9/11? Yes, 9/11.
Tweet
One of the more troubling reactions from the left that I saw during President Obama’s speech about our Afghanistan policy was this utter and absolute nonsense that Obama was somehow invoking the spirit of George W. Bush by discussing our Afghan strategy and 9/11.
I dunno, maybe its due to years and years of Rudy Giuliani’s noun-verb construction or the simplistic, numb language of George W. Bush beating the common sense out of our ears, but it is as clear as can be that the reason we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11. The connection of Afghanistan to 9/11 is legions away from the made-up Iraq to 9/11 connection. Afghanistan and 9/11 are as linked for all time as closely as Tokyo is connected to December 7, 1941.
We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.
Again, these things are clear. Not a single characterization of them by President Obama deviated from what we all saw.
I supported Obama for many reasons, but for me, personally, the primary reason was that George W. Bush failed to fight the war against terrorism – specifically the Al Qaeda network – in any competent manner. Al Qaeda’s stated desire to hurt and cripple the country – stated time and again by Bin Laden and his lieutenants – demands a strong and clear response from us. Basically from the standoff at Tora Bora until now, the response to this challenge has been mush.
It makes me feel weird, but in this instance I see many on the left absolutely playing to the stereotypes of the right. If we simply withdraw, this does not keep us safer. Just because George W. Bush royally screwed up as commander-in-chief, it doesn’t mean that America never fights again. Afghanistan isn’t Iraq. This isn’t about imaginary weapons of mass destruction, or a terror “connection” that’s the fevered dream of a hack Weekly Standard writer. Suicide bombers hit in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania directly based on the orders and finances of the people we’re after in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border region.
I am not someone who is a kneejerk supporter of war and military action, but I feel that when we or our allies are under threat or have been attacked, we often need to respond militarily with a clear set of stated goals and an exit plan. The whole reason I didn’t support the war in Iraq but support the war in Afghanistan is based on how each conflict meets the test.
Obama made great pains to point out that for the war party on the right that this was not a blank check, this would not be an echo of that ridiculous Iraq plan Bush put out that just said “Victory!” on every page. In order to fight war, Obama has made clear that he seeks to emulate the succesful strategies of Presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt. We aren’t increasing troop strength in Afghanistan to satisfy John McCain or Charles Krauthammer. We’re doing it in order to finish the crap job of the President they supported for almost a decade.
If you don’t support increasing the amount of troops, that is a fine and patriotic position to have – though I vehemently disagree with it – but folks on the left have got to quit rewriting history by pretending Obama is somehow suddenly a hawk on the Afghanistan situation. Similarly, the connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan isn’t simply the rhetorical flourish of a leader, but stuff that actually exists. Those making honest arguments in opposition to the President’s policy should adhere to the reality-based school of argument.
I think the President spoke to us as adults about the single biggest security threat to the country, an issue on par with the economy in relation to its importance (an economic recovery is no good if we don’t have our way of life). I think he made, finally, a clear case about this threat and our solution to it that he plans to implement. I think at the end of the day this is how to clean up the mess left for us by the previous administration, while also doing what is in our power to defend ourselves and our allies.
72 Responses to “9/11? Yes, 9/11.”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Oliver, the fallacy of this construction is that Afghanistan does not equal al Qaeda. The better construction is that al Qaeda exists where states have failed. Thus, they have become stronger in places like Somalia or Pakistan or Sudan since we have focused on Afghanistan.
I would much rather see us take out bin Laden and then leave Afghanistan to solve its own problems, perhaps with strong economic development, than to contribute a few million tons more military hardware and thousands more lives.
I don’t disagree with you, and frankly neither does the President I think. He didn’t sell this as us going in and making freedom sauce in Afghanistan. We go in, get the job done, get out, support the Afghans from a distance.
A fairly reasonable argument, O. Props to you.
Two points I’d disagree with you on, though.
Al Qaeda isn’t THE enemy. They’re a part of the enemy. They’ve been the most successful one (remember they were behind the first WTC bombing, the African embassy bombings, and the attack that nearly sank the Cole), but hardly the only one. It was never a war against them; it was a campaign. To focus on them exclusively leaves us open to attacks from other terrorist groups.
Second, the deadline is — and always was — a bad idea. If after 18 months Al Qaeda isn’t defeated, then they win — by default. We’ve given them a second way of winning — all they have to do is hang on and they win.
