Just in time for the Republican Tea Party entrance into the foreign policy debate.
As regulars know, I have support Pres. Obama on Afghanistan from the jump. …right up until Gen. Stanley McChrystal imploded, revealing just how much trouble the U.S. policy is in. That was a freeze everything moment for me. The July 2011 date only important, because Obama was calculating towards his reelection campaign, nothing more; these arbitrary dates nothing more than a dart board thrown at the calendar, which is exactly what Bush did on Iraq withdrawal with which Obama simply complied.
If the McClatchy report is true, Pres. Obama is doing what was always likely once given the realities of what drove McChrystal to his Rolling Stone meltdown. Now that Obama is in political trouble, which he equates with having to appease the Right in order to survive, he’ll likely have friends on the Republican side that back a policy that will keep us in Afghanistan in numbers Obama formerly didn’t agree was the right policy.
McClatchy reports, Pres. Obama doesn’t have a policy problem as much as he has a perception challenge:
The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama’s pledge that he’d begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.
The new policy will be on display next week during a conference of NATO countries in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the year when Afghan President Hamid Karzai once said Afghan troops could provide their own security, three senior officials told McClatchy, along with others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy.
…”This administration now understands that it cannot shift Pakistani approaches to safeguarding its interests in Afghanistan with this date being perceived as a walk-away date,” the adviser said.
July 2011 may still see a shift in Afghanistan policy, regardless of what McClatchy is reporting, but it’s a cinch it won’t be a decoupling of Afghanistan from the Pakistan policy, which progressives and even some conservatives have been calling for to happen. Withdrawals of significant troop force from Afghanistan the bottom line.
It would be ironic if Democrats in Congress actually found themselves with new allies in the Tea Party members, people like Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, even Marco Rubio, but even more so on the House side. But that would depend on what their definition of conservative really means. We’re about to find out.
The possible McClatchy foreshadowing of a “walk away” by Pres. Obama on the July 2011 shift in policy signals something else. It’s simply more proof of the Iraq fairy tale that won him the nomination. Because as president, Mr. Obama has shown absolutely no strength of character whatsoever that would have been needed to be the only Senate member running for president to vote against authorization for the Iraq war.
Oh, I agree that Obama would have voted for the AUMF and he would have sounded like Joe Lieberman while doing it. His primary campaign saw from Dean in 2004 that there are enough single issue anti-war voters plus minorities to put you over the top and that’s the game they played. The only thing the didn’t count on was the latte liberals actually believing what he said. Now they are going to have to deal with the fallout from that. I’m sure the statement to his supporters will be the same one that he delivered to Hillary voters in ’08: where else you gonna go you idiots? His political shop is so inept that they think that people can’t just sit home. There’s obviously a percentage that will vote against but a lot of people want something to vote FOR. The against voters are the low hanging fruit of the party and are easy to corral. the rest not so much.
will anything cause the left to revolt? anything? they didnt after hcr. will the war do it? what about this deficit comm. plan to cut ss? will that blow this ship up? can anything do it?
meanwhile taylor is under heavy attack for telling the hard truth about obama and his polciies and how they are killing the dem party. the obama defenders seem to be confused. they think if u dont defend obama and make excuses for him you arent being a great progressive. the reverse is true in fact. a good american must point out the real problems of obama and pressure him to make changes. not run around shouting obama is great and dont be so mean to him. its time for people to get a little mroe worried about america and a little less about defending Obama to the death.
THANK YOU Ga6thDem and t4h. At least someone cares about Afghanistan.
It’s pathetic how nonchalant people on the Left have become.
Oh, I agree that Obama would have voted for the AUMF and he would have sounded like Joe Lieberman while doing it.
Word.
its just maddening. im freaking out the local party by doiggng them on fb etc on some of their blind devotion to the obama deity. urging them to have their candidates run on working class dem platforms based on a living wage etc.. running closer to obama wont help- feingold ran defending obama’s policy in swing state wi and lost. the man knwon for independence sadly ran his race defending hcr bill etc. this is a very bad omen- if a good dem like feingold got beaten by some hack in the rust belt over hcr etc then dems better run on fdr style dem platforms to win. quit trying to defend obamapolicy and start running on fdr new deal policy for the country. its a real winner.
new tpm poll shows that should obama move on ss cuts he is toast. i mean really can the party survive such a move? really? im dubious but then again here we are.
” At least someone cares about Afghanistan ”
I resemble that remark. I care, honest. I just happen to disagree that it was a good idea to charge into the “graveyard of empires” in the first place. I understand that the politics and public opinion right after 9/11 absolutely required we do something. Still, Tora Bora should have been the first clue that our efforts were going straight into a ditch. By the time Bush II was riding his horse into the sunset Afghanistan was a soup sandwich.
My fear was that Afghanistan was irretrievably lost due to Bushite dithering and incompetence. I do remember a “disagreement” with you that the only way we could pacify Afghanistan would be by a massive deployment of troops. I still stand by that argument. If we are going to have our efforts guided by the gospel of Petraeus, then troop levels would have to reach almost a million to do the actual strategy. I don’t make this stuff up; I just do the math: required boot on the ground per X number of Afghani running around on the ground. Just plug in the numbers into the equation Petraeus offers. It’s middle school math.
But no one in the policy elites actually wants to deal with what those numbers actually mean. No one wants to face the stark realities. So we all crib. We come up with B.S. military strategies or attempt to solve the equations via technological fixes. The fixes work for a while, Predator drones deal out death and destruction, they set the Talibs back for a while. But then the Talibs adjust, they find a way to neutralize the tactical advantage of our fancy toys.
I understand your commitment to our efforts in Afghanistan. You are correct in your point that the reinstatement of the Taliban would be a disaster for the women and girls of that nation. Still the essential question is, how far are you willing to go to protect those women? Are you willing to reinstate the draft? Are you willing to put the nation on a real war footing? You can’t just wave off those question by saying ” well that will never happen” or ” I reject all or nothing notions.” It’s war Ms Marsh and anything can happen. There is no end to the requirements for blood and treasure to be spent. In for a dime, in for (Trillions of) dollar(s)
As both the Russians and British found out, Afghanistan is a very hard nut to crack. Geography, Geology and culture make the area epic nightmare for any foreign presence attempting to impose its will on the nation. The tribes of the area have been dealing out punishment to foreign armies since Alexander the Great. This is a nation you bring your A game to. So far we have done nothing but run out the clown car. Neither Bush nor Obama have done anything even remotely competent in the area.
There is no substitute for boots on the ground Taylor. This is triply true in Afghanistan. Troops equals control: full stop. Obama could not stomach that reality. No one in D.C. really can. They know that if they ask the nation to make the real sacrifices required for our policy in Afghanistan all they will get is a big middle finger from the voters.
I know I’m repeating myself, but … Taylor, the thought and time and work you’re putting in is much appreciated.
“It’s simply more proof of the Iraq fairy tale that won him the nomination.” – TM
I think maybe Obama believes in fairy tales. Glad you mention the “fairy tales” campaign moment, because it was telling. Widely ignored, but telling.
“will anything cause the left to revolt?” – t4h
Excellent question. There are more and more people speaking out, and that’s encouraging. Maybe we really will come to a point when enough people find ways to “revolt.”
“I agree that Obama would have voted for the AUMF” – Ga6thDem
Absolutely.