones. And the alive ones. And that's our side, which has suffered very minimal losses compared to the hundreds of thousands of war casualties on the other side, including those being droned in Obama's secret continuation and escalation of the Bush attacks. And Obama is telling us -- just like Bush -- that this is a "war of necessity?" The liberal media is really bleating like sheep on this one. This particular dialogue really disturbed me because I had higher expectations from these two. I have never before

Well at least something has opened your eyes to the love fest between the media and now President Obama.

Quoting Wonderment: ...

Just to be clear, you're okay with returning to the status quo circa August 2001, with Taliban in control of most of Afghanistan?

Here's a thought - considering what Afghans think of Obama's move. Read on: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p06s01-wosc.html

Quoting piscivorous: Bar(r)ing success it is a no win situation from a purely political point of view.

that is the key to why I will give it a chance. He is staking his re-election on getting this done, and explicitly setting the time table so that voters can hold him accountable. how wishy-washy is that?

nice to see they are as divided and confused as we are.

No, no... you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about Obama, but nikkibong's and other peoples' rational for supporting Obama's warmongering. edit: ah, after the first sentence you addressed my point. It's all just perception that Obama actually knows what he's doing though. In Afghanistan he's simply pushing forward with Bush's policy. Although, I guess, that's what he campaigned on... carrying out Bush's policy in Afghanistan and possibly even get even more violent than Bush had been. Maybe Obama wants to live out whatever cowboy and Indian fantasies he had as a child. Afghanistan is definitely fertile ground to bring that kind of fantasy to fruition.

Quoting Wonderment: I have never before seen media fall head-over-heels in love with a president, and it's pretty creepy.

you don't remember 2001-2004? you don't remember the largest mass protests in the history of our planet being poo-pooed by all of our national media in their jingoistic frenzy over iraq? the glowing portrayals of the uber-manliness of bush, rumsfeld and cheney? pretty short memory, wonder.

Just to be clear, you're okay with returning to the status quo circa August 2001, with Taliban in control of most of Afghanistan?

I'm not willing to die or kill to prevent it. What I'm ok with is a nonviolent resolution of the conflict without US intervention. If US taxpayers choose to donate a few hundred billion dollars to promoting peace, health, education and human rights in Afghanistan, I'll pay my fair share. We could probably send every girl in Afghanistan to college abroad for half the price of the war.

Many on the board are inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this call, but I won't, believing as I do that people don't get elected president unless they are profoundly cynical. I don't know who he's serving in pursuing this path. I could speculate, but I won't. It seems clear that he is not serving either the American people or the Afghan people. It seems clear that this course will fan the flames of jihadi volunteerism around the world, open the door to greater profiteering by the Karzai administration, intensify the misery of Afghani refugees, and fail in every other respect. Afghans fear troop surge will worsen refugee crisis Dennis Kucinich, Andrew Bacevich and Nir Rosen on DemocracyNow!

you don't remember the largest mass protests in the history of our planet being poo-pooed by all of our national media in their jingoistic frenzy over iraq? the glowing portrayals of the uber-manliness of bush, rumsfeld and cheney?

Point taken. I don't think, however, that the cult of personality around Bush and Rumsfeld was anything approaching the magnitude of Obamaphilia. Bush got no Nobel Peace Prize, no comparisons to MLK, no embrace as a historic agent of change, and certainly no fawning from the international press.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm not willing to die or kill to prevent it.

What I'm ok with is a nonviolent resolution of the conflict without US intervention.

If US taxpayers choose to donate a few hundred billion dollars to promoting peace, health, education and human rights in Afghanistan, I'll pay my fair share. We could probably send every girl in Afghanistan to college abroad for half the price of the war.

Wonderment, can you flesh this out a little? I'm pretty sure the Taliban fighters would just shoot the aid workers.

Quoting claymisher: Just to be clear, you're okay with returning to the status quo circa August 2001, with Taliban in control of most of Afghanistan?

