Afghanistan, Trust, and the New Hampshire Primary

I have posted on the political donnybrook this means but (4.00 / 3)

I am undecided on the policy itself. Just possibly, this truly bad choice of escalation was the least bad choice available. In seeing a chance of that I think I disagree with Rep. Splaine.

I am heartened that Obama is talking about Pakistan as an integral part of this - but disheartened that Pakistan doesn't appear to be on board.

Two things about Obama's handling of this, if that is separable from the war itself, trouble me. His apparent full faith in McChrystal and the top brass; and his wobbly spin on a drawdown.

Each news cycle brings another Administration figure saying in effect, "The drawdown schedule is a hope, not a deadline." Either policy is changing on an hourly basis or Obama was not candid.

"Trust" covers a lot of ground: trust of his honesty, trust of his motive, trust of his team's ability to handle the task.

I don't trust that last one.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 21:36:30 PM CST

It is so very hard (4.00 / 4)

for me to figure this out, I think because I don't want to believe how badly Bushco damaged our country.  And sometimes I think that besides the horrible situation they left for the next president, they might have done this on purpose to make sure that the next president would have such difficult decisions to make that the American people, and especially his supporters, would come to mistrust him too.  I suspect that puts me in the conspiracy theorist nutcase group, but all we have seen from the Republicans since Obama's election is obstruction to fixing the problems, and everyone admits it is because they think they will get back in power by doing that.  

Sometimes I just want to crawl in a hole and hide.  We worked so hard to make changes we thought would turn things around, and now our political system seems so damaged and our electorate so untrusting that we are still stuck, and fighting among ourselves about what is possible and what is not.  One person I know keeps telling me that Obama needs to do more, and lists all the problems he should fix RIGHT NOW.  She takes pride in being an "Independent" who is courted by both sides and sends out critiques of Obama not being left enough.

I won't hide.  I know what we need to do, we need to work harder.  Again, again, again.  Because what we ended up with is a very badly damaged country that must be fixed.  Now I just need to find the energy to do that.  

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 04:47:49 AM CST

Right. That's the thing about deprivators. They like to cause (0.00 / 0)

damage.  They are like the vandals who ride through the landscape destroying what they can't build on their own.
The antecedents of the neo conservatives elevated this impulse into a theory they called "planned destruction" and that morphed into "creative destruction."  The first variant blamed it on mother nature.  That is, in confronting the destructive potential of mother nature, they determined that a rational human strategy would be to stay in control by planning to destroy first what would crumble or die eventually.  It's this thinking which led to the not well received reaction to Katrina which blamed the destruction of the ninth Ward on the fact that it hadn't been bulldozed earlier.  It's not unlike the logic which says the tide won't knock down the sand-castles, if we knock them down first.

"Creative destruction" put a more historical spin on the same behavior by arguing that, whatever the cause, be it man or nature, something better will emerge out of whatever is destroyed.  In other words, instead of human behavior being an alternative that one-ups nature, the destructive impulse was converted into a positive--i.e. it is good to destroy what man has made because what gets rebuilt will be better.  That was the justification for the pulverization of Iraq, the cradle of civilization.  Also, there was a bit of jealousy involved, because that's what always drives the urge to destroy.

In any event, the ideology has been proved false.  But, the proponents don't care.  They were only after a plausible hypothesis that converts their base instincts into virtues to begin with.
When the base instincts are manifest as behavior, we have what used to be called the seven deadly sins: wrath, pride, gluttony, greed, lust, sloth and envy.  They serve the survival instinct of man the predator, with sloth keeping the others in check as cowardice to placate those who might retaliate with deadly force.  Cowardice keeps the predator alive long enough so he can reproduce.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 06:02:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Dean, for weighing in (4.00 / 3)

And for staying above the family squabble over this.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 10:05:51 AM CST

Early in the campaign, Obama was off (0.00 / 0)

From Book review: David Plouffe's "The Audacity to Win"

He hadn't embraced campaign life, and it was beginning to cause concern. The early-state staff in particular thought he was not locked in on the trail, either in his remarks or in his solicitations of political support. We weren't sure if Obama would turn out to be Secretariat, but we suspected he had some thoroughbred political talent; it just wasn't on daily display. ... But the reports from Iowa were that he was mostly going through the motions. After one event, Tewes called me and laid it on the line. "Unless he gets better, we might as well just not have him meet with people," he said. "They tell us afterward, 'He really never put the squeeze on me. It was a nice enough conversation but he doesn't seem like he really wants it.'"

He came around: The Judgment to Lead: Obama Foreign Policy Forum - LIVE!

Senator Obama believes our policies are stronger when they benefit from the input, values and common sense of the American people, and that requires an open dialogue.  Obama is discussing his foreign policy vision with New Hampshire voters and some of his top advisors in an open, participatory format today in Portsmouth.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 10:29:49 AM CST

What Clinton Said (0.00 / 0)

Pres. Clinton raised some eyebrows at the J-J the other night when he said he'd decided several weeks ago to support Pres. Obama's decision on Afghanistan, whatever it was.

The Clinton empathy kicked in when he explained why he supported a fellow member of the Presidents Club.

Every president, he said, faces one to four decisions that lead to unknown results. No matter how much information you have, no matter how many wise men and women you consult, there's simply no way to know how it's going to turn out. But the president has to make the call. And only the president can make the call.

The difference between this administration and the last one, Clinton went on, was that he trusts the Obama administration to reassess, reevaluate and adjust as necessary.

The test of this policy lies in the future, and I'm willing to see how this plays out. In my opinion, a measured military withdrawal from Afghanistan over, say, the next six months and a measured withdrawal two, three or ten years from now will yield the same results.

But it's not up to me to make the call.

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 14:44:01 PM CST

I Think You're Very Correct... (0.00 / 0)

...about "...a measured military withdrawal from Afghanistan over, say, the next six months and a measured withdrawal two, three or ten years from now will yield the same results.  

That's been my point.  So, why all those killings and deaths in the meantime?  As someone asked of Vietnam, who wants to be the last soldier killed?  

About Vietnam, by the way -- I submit that a measured withdrawal in 1968 would have ended in the same results as withdrawal in 1975.  All those lives lost in those 7 years would have been saved.  And it is possible -- I have no proof because it didn't happen, but it is possible that the aftermath would not have been so violent if we had left much earlier.  In these kinds of civil differences, or civil wars, the people of a nation have to settle it themselves.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 15:43:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Like Sudan? (4.00 / 1)

In these kinds of civil differences, or civil wars, the people of a nation have to settle it themselves.  

Civil War Threatens Sudan, Again

It may have lasted lasted 22 years, claimed 2 million lives and displaced 4 million people, but Sudan's north-south civil war that ended in 2005 was scarcely noticed in the West. But as the conflict threatens to resume, it could wreak havoc with U.S. and international efforts to stabilize the region.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 16:42:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My God -- Invade Sudan Now? (4.00 / 1)

We can't solve everyone's problems or participate in every region's civil war to "stablize" them. Thanks for proving my point.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 18:46:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]