Imagine a football game. The Redskins vs. the Eagles. Before the game, it’s announced that if the Redskins aren’t ahead by 10 points by the end of the third quarter, they’ll leave the field and forfeit. At that point, the Eagles don’t have to play to win — just to keep from losing too badly and running out the clock.
That’s what Obama has set up. Look at the speech — he never used the words “win” or “victory.” He’s already laying the groundwork for failure.
That’s because modern asymmetrical wars aren’t “won,” and there will be no “victory.” There will never be a moment when some head terrorist gives up and announces, “We quit, you’ve beaten us.”
The reason for the timeline is clear to me. It’s a declaration that the US doesn’t seek to occupy Afghanistan indefinitely. Once the Afghans have a handle on the fanatic-terorist problem, and the situation is fairly stable, we’re leaving. The Afghans have NOTHING we want. And if the Afghan government wants to stay in power, they need to be seen as facilitating our exit, not clinging to us for support. Thus, it makes sense to say, in effect, “Get your shit together by this date, or you’ll be gone, too.” The people of Afghanistan do not want foreigners occupying their country, no matter what the intention of the occupiers. The sooner the occupiers can get out, the better.
Obama has made clear that he seeks to emulate the succesful strategies of Presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt
This is the part that’s most disagreeable. Maybe you have a different draft of FDR’s “Day of Infamy” speech, but the one I remember doesn’t include the line “Let me be clear: we will begin withdrawing from Berlin no later than 1944.”
To paraphrase the great military general Herman Edwards: “You [fight] to win the [war].” Setting public deadlines only tells the enemy how long they have to wait it out.
In the words of the Sea Captain: “Arrr… we don’t know what we’re doin’.”
The question is Oliver, is that realistically even possible after the passage of nearly 8 years which has allowed the Taliban and Al Queda to not only gain strength and support in Afghanistan, but also afforded them the opportunity to infiltrate Pakistan and create a network of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism?
‘Second, the deadline is — and always was — a bad idea. If after 18 months Al Qaeda isn’t defeated, then they win — by default’
This kind of reasoning has been responsible for most of the confusion regarding what is actually taking place in Afghanistan, and why the US and NATO are there to begin with.
What is ANYONE actually expected to ‘win’ in Afghanistan? What possible sense of ‘victory’ do you perceive in this conflict?
If it’s true that one of the rationales for the invasion was to exact revenge on bin Laden and Al Queda for 9/11, then that obviously hasn’t happened; when Bush turned his attention to Iraq, and allowed bin Laden to slip through his fingers, then no one can claim that this wasn’t a ‘win’ for Al Queda, and that was 8 years ago.
If another motivation was to remove the Taliban from power, then this has only partially been accomplished, as they are not currently ruling the country, but it’s indisputable that the Taliban now controls more territory than Karzai ever has, because Karzai’s limited governance doesn’t extend beyond Kabul, and many will argue he doesn’t even have control of Kabul; so again, who has ‘won’ this campaign?
If another reason for the invasion was to stabilize the region, then again that has failed; both Afghanistan and Pakistan are now teetering on the brink of collapse due to the infusion of a resurgent Taliban and Al Queda presence in both nations, and the unpleasant fact that there is more support for both the Taliban and Al Queda by the vast majority of both populations, that can ever be expected towards foreign troops and governments.
NO ONE is willing to talk about the actual reason for the invasion; the realization of the fantasy of Western petroleum multi-nationals for access to the vast Central Asian oil and natural gas deposits via a massive Afghan pipeline. This is what inspired the Soviets to lay waste to their empire in pursuit of this lucrative prize, and is the real reason the US and NATO are still there, no matter how obvious it becomes that they are in no more successful a position to secure it than the Soviet Union were.
3 years from now, this situation will look no better than it does today.
This is what happens when corporate interests are disguised as altruism.
‘Setting public deadlines only tells the enemy how long they have to wait it out.’
You don’t seriously believe that by NOT setting a timeline, the Taliban and Al Queda will legitimately expect the US and NATO to stay FOREVER, do you?
EVERYONE, including the Taliban and Al Queda know that is impossible.
We can all agree Chris Matthews is an asshole for the “enemy camp” comment
Chris Matthews is an asshole. Period. His myopic sense of self-importance is as grating as his infernally long, incoherent sentence structure.
this is one of the most logical essays I’ve read about Obama’s speech so
far. I agree with most of it. However, I am very concerned about
how does Obama and Co. obviate the continued corruption that is Karzi..
Also is this border stuff..where we are really going..and could more
of it be carried out covertly instead of involving so many troops..