Is there unity among the Taliban? Are they capable of overpowering the government and warlords? Do they have any more than 10,000 armed personnel? Is it clear that a take-over by the Taliban is a given in the event of a total US withdrawal? Mentioned only anecdotally, my son spent ten months on the front lines in Afghanistan, and hates the Taliban. He is, however, in favor of total withdrawal.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...664753,00.html To be fair, that was mostly related to Obamas rhetoric being crafted to please all.
In the end, I am glad he sent more troops to Afghanistan to attempt to shore up our efforts there, even if the scope is not as all encompassing as trying to nation build Afghanistan to a model society. (lets leave that project and hope to Iraq, where it was more likely and doable, right guys !)

Quoting Francoamerican: I assume that like LBJ Obama is more intelligent than his military advisors and would probably have told the American people that Afghanistan is a lost cause if he were not so afraid of the Rabid Right.

But it is difficult to be an intelligent Democrat in a nation of Chicken Littles.

Spot on. This is and has long been the biggest problem with our troubled system: even when they have power, Democrats are completely cowed and pushed around by the right. Even when Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress by massive margins, conservative extremists still set the agenda. But it's not, as you say, only the Rabid Right. The Rabid Right is the snarling beast at the end of the chain, but that chain is held, and the beast is directed by, the combined efforts of the media and the oligarchs, i.e., the elite ruling class. Without the media and the critical support of wealthy elites, the republican base would just be harmless lunatics covering themselves in drool. It takes the airwaves of the media and the financial backing of the rich, though, to take conservative extremism and

Wonderment, can you flesh this out a little? I'm pretty sure the Taliban fighters would just shoot the aid workers.

Maybe. Or maybe we could come up with more creative ways of promoting peace and human rights than frenzied militarism and occupation on the one hand and letting the Taliban shoot us and take our money on the other. I don't have all the answers for ridding the world of all bad guys. But I do know that war is NOT the answer. We spend more on war than all the other nations of the world combined. How's that working out? Sustainable model for democracy, human rights and prosperity in the 21st century?

Of course you have all kinds of information about Obama and whoever else, but Obama is simply carrying on with the same policy Bush had. Yet, killing Muslims now is A okay! I guess Obama hates Muslims a lot, yeah? He's a true Islamophobe right?

Quoting popcorn_karate: yeah. becuase you trust everybody in the world exactly equally? or do you occasionally make judgments about how trustworthy different people are?

No, I don't trust everybody in the world equally. And yes, I make judgments about who to trust. That's the point. You got people who were against being in Afghanistan when Bush was President and now some of the same people support being in Afghanistan thanks to Obama being President. That's the small point being made here.

The people bearing the brunt of casualties in these wars are the soldiers, marines, and national guardsmen. Plus, there are forced multiple deployments to the areas involved. As an infantryman during Vietnam, from my vantage point, this did not happen. There is obviously a shortage of combat military personnel and I don't like the current set up. There will not be enough mental health services at the VA Hospitals to treat all the vets once they return. In fact, there isn't now. John

Quoting piscivorous: As to his mixed motives. Pleasing the "rabid right" does not enter into his cerebral folds and is one of the dumbest bits I've seen.

Yeah. It's not that Obama wants to please the deranged lunatics who comprise the bulk of the Republican Party, the morally depraved and brain dead who dominate American politics. It's that he and the Democrats are completely cowed by them. When I was a paper boy of 10 years, there was a house adjacent to my route that had a massive, rabid German Shepard in the backyard. Like the tea baggers, this beast had murder in its eyes every time it saw a living thing. The dog was so huge it could have easily jumped the fence; I never understood why it didn't. But I knew this much: I wasn't going to be the one to be standing around the day that dog discovered a way to get out. So I steered completely clear of the house and the street it was on. That's how being cowed works. Likewise with your party. Americans realize that wingnuts, lunatics and Republicans can pitch one of their classic, trademark fits any time they want, over any

Quoting Ken Davis: Many on the board are inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this call, but I won't, believing as I do that people don't get elected president unless they are profoundly cynical. I don't know who he's serving in pursuing this path. I could speculate, but I won't. It seems clear that he is not serving either the American people or the Afghan people. It seems clear that this course will fan the flames of jihadi volunteerism around the world, open the door to greater profiteering by the Karzai administration, intensify the misery of Afghani refugees, and fail in every other respect.

