NYT on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow

He probably had step-dad issues.

My apologies for dragging this back to the topic:



No. Obama's stance has always been to placate the anti-war faction on the Left while not appearing too soft on foreign policy. He supported sending more troops to Afghanistan primarily because by doing so it strengthened an argument to remove troops from Iraq. At the time, that was the bigger conflict and the focus of anti-war sentiment on the left.

Now that Iraq has quieted down, he finds himself in a difficult spot. Afghanistan is the focus, and the anti-war folks now want us to get out of there as well. He can't reverse such a publicly stated position made just a year or so ago, but he doesn't want to tick off his supporters, so he sat on the decision for a few months. This allows him to play on the idea that he's thinking things through, while not committing to anything at all. Sprinkle in a little vague language about goals and timelines, leave out any really firm commitment to succeed, and he's created some political cover for himself which he can use in a year or so to do what he presumably really wants to do (get us out entirely no matter what).


Whether that works or not is subject to debate of course...

Nonsense.

It has been obvious for months what Obama was going to do. Escalation.

Massive projects to build military bases in Afghanistan involving billions of dollars. Thats from last January.

More from October.

Spending billions on new bases and military infrastructure doesn't happen if you plan on leaving in a few months.


I think Obama has done quite the opposite from placating the anti-war faction. He's caved into pressure from the pro-war people including Patraeus and MacChrystal, as well as the warmongering cocks in Congress who accused him of 'not listening to the Generals on the ground', as though they the generals should be in charge of foreign policy.

The Generals and the Pentagon have carried on escalating the war over the last year, and Obama has eventually gone along with it. Whether he went along with it because he actually wanted to, or bowed to pressure from the hawks is irrelevant now that the warmongers have got their way.




Are you kidding? Or did you mean 'Now that Iraq is old news and no one cares about it any more'?

If I thought for a minute that Obama actually wanted to get out of the region I would be really impressed. but that isn't what he wants. Any more than Bush did.

After all, if he really wanted out of the region, he would start by shutting down some of the scores of military bases that are all over the place and bringing home the tens of thousands of troops that are stationed in them.

Whilst everyone is arguing amonst themselves from their partisan positions, the US administration, wether its Bush or Obama or whoever comes next, will continue expanding their influence and power in the pursuit of resources and territory at the expense of the people who live in those places.

Empire building is what 'powerful' nations have pursued throughout history.

Why does anyone think that its any different now??