While I agree with Oliver that withdrawing now would put the U.S. at risk, I do not think the number of troops is the key to our problems.
Simply put, our enemies have a safe haven in Pakistan. The Pakistani state is weak and disorganized. While some elements are working with us, other elements are not. Pakistani President Zardari does not have any real control over the ISI, which views the Taliban as an effective mean of pursuing its goals in Afghanistan. Islamabad has always viewed Afghanistan as its backyard, and believes it has a say in who sits in power in Kabul. And for them, an India-friendly government is unacceptable.
If our main interest was a cessation of hostilities, we would abandon Karzai and allow a Pakistan-friendly regime to take root. But, that would put at risk the new relationship America enjoys with India – one of the genuine achievements of the Bush years. A regime that is too friendly with Pakistan would be viewed by suspicion in India, because when the Taliban was in charge, Afghan territory was used by terrorist groups to attack India.
Will Obama be able to persuade the Pakistanis that their threat comes from terrorist groups, and not India? If you are talking about ordinary Pakistanis, this viewpoint is starting to gain some traction. But, among the Pakistani army and intelligence services, their primary focus is still on India. Even if India does not attack (which it won’t), they do not want to feel hemmed in by a neighbor which is 8 times its size in population and ten times its size in GDP. I’m not sure Obama can shake them out of this worldview.
As Rachel Maddow so pointedly pointed out last night, bin Laden is almost certainly in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Why are we focusing on the wrong country? Pakistan is the real source of danger, and not just because it’s harboring the head of al Qaeda; they’ve also got nukes, and they’re a very unstable state. And the CIA is fighting in Pakistan, but they’re doing it covertly. Why not make it overt? Why not actually take the fight to the enemy?
Seems like shades of Iraq all over again.
I thought the lesson from 911 was we were attacked by 19 angry young men who developed their war strategy in Hamburg, Germany and Miami, FL. What the hell does dumping a few more hundred billion in Afganistan do to solve that problem?
It will take the 18 months to escalate the troops there – at which point they gotta stay (what the hell is all the whining about setting a date about? – Christ sakes Bush even set a date to leave Iraq – it means nothing due to conditions on the ground and advice of generals). So this drags into the next POTUS election cycle. And on and on it goes. It is a sick and corrupt policy for a country that doesn’t even have the balls to tax its citizens to pay for its soldiers efforts.
OW is getting a firmer grasp of reality. Both this and his American Dream post reflect a sense of actual understanding of the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. Perhaps a close and honest examination of the results of leftist policies will change his viewpoint further.
There’s no Hirohito or Hitler type here to sign a surrender. This can’t be an open ended blank check.
You can take away the retarded pat on the head. This is the same position I’ve held on this issue since 9/11. As I said above, the problem here was how much Bush screwed up this fight.
I share Oliver’s frustration here with the left, a political alignment I have always considered myself a part of (I am not, I should point out, a converted conservative). And to be fair, my frustration is not simply born from progressives who disagree with the president.
But there’s a difference between disagreeing with policy, and the extent to which the left continues to go time and again; essentially saying Obama is Bush because Obama is not as liberal as they (often times unfairly) hoped. It’s ironic in a way that the ideological group that prides itself in nuance has in this area devolved in the very non-nuanced, near Bushian, position of, “If you are not for us, you are against us.” That is, if Obama does not pursue complete and total equality for homosexual rights, single payer health care, and a truly pacifist foreign policy, and if he doesn’t do it RIGHT NOW, he is no better than Bush.
Blogs I used to respect and read frequently have become unreadable to me. Just this morning I’ve gone through five lefty blogs that have called Obama basically a more eloquent Bush. Let us forget that Bush would have never spent three months in heavy deliberation to map out a strategy, Bush never showed the foresight to even consider an exit strategy. Bush would have never actually provided a counter argument to criticism as opposed to merely dismissing the opposition. I could end the argument here by saying I voted for the current President not because he adheres so closely to his beliefs but more because I simply think he would think before acting. Whether we should push into Afghanistan now or not is not something I feel I’m qualified to speak on. I’m not a Foreign Policy guru, and I would be willing to bet my yearly paycheck that 90% of the commentators out there from the right and left don’t know half of the information they should know before being able to make an opinion. The president took three hard months of looking at this thing, I think it’s worth bearing him out.
But what I find so striking is that because this is not a pull out of Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, all most on the left seem to hear is that we’re going to war. Indeed, it’s almost as though President Obama is starting the war. The ironic thing about last night is it was, if anything, a case to END the war. To take an engagement that has been going on now in limbo for nearly a decade and actually invest the resources to end it properly. The guy sets a goal of beginning troop withdrawls at 2011, and all most on the left can do is find every crack to prove that we will be there indefinitely.