Afghans fear troop surge will worsen refugee crisis

Dennis Kucinich, Andrew Bacevich and Nir Rosen on DemocracyNow!

Is there any scenario that would make you want to keep more troops in the region?

Quoting JonIrenicus: Is there any scenario that would make you want to keep more troops in the region?

In the unlikely event that the US and its allies undertook to completely rebuild the infrastructure of the country using local talent, keeping foreign contractors to an absolute minimum, I'd say yeah, we need lots of protection for that effort. If the US undertook to rebuild the houses of all Afghan citizens whose property was destroyed by war, irrespective of who actually was responsible, I'd say, protect that effort, and while we're at it, we need a massive airlift of temporary housing to protect those stuck in filthy refugee camps outside Khandahar, or where-ever, this winter. I'd support a troop surge for the protection and facilitation of such a long-term undertaking. Nation rebuilding.

Quoting TwinSwords: But when you elect a Democratic president and massive Democratic majorities and the conservatives are still setting the agenda and still cowing the public with threats large and small, it is impossible to retain any faith at all in our system -- unless you're a fascist and you like it this way.

You're hyperventilating, Twin. Do you deny that this is simply robust democracy in action?

Quoting Simon Willard: You're hyperventilating, Twin. Do you deny that this is simply robust democracy in action?

LOL! I'll admit, I do get a bit carried away. But yes, I deny it's simply robust democracy. In fact, that's about the last thing I'd call it. Read this classic and important text and you'll have a better idea what I'm talking about, and all the evidence you could ask for to prove it. It will give you a detailed history of how our system is dominated and controlled by the wealthy; the potential for real democracy does exist, of course, but at nearly every turn, it has been thwarted by the wealthy in pursuit of their own selfish interests. By this point, 2009, our system is virtually structured to prevent democracy. There is hardly any worse word you could have chosen to describe our democracy than "robust."

Quoting Ken Davis: Many on the board are inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this call, but I won't, believing as I do that people don't get elected president unless they are profoundly cynical. I don't know who he's serving in pursuing this path.

I just read yesterday that for the presidential campaign the weapons industry gave Obama $1 million+, and McCain $900K+.

Dennis Kucinich, Andrew Bacevich and Nir Rosen on DemocracyNow!

~28:00 Bacevich
~38:45 Goodman plays dirty pool
~40:00 interesting green room shot
~43:45 so that's Nir Rosen
~56:00 Bacevich and Rosen

Quoting TwinSwords: LOL! I'll admit, I do get a bit carried away. But yes, I deny it's simply robust democracy. In fact, that's about the last thing I'd call it.

Read this classic and important text and you'll have a better idea what I'm talking about, and all the evidence you could ask for to prove it. It will give you a detailed history of how our system is dominated and controlled by the wealthy; the potential for real democracy does exist, of course, but at nearly every turn, it has been thwarted by the wealthy in pursuit of their own selfish interests. By this point, 2009, our system is virtually structured to prevent democracy. There is hardly any worse word you could have chosen to describe our democracy than "robust."

Thanks for the reading assignment. I'll just note in closing that I feel I can access a wide array of news sources and opinions, from the loony left to the righteous right, and when I step into the voting booth to cast my secret ballot, I feel no pressure at all.

Quoting Simon Willard: Thanks for the reading assignment. I'll just note in closing that I feel I can access a wide array of news sources and opinions, from the loony left to the righteous right, and when I step into the voting booth to cast my secret ballot, I feel no pressure at all.

I won't deny that, but I don't see that it has any bearing on my premise. The one thing we are assured under our Constitution is the right to hear a wide range of voices. What's far more tenuous is the ability of the people to effect change through their government, as all evidence indicates.

Quoting Ken Davis: It seems clear that he is not serving either the American people or the Afghan people. It seems clear that this course will fan the flames of jihadi volunteerism [etc.]

It seems clear. That's an oxymoron. If it was clear, it wouldn't have to "seem" clear, it would just be clear. What seems clear to me is that Obama may have far more information that we do, and might be making the same decision you would, if you knew what he did. Considering Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons, and is teetering on the brink of civil war and could be overthrown by Islamic extremists, perhaps it actually is in our national interest to maintain a force in the region that can attempt to secure the region and, if worse comes to worst, prevent those nukes from falling into the hands of people who would be happy to use them against this and many other Western countries. I don't know. I'm just speculating. I'm not deeply invested in pretending to have an answer, because I'm not deeply invested in pretending to understand the scope or nature of the problem. (I suppose this

Quoting TwinSwords: It seems clear.

That's an oxymoron. If it was clear, it wouldn't have to "seem" clear, it would just be clear.

What seems clear to me is that Obama may have far more information that we do, and might be making the same decision you would, if you knew what he did.

Considering Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons, and is teetering on the brink of civil war and could be overthrown by Islamic extremists, perhaps it actually is in our national interest to maintain a force in the region that can attempt to secure the region and, if worse comes to worst, prevent those nukes from falling into the hands of people who would be happy to use them against this and many other Western countries.

I don't know. I'm just speculating. I'm not deeply invested in pretending to have an answer, because I'm not deeply invested in pretending to understand the scope or nature of the problem. (I suppose this frank admission makes me ineligible to post on a forum.)

The cynics might be right: it could all be economic; we might just be there to secure resources.

That's about where I'm

As stated, the policy as a strategic policy doesn't seem credible. It asks one to believe that 18 months after the beginning of a major force increase in Afghanistan, a withdrawl will happen because some necessary set of responsibilities and functions performed by that force (else why escalate to it?) will be transitioned to local forces. The cost of the US component alone is twice the entire GDP of Afghanistan, a chunk of which is in drug production which the US wants eliminated. If that level of force is necessary to maintain the current government in power and in such control of the entire national geography as to satisfy US interests, there is no way the Afghanis can conceivably replace any significant amount of this cost and force. It leaves one to either fantasize that the US will somehow beat the locals into such lasting submission during those 18 months that they won't rise back up as the boot is raised, or to accept that there is no endgame beyond a significant and continuing occupation with the attendant burden on both countries. Beyond a third possibility of course, that

I would have liked to hear - again I didn't expect it - a history of American involvement in the region that began with "We screwed up!" The Carter administration didn't care about burqas, women, or even poppies when the Soviets handed them a golden opportunity to thwart them. So, I'm not going to let a liberal hawk tell me we need to use DoD funds to help the people we never knew existed before. Or, if a neo-con tells me about Al-Qaeda, why would I want to destroy what my tax dollars built with the good services of the ISI? Since at least 1979, the US hasn't had a good idea yet about the region. How do we know if we didn't keep screwing up, that it might just get better? It can only get better. Also, the President says the government has thwarted attacks, so we need to go get the people at the source. This smacks of the WMD line before Iraq. But, if we thwarted attacks after we dropped the ball in Afghanistan, why do we need to go full throttle now. Something, or so he claims worked, and it doesn't seem to be related to increasing

If there is a premise somewhere in your ranting screed it is not immediately obvious and therfore ineffective in making your point.

Yes but the poppies grow like weeds. I know it is a nefarious trick to justify continuing the obviously failed "War on Drugs" by insuring the flow of Afghanistan's single resource export.