Sadly, I know I won’t change anyone’s mind. This comment will likely go ignored, and if it doesn’t I expected to be lambasted for whatever, probably for being stupid, or not understanding the Afghanistan situation well enough, or for being an Obamabot, or an Obamaphile. I ain’t writing this as an act of persuasion–those days are behind me. This is more getting certain thoughts out before their acidity erodes my mind.
I’ve had it with “The Left”, an idealogical band that looks less and less familiar by the day. The hardcore uncompromising quality of so called “progressives” is as bitter in taste as that of the hard right, despite the fact that I tend to agree with the policies of the left far more. What’s worse, what I see in “progressives” is what I thought I would see when people first started using the label in earnest–no real change or nod towards actual long term political progress. It’s just a new label because Liberal doesn’t poll well.
Thing is, you can call yourself progressive all you want, but from what I see and read on a daily basis, the single thing that best improves people like Sarah Palin’s chances at the presidency are in fact progressives.
And I can see that this is ending nowhere near where it started, so I’m going to leave it at that.
Because Pakistan is not a failed state (at present, touch wood). It does have a government and governance infrastructure, a military etc etc. Wading militarily into Pakistan in an overt way would have much different geopolitical implications than dealing with Afghanistan. We could and should support their government in a number of ways to ensure it doesn’t become the next Afghanistan. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a full scale military presence.
Given that Obama (and indeed the entire Democratic establishment) sees the War in Afghanistan as nothing more than a manhunt for OBL, why not say “We will stay until Osama is in a casket or handcuffs.”? That gives you a definable goal without expliticly telling our enemies how long they have to wait it out until THEY can declare victory.
I don’t even necessarily mind having a timeline. It’s broadcasting it to the rest of the word that’s a rookie mistake.
same old, same old … look over there. This is a ten year war, at least.
I don’t disagree with your points about 9/11, Mr. Willis. However, this part is undefined and it needs definition:
What does it mean to “fight the war against terrorism…in a competent manner”?
In the speech, the President also said: “Islamist extremism in the region remains an enduring threat to the security of Americans.”
What would need to transpire for this extremism in the region to no longer be an enduring threat to the security of Americans?
In short, how do we win this war against terrorism?
My take is that it is not winnable, so we incrementally commit ourselves, our money, and our troops chasing a moving target.
Additionally, something that should be considered in the answer of defining “fighting the war against terrorism” is acceptable levels of collateral damage. But, this is rarely addressed. What number of innocent deaths are acceptable in “fighting the war against terrorism”? 3000 innocent American Civilians were killed on 9/11. More than 3000 innocent Afghani Civilians have been killed by Americans since the war began (estimates range from 8,436 – 28,028 Afghani Civilians killed as a result of U.S-led military actions). I don’t see how this can be justified.
I never thought I’d see the day when Rachel Maddow would advocate a military intervention which would make going into Iraq look like attacking Japan after Pearl Harbor.
Excellent and thoughtful post, Kyle. Thank you.
Given that Obama (and indeed the entire Democratic establishment) sees the War in Afghanistan as nothing more than a manhunt for OBL,
That’s not a given.
OW is getting a firmer grasp of reality.
Or perhaps you’re taking the time to read and comprehend.
OW, this is your second straight post on the subject that complains about “some on the left.”
Who you talking about?
Historians will likely debate whether Obama made the right call on Afghanistan or not for generations to come. What I do know is that in that speech, Obama declared his intention to be a one-term president. Praise for bringing home our troops after a long and pointless crusade could put him over the top in 2012. So could a rebounding economy. By ensuring that we will have a massive number of troops in the Middle East for at least another decade, Obama also ensures that the government will not have sufficient funds to deal with the economic problems that I think will be resurgent in 2010.
By 2012, I foresee 3+ years of double-digit unemployment, an expanding war in Afghanistan with no noticeable improvements and no end in sight, and a Republican-led congress (and if you think the Pukes are bad now, wait until they get a majority of both houses in 2010). I also foresee a strong possibility that those backstabbing DINOs Bayh and Feinstein will be well on their way to dismantling Social Security by then.
Right now, I think Obama’s only hope is if the Pukes nominate a complete loon to run against him. And even then, I think there’s a good chance a complete loon will become the 45th President of the United States. God help us all.