.... for taking the time late on a Tuesday night to record this diavlog for we humble masses. :-)

Quoting AemJeff: This is a representative democracy. We gave these guys the job (both Bush and Obama.) They deserve the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that they won an election, and have literally taken responsibility with our blessing. As a political matter, and as the facts change, or it becomes empirically apparent that the choices they've made are bad ones (or that their decisions were made in bad faith, or without a sound factual basis), we can decide how well they've discharged that responsibility, and judge them accordingly. In the meantime, we gave them the job. We need to grant them the leeway to do their duty.

It's a representative democracy with checks and balances. And, other representatives disagreed. It's been apparent at least since the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that the way the checks and balances operate shifts and not always for the better. In the 70s, Congress asserted itself. It seems the US has shifted back to an assertive executive. The ultimate arbiter of this balance between the checks - and the bank checks are another story - is the People. Just punting to the President is unconstitutional - this is no

While I agree with your analysis it is not in the US/NATO controlled sectors in which individuals are killed for giving some male a shave, women are forced to live beneath the veil, children are deprived of an an education.... the list is long. So if we fail and leave it wont be taking the boot off but the allowing of it's application.

Quoting Baltimoron: I would have liked to hear - again I didn't expect it - a history of American involvement in the region that began with "We screwed up!" The Carter administration didn't care about burqas, women, or even poppies when the Soviets handed them a golden opportunity to thwart them. So, I'm not going to let a liberal hawk tell me we need to use DoD funds to help the people we never knew existed before. Or, if a neo-con tells me about Al-Qaeda, why would I want to destroy what my tax dollars built with the good services of the ISI? Since at least 1979, the US hasn't had a good idea yet about the region. How do we know if we didn't keep screwing up, that it might just get better? It can only get better.

Also, the President says the government has thwarted attacks, so we need to go get the people at the source. This smacks of the WMD line before Iraq. But, if we thwarted attacks after we dropped the ball in Afghanistan, why do we need to go full throttle now. Something, or so he claims worked, and it doesn't seem to be related to increasing

Quoting JonIrenicus:

A point you would do well to consider.

Quoting Baltimoron: It's a representative democracy with checks and balances. And, other representatives disagreed. It's been apparent at least since the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that the way the checks and balances operate shifts and not always for the better. In the 70s, Congress asserted itself. It seems the US has shifted back to an assertive executive. The ultimate arbiter of this balance between the checks - and the bank checks are another story - is the People. Just punting to the President is unconstitutional - this is no immediate emergency. This situation has endured for decades. It's now a matter for the People speaking through Congress.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against dissent, nor am I saying I think we should assume that the right decisions are being made. But, I do believe that when you vote for somebody (and I mean in the collective sense of that) you're providing explicit approval for them to make the decisions they deem necessary to discharge their responsibilities - within the bounds of the law, of course. If there's a disagreement between the sense of Congress and the view held by the Executive regarding whether those bounds have been violated, then

Grasp this, conservatives!

Quoting claymisher: It's not like we forced Brezhnev to invade (or did we?).

I'm not as versed in the insider story of Soviet-Afghan War as in the American side of the story. I did see a great film about the war, The 9th Company. But, generally, I do not support the Carter Doctrine, and I think aiding the mujaheddin, with or without the ISI, was a strategic error, as is the Carter Doctrine. If Beijing or Moscow want to control that world-island, Eurasia, one or both can do it with the West's best wishes.

Quoting AemJeff: If there's a disagreement between the sense of Congress and the view held by the Executive regarding whether those bounds have been violated, then I hope and assume that they'll fight it out.

For the record, I would back Congress in this matter now,

If you listen to Moyer's Journal program on LBJ, that president's troubles started with his framing: he was worried about the politics, the race against Goldwater, and his election, to put through his domestic agenda. he also got no political support from his allies, and Senator Russell prosaically told him, he couldn't help, even IF he had a personal opinion. I'm not saying he was megalomanical, but that we are considering this issue very narrowly, as if a leader can consider Afghanistan in isolation,

Quoting piscivorous: Yes they are transparent to the degree that the highest priority of professional politicians is to get themselves and their political allies reelected.