The enemy doesn’t care about timelines. That’s why I laugh when I hear that talking point. They just want to kill as many people as possible. Timelines or no timelines, it won’t change that fact.
It’s worth remembering, however, that “better than Bush” is not a very high hurdle to clear. The question is not whether Obama > Bush, but is he better enough? And I would say that in some ways, yes, he is; and in some ways, no, he is not.
It’s nice that he’s being patient and deliberate about the Afghanistan question (which as you point out, Bush would never do), but if he patiently and deliberately gets the wrong answer anyway – well, then I would say “the left” has every right to complain!
I think we can all agree that there’s, shall we say, a better-than-even-chance of that.
He’s already laying the groundwork for failure.
Oh, stop that.
Wow, you just read my mind. I couldn’t agree with you more on all of this. Thanks for this post!
Setting public deadlines only tells the enemy how long they have to wait it out.
Y’all said the same thing about Iraq. And you were wrong then too.
I’m so torn about this. On the one hand, I agree that the terrorist groups that attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01 thrive in failed or chaotic states, which Afghanistan is becoming. And the possibility of the Taliban coming back to power is unacceptable – they view support of Al-Quaeda as a moral imperative.
But not for nothing is Afghanistan known as the Graveyard of Empires. It’s a place that has defied outside attempts to impose order on it for millenia. And we’re going to send 30,000 of our sons and daughters there to try and do what countless others before us have failed to do.
On the other hand, I am glad to have a President that treats the decision as something very serious. And of the leadership’s obligations to the troops. That was refreshing.
Read the speech again. Obama did make mention of Pakistan. But it won’t be like Cambodia, I can assure you.
Praise for bringing home our troops after a long and pointless crusade could put him over the top in 2012. So could a rebounding economy.
Did you miss the part about drawing down troops in 2011? And the economy is rebounding even now.
Sure, I’ll grant you that. If it’s the wrong answer, it’s the wrong answer, can’t argue with that. This is, after all, the reality based community is it not, the same community to whom empiricism and rationality are so vital?
But I say this as well, for the sake of empiricism, isn’t it worth it to actually have the patience to see if it works? I mean, if the president came outright and said this will be an open ended conflict that would be one thing, but he actually puts a timeline here. There’s an honest to goodness measuring stick complete with projected end date against which we can measure progress and assess goals. That in and of itself is a world apart from anything Bush did or would have done.
The point here is that this is a situation where I would prefer to see if the plan fails in actuality as opposed to declaring it a failure before it’s begun. There’s odds and analysis and history and all kinds of other things that can form opinion, but in this moment, the decision was the President’s to make, and given that the plan has metrics sort of built in, I’ll let the outcome of that decision be the ultimate qualifier for success or failure as opposed to my own ideological beliefs.
But I want to go back to this Obama>Bush argument because it IS important, it DOES matter, and in the years I’ve spent writing left leaning politics this is the single point where liberals tend to miss the point. Winning in politics is important. Being on the winning end of the lesser of two evils is important. Beating the other side is important.
The loser of the last presidential election, within minutes of the president wrapping up his speech, complained that he thinks this should be an open ended war. His vice presidential running mate is now a key leading personality in the GOP and early presidential hopeful. She was also a driving force behind “Death Panel” narrative that persisted throughout the summer.
My point here is that, yes, the alternative is really that bad. This is something that has been a long time simmering in my mind and only coming out now as I reach a boiling point, but i don’t think people really understand how close to full on death the Republican party was. I mean, there’s talk of PURITY PLEDGES for GOP pols now. The hard base has established such a strangle hold on that party that it was in serious danger of splintering and thus on the verge of forfeiting what political power it had left. This is ages sooner than I would have ever predicted but the right really did just lose its collective shit and a centrist-leftist coalition could have put the final nail in the coffin had it just maintained its shit for one or two more election cycles.
But we can’t. And the sense of entitlement that has always bothered me about my own ideological movement has left a gaping wide opening for these far right lunatics to remain relevant.
I mean, come on, even though she supports his policies in Afghanistan because the president didn’t pay enough lip service to human rights Taylor Marsh now sees this as being a failure? Because Obama isn’t bringing everyone home RIGHT NOW the Newshoggers do not see any policy differences between Bush and Obama?
But that’s been the attitude of the Left since at least I’ve been a part of it: uncompromising to a terrible fault. Me? I just don’t think this country can run if all it is fueled by is uncompromising people. Look at that vid Oliver posted earlier at the code pink, sheehan, veteran protest.
I would go so far to say that this is my Chuck Johnson moment except the only people I hate more than liberals these days are conservatives. I REALLY hate those fuckin’ guys because they’re as bad as liberals, but I disagree with all their policies also.
I’m against the war in Afghanistan because a) I don’t see how we can “win” any longer, in any conceivable fashion and b) the inevitable collateral damage will create more terrorists.
It’s time for the US to accept that it’s been defeated, and cut its losses.
For me its been people on Twitter, as well as some liberal blogs and outlets like The Nation.
Thank you Kyle, you are not alone in your feelings. What you haven’t written here today fulls captures how I have been feeling for months now.
Winning does indeed matter and the fact that there are prominent voices on the Left openly talking this new President down is astonishing to me. Criticism is great and much needed, but full out working against self-interest (a phenomenon the Left believes occurs only on the Right) is a far different thing.
I think we all misread the Congress a year ago. The Congress has not been at all what any on the Left predicted as we all cheerlead the “50-state strategy”. Now we are seeing some of the consequences, or growing pains brought on by such a strategy and movers and shakers want to all point to the President as the problem.
It is frustrating and I don’t like either party much right now but I look around and see that one party just left a giant mess in every direction and deep and shouldn’t be trusted to govern again for at least another generation.
We on left are only doing what we did under Bush, but this time we are given more of the spotlight because for the media it’s a good, juicy conflict to report on when people on the same side are disagreeing. Compared to the 6 years were people on the left was yelling at Bush to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq the media didn’t find it interesting to report.
So all this not understanding why the left is so hard on President Obama is ridiculous.
I’m feeling pretty much like Kyle, but still thinking. One litmus test I’ve been applying all day to the left blogosphere is how much does the critic engage with the issue of Pakistan? Not to use a Hindu metaphor, but Pakistan was the elephant in the room last night. And I don’t believe I’ve seen one of any of my favorite blogs engage with that fact, indeed, most have not even mentioned it but seem content to bash Obama on the case of Afghanistan alone. Doctrinaire behavior of course is not limited to the right…
The problem is that 2011 comes after 2010, and since I expect the Democrats to lose both the Senate and House next year, I find it unlikely that Obama will be political able to fulfill those promises in the face of a Republican Congress emotionally invested in perpetual war. And the economy is rebounding for the benefit of the shareholder class. Obama has yet to achieve any tangible benefit for the rest of us, and people who are unemployed generally take it out on incumbents.
Yeah, this would make sense if the poor innocent US was attacked out of the blue on 9/11 and had to be avenged. So let’s conveniently forget that we killed at the very least half a million Iraqis BEFORE 9/11 with gulf war I and sanctions. Let’s forget that we pumped buttloads of weapons and money into Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other crappy governments that kill Muslims or make life a living hell for them. That we had legions of troops and aircraft carriers in the middle east BEFORE 9/11 because, umm, err, we’re the leaders of duh free wurld, so we’re allowed to do that. Let’s forget that we did all of this BEFORE 9/11. Then we can pretend that it happened out of the blue.
And before anyone tells me I’m being insensitive: I was IN MANHATTAN when those towers fell. Breathed the smoke. Saw the ambulances. Thought my friends were dead. If you just watched it on TV and cried, I really don’t want to hear you tell me how I Just Don’t Understand the Really Good Reason we should kill more kids and ruin more people’s lives.
Have a nice day
!
I find it unlikely that Obama will be political able to fulfill those promises in the face of a Republican Congress emotionally invested in perpetual war.
Two words, Alan: Commandern. Chief.
It’s pretty unlikely for Dems to lose both chambers, or even one. The GOP will make gains in the House and they’ll win senate races lik Arkansas, but despite the media insistence that its 1994… it isn’t.
And if there’s any sign of economic recovery by midyear, all bets are off.
‘It’s broadcasting it to the rest of the word that’s a rookie mistake.’
After years of saying the same damn thing, Bush was eventually forced to lay out a time line for Iraq; was that also a ‘rookie mistake,’ or just finally facing the reality that his wet dream of ruling Iraq forever was simply not feasible?
Isn’t it convenient to blame the entire Afghanistan issue on departed Bush and pretend that the Democrats and Liberals share no responsiblity for our present foreign issues? Or what about the gay marriage supporters who are yelling, screaming for their gay privileges while our country is experincing pressing foreign issues, world conflicts and concerns. They are actually whining because Obama is not devoting his time to their ambitions. Yet they blame society’s problems on George Bush.
Outstanding response(Kyle) to a great post(Oliver).