As to his mixed motives. Pleasing the "rabid right" does not enter into his cerebral folds and is one of the dumbest bits I've seen..

I said appease, not please. Admittedly, the difference may escape you. And that is why the rest of your post is so much hot air. Obama's strategy will certainly fail in Afghanistan, first because it is not a strategy and second because there is no conceivable military strategy that could succeed in Afghanistan. It would fail even if he sent ten times more soldiers. His "strategy" may succeed politically though.

Quoting TwinSwords: We had YEARS of Republican hysteria during the Clinton presidency. Democrats know perfectly well that they are never more than one minor misstep away from unleashing torrents of hysteria from the media-enabled wingnut base. So they tip toe around very carefully, like a family with an abusive drunk father who will break limbs if he is disturbed. In the dysfunctional codependency we call a two party system, Republicans are the drunken abuser, and Democrats play the victim. The media are the police who respond to the distress calls but then refuse to arrest the abuser and tell the victim if she had dinner ready, there wouldn’t have been a problem. The system is rotten to the core.

Incidentally, the same dynamics work when the lunatic party is in power. During the 8 long years of the Bush dystopia, Republicans rammed through whatever the hell they felt like, with 51 votes, and if the Democrats dared to even voice a mild objection, the screaming fits would immediately commence, with the “concerned” media earnestly inquiring how the Democrats could have ever made such a huge mistake to upset the Republicans like this -- until

In context of the comments, is my substitution of appease with please, a distinction without a difference or a difference without distinction?

Quoting piscivorous: In context of the comments, is my substitution of appease with please, a distinction without a difference or a difference without distinction?

Appease is better because it drums up allusions to Chamberlain.

Quoting Francoamerican: Excellent post twinswords. I wish I had written it. When I said that Obama sought to appease the Republican Party, this is exactly what I had in mind. You capture the disfunctional relationship between the two parties so well. It has been going on now for so long---at least since the beginning of the Cold War--that I wonder if the US will ever break out of it.

So where do corporate interests fit into the drunken father scenario?

Quoting look: Appease is better because it drums up allusions to Chamberlain.

Good grief, look! Are you going to start Godwinning the from that side, too? What a perfect villain Obama is, tyrant and appeaser, all in one! And he's getting the Chamberlain for increasing the attention, men, and materiel spent on this conflict well above the levels set by his predecessor.

Quoting AemJeff: Good grief, look! Are you going to start Godwinning the from that side, too? What a perfect villain Obama is, tyrant and appeaser, all in one! And he's getting the Chamberlain for increasing the attention, men, and materiel spent on this conflict well above the levels set by his predecessor.

Don't forget betraying the Jews. I'm sure Obama's policy is also antisemitic somehow.

Quoting look: Appease is better because it drums up allusions to Chamberlain.

No....not really. Appeasing the Rabid Right would be the equivalent of Weimar politicians--think Hindenberg--appeasing Hitler. Although I wouldn't go that far, I do think that Obama's decision to send 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan is an example of appeasement of the acephalic American right.

Quoting AemJeff: Good grief, look! Are you going to start Godwinning the from that side, too? What a perfect villain Obama is, tyrant and appeaser, all in one! And he's getting the Chamberlain for increasing the attention, men, and materiel spent on this conflict well above the levels set by his predecessor.

Okay, I can see how my statement could be interpreted that way, but my intent was to imply that from the 'looney left' point of view, it's the 'rabid right' that needs appeasing in the manner of you know who. My bad. But 'getting the Chamberlain' is a keeper...

Quoting look: Okay, I can see how my statement could be interpreted that way, but my intent was to imply that from the 'looney left' point of view, it's the 'rabid right' that needs appeasing in the manner of you know who. My bad.