I’m tired of both the left and the right. The right is merely reacting to a President they don’t like. The Left is angry that the new President isn’t doing exactly what they want. Both are trying to enforce ideological purity.
Ideological purity is nonsense. You can’t apply hard ideological rules to Obama because he didn’t come in as a normal new president. His job is to clean up the mess. It is very difficult to fix all the problems in a short time.
Obama is clearly aiming for an exit from Afghanistan, but we can’t just leave. It has to be done right, or we risk endangering our soldiers in Afghanistan even more. Pulling out RIGHT NOW is not an option. Just because GWB made bad decisions that got us into this situation doesn’t mean that it’s easy to get out. Obama is not is not operating in a vacuum – he has to work the situation as it is, not as we wish it were.
I am most encouraged by the fact that Obama took the time to understand and consider the situation before making a decision. He’s a thinker and that’s what we need.
We need more honest thinkers on both the left and the right. All this political posturing just makes me sick.
I have only one question: Have any of you given any thought to what it means to say that the war on terror is “unwinnable”?
And blacks should have waited for the time to be just right for their civil rights. What an absurdly stupid thing to say.
Let me answer your question with a question: Have you given any thought to what to what “victory” in this “war” means?
A war on a concept is unwinnable. We can defeat Al Qaeda and other terror networks, however.
But not by plunking 30k more troops into Afghanistan. I’m sorry, but it’s simply not going to work. It didn’t work in Iraq, where I continue to wonder by what metric the surge there can be said to have “worked;” the country seems to be as messed-up and violent as ever, as far as I can see. And this surge is not going to be a panacea for Afghanistan, either. Unless we occupy the country forever, we will eventually leave and the dominant local culture will reassert itself.
Meanwhile, our true enemies are safely over the border in Pakistan, which we dare not tread too heavily for fear of toppling its fragile government and thus risk handing nuclear weapons to the extremists. I seem to remember the President campaigning on a policy of going after Osama bin Laden even in Pakistan, even over the objections of the Pakistani government if we knew where he was and they were unwilling to get him themselves. Well, we know where he is (to about the best degree we ever will, short of a ground search), and we’re not going after him over the objections of the Pakistani government, so so much for that promise. Yes, I know the reason we’re not going after him (as I said, we don’t want to topple the government); but nevertheless, this is yet another campaign promise not delivered on.
The only positive aspect of the President’s speech, for me, was the 18-month timeline. At least if he sticks to that, we have an end to this exercise in sanguinary futility in sight. We’ve been in there far too long already.
I’m not disagreeing that 9/11 had a context, but are you forgetting that Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, or do you think that invasion was either justified or not something that the United States should have worried about?
Oliver, I think you seriously underestimate the likelihood of electoral disaster in 2010. If we pass a health care bill with no public option, toothless regulations and a mandate that poor uninsured Americans waste what little money they have on shitty insurance policies that won’t actually provide any meaningful benefits in case of accident or injury, then I fully expect to see the Democrats lose Congress. And then, it’s on to impeachment in 2012(for what trumped up reason, only God and Glenn Beck know).
My recollection was that the invasion of Kuwait was something the Bush I Administration approved of until they abruptly changed their mind and decided that their puppet, Saddam Hussein, was the new Hitler.
I certainly have: By killing as many terrorists as possible, you make them ineffective. By introducing freedom, democracy, and most importantly, capitalism, you can insure that the terrorists will not have a “sea of people” to swim in.
You took Bush’s nonsensical, cliched ramblings a bit too close to heart, Frank. Short on style, shorter on substance.
Also, I thought you were leaving.
I could not believe how blithely it was being suggested that a “war on terrorism” was “unwinnable”, as if no one recognized that, if that were so, we here in America would be living like they do in Israel. We would be accepting the fact that things could be blown up and people killed, at any time. Apparently, you were suggesting that you could live with that. As usual, Mambo, you have nothing to say. And you and your colleagues here, can’t get over the erroneous notions that a) Non – liberals only lack sufficient information to be liberals; and b) that everyone would automatically be happier if they possessed the liberal mindset.
I am leaving, and if I follow this blog, I may make a comment or two. No more running flame wars with potty – mouthed sophomoric pseduo – intellectuals, such as yourself, Mambo.
I am leaving, and if I follow this blog, I may make a comment or two.
Contradicting yourself within the same sentence. Good work, dummy.
Get out of here already, Frank. No one likes or respects you here. If your internet persona is anything like the way you are in real life, then I imagine that no one likes or respects you in the real world, either. I feel sorry for your children – no child should have to grow up knowing that his father is a dried-up, crotchety know-nothing who commands no respect from his fellow man. Your children and your God are ashamed of you.
I am leaving, and if I follow this blog, I may make a comment or two.
Promises, promises.
I am leaving, and if I follow this blog, I may make a comment or two.
Frank to OW: I can’t quit you.
Seriously, though, Frank, you must not have noticed that Israel’s response to terrorism has been exactly what you advocate, and yet it has not solved their problem with regards to the Palestinians. If anything, it’s made things worse.
And if we were simply and surgically killing just terrorists, that might actually be plausible– but in our ham-fisted little war on
countries with large oil deposits and citizens roughly the same color as those who actually attacked usterror, we’ve killed (and tortured!) a healthy number of civilians, and by golly, those silly brown people just don’t have the intestinal fortitude to muster the same “well, you gotta break a few eggs…” attitude about themselves that conservatives do. What a bunch of short-sighted pussies!And I haven’t been around this blog a long time, but isn’t it kind of intellectually dishonest to accuse people here of being potty-mouthed when, in your…um… last last post ever, you dropped (by my count) one “bullshit”, six “assholes”, and five f-bomb variants?
Hypocrite and a drama queen? Damn, that’s a bad combination…
“By killing as many terrorists as possible, you make them ineffective.”
No, you make them martyrs. Hell, they don’t care about killing themselves, Frank! And it certainly rallies their base.
They do breed in the fetid swamp of poverty, rage and resentment, fueled by ignorance and thousand year old hatreds. They evaporate in the light of prosperity and progress. Soldiers and bombs dropped from drones aren’t quite the right tool for that.
I’m always struck how the right always accuses the left of not being able to deal with reality. Well, the reality is this isn’t WWII, which is the narrative that the right seems to present to us again and again. But pretending that we knock out the bad guys and let civilization resume is folly. In a lot of ways, WWII spoiled us. Thinking our superior military could swan in (once the field had been softened by 3 years of others’ bloodshed, may I add) conduct an outstanding series of military missions, root out the evil and let peace take hold. Nothing since has fit that model, and we keep making mistakes like not realizing the Vietnam civil war had nothing to do with us, and that military might was the wrong answer to the wrong question.
All of this has me wondering what the military is supposed to do in Afghanistan right now. Soften the place up some more, I suppose. So we can get the fuck out and let it fall back into anarchy. And it will be as if the past 8 years never happened.
I mean, god forbid we be proactive and participate in long term nation building, perhaps even multilateral nation building. Wear the blue helmets. Build some bridges or aqueducts or schools or whatever. Show the local populace what prosperity might be like. But all we know is blowing shit up. The only response we have is to launch D-day again and again. It worked in 1944, and we are mystified that the same play doesn’t work against a different team. Well, the other team has our one play figured out, and have turned it against us. And the more we try to kill them, the more they win.
I say we just open a fully stocked frickin Six Flags of America in Kabul, Peshawar, Baghdad and Kirkuk, provide the locals with big screen TVs, IPhones, X boxes and numb them into complacency. It’d be cheaper.
I’m sure Israelis thought the war against the Palestinians was winnable too, and it has been decades of misery for a lot of people. It’s your kind of “win at all costs” hubris that creates this misery.
Im beginning to think we should just get the f*ck out and learn to live with the threat the rest of the world lives with, while working towards long term prosperity for the people the terrorists exploit. So, we’ll be putting our liquids and gels into checked baggage for the forseeable future. Is that so terrible? Others live with a lot worse.
I think in a way Obama’s surge is just that.. an honorable way to star disengaging. Fine with me. As long as we stay engaged on other fronts.
Perhaps your question should be ‘What does Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with any so called war on terror?’
They both appear to have more to do with corporate interests than anything else. They might more realistically be called part of the ‘war for profits and resources.’
Both Iraq and Afghanistan had Capitalism, but not even the US truly has freedom or Democracy.
What makes you think America can install them in areas of the world that despises foreign invaders and occupiers?
‘We would be accepting the fact that things could be blown up and people killed, at any time. Apparently, you were suggesting that you could live with that’
You already DO live with that; people are killed for no damn reason all the time in the US.
Do you have a cite for that? I’m trying to envision the scenario where James Baker would have decided that it was acceptable to let Saddam Hussein substantially increase the volume of the world’s oil under his control, and I’m just not seeing it. I don’t dispute that we had supported him in the Iran-Iraq war, or that his military capability pre-1990 was due in significant part to U.S. largess.