But 'getting the Chamberlain' is a keeper...

Heh. It was a typo - I was posting from my phone. When I noticed it later, I decided I liked it, too.

Quoting Francoamerican: No....not really. Appeasing the Rabid Right would be the equivalent of Weimar politicians--think Hindenberg--appeasing Hitler.

Although I wouldn't go that far, I do think that Obama's decision to send 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan is an example of appeasement of the acephalic American right.

The right is headless? What about Sister Sarah?

Quoting look: The right is headless? What about Sister Sarah?

Quite a head......of hair.

Simon Willard wrote the following supremely irritating nonsense:

:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican
"I assume that like LBJ Obama is more intelligent than his military advisors and would probably have told the American people that Afghanistan is a lost cause if he were not so afraid of the Rabid Right.

But it is difficult to be an intelligent Democrat in a nation of Chicken Littles."

This is complete nonsense. Obama is in charge. He has no higher office for which to aspire, and no reason not to do what he believes is right. He could be wrong, but it can't be intentional.

The reason "not to do what he believes is right" is the fear of not getting a second term and the corresponding desire to get that second term. Just read the brief article by Garry Wills regarding the conventional wisdom about Obama's political calculations and Afghanistan in the current issue of "The New York Review of Books." I realize that you probably don't read, and, if you do read, you don't read that, but there it is. More generally, this diavlog was fatally flawed and itself not to be taken

Quoting Francoamerican: I do think that Obama's decision to send 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan is an example of appeasement of the acephalic American right.

Whoa, where's my dictionary? I think Obama is dividing the right. He's going to have harsh critics no matter what; that's how our system works. But by dividing the right he can keep it acephalic.

Quoting ledocs: The reason "not to do what he believes is right" is the fear of not getting a second term and the corresponding desire to get that second term.

I'll concede that second-term calculations can come into play. But they can't be the driving force. Why be president at all? I mean, what makes the second term more desirable than the first? At this point, a second term is speculation; the first term is a bird in the hand.

Simon Willard said:

I'll concede that second-term calculations can come into play. But they can't be the driving force. Why be president at all? I mean, what makes the second term more desirable than the first? At this point, a second term is speculation; the first term is a bird in the hand.

I don't see why the second term would have to be *more* desirable than the first in order for second-term electoral considerations to be the driving force in this policy. Suppose I am a 20-year-old who exercises a lot in order to live into old age. Does this imply that I think old age is more desirable than the present? But beyond that, there is always the hope of (i) getting stronger majorities in Congress that will allow for more and better legislation, (ii) convincing the country that one is a good and competent leader during the first term, thus putting pressure on legislators to be more compliant during a second, and (iii) there is just the desire to keep one's party and oneself in power in order to do more good and continue doing what one is doing. There is an

Quoting Francoamerican: Quite a head......of hair.

Heh. After I posted, I realized I left it wide open for you.

Perhaps you're making it too complicated. The Dems. are thinking about term 2 from the first day of term 1 because that's what politicians do -- try to hold as much power as they can for as long as they can. Obama's draw-down non-timeline timeline seemed quite cynical to me as well. Don't worry, guys. We just blitz and surge for a while, declare victory and wind down for the next elections. On the other hand, it seems like complete wishful thinking -- a game plan likely to blow up in Rahm Emanuel and Obama's faces. We'll see.

Quoting Wonderment: a game plan likely to blow up in Rahm Emanuel and Obama's faces. We'll see.

if not in their faces, it will probably guarantee major congressional losses next year. Which given Obama's distinctly non-progressive attitudes, would probably be good news to him - as long as they don't lose too many seats.

Which given Obama's distinctly non-progressive attitudes, would probably be good news to him - as long as they don't lose too many seats.

Maybe he'll pull a Lieberman and run as an independent in 2012 Wait, he could run WITH Lieberman, just like Al Gore!