Report from Kabul Hill

GATEMOUTH (4/14/06): In the end, I want a member of Congress who’s wrestled with, and lost sleep over the question of under which circumstances the deployment of American forces in battle is justified. “Just say no” is not an adequate answer...

GATEMOUTH (1/20/09): I am thankful to those on the left, like Katrina vanden Heuvel, who supported Obama understanding that he differed with them on the use of residual forces in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, and the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am also thankful to those on the left who supported Obama in part because they didn’t realize he held those positions, or believed Obama didn‘t really mean what he said and was really one of them. Clearly, in the crazed atmosphere of the Bush administration‘s unilateral imbecility, Obama was the right choice for such people, as well as for those holding views closer to my own.

But, those who expected a foreign policy team of “progressives” and instead had to settle for a team of rivals comprised of realists and liberal internationalists, should be thankful (as I am) that there are no neo-cons, and understand that they are on now on notice; when, at the beginning of our great nightmare in Iraq, Barack Obama told an antiwar rally. “I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances….After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again,” he really meant it.

Perhaps the vanden Heuvals will explain to their less savvy allies that they are allowed to feel anger, but not betrayal.

Unexpectedly, the first salvo I received over the internet came yesterday morning from one of Brownstone Brooklyn’s last living moderate Republicans. Tellingly, it was entitled “Michael Moore and Me.”

JOE: Obama deserves to be HAMMERED today and tomorrow by the media -- this bubble has got to end.

After dawdling for 92 days (deftly 'spun' as thoughtful deliberation...) -- our President sends 30,000 more troops beginning around Christmas to next June. This after sending 21,000 earlier this year (which may have triggered the need for spin, of thoughtful deliberation). That's 51,000 new troops in 12 months (70% increase) for a man that ran AGAINST war -- and there's no word on OBL or even Pakistan's foibles like in '08, right?

GATE: Joe, you have the right to disagree with the policy, but not the right to declare that the country was fooled. Obama was crystal clear about Afghanistan/Pakistan to anyone who actually listened.

The deliberation that went into this decision, the fact that it will alienate his supporters, and was not done eagerly makes me more likely to believe that the President weighed his bad options and picked what was clearly the best of them, in spite of the fact his choice will prove to be wildly unpopular.

However, the benefit of my doubts has its limits. So, I’m with the President only for the time being.

The dialogue continued after the speech.

JOE: Obama made fairly direct campaign promises about changing the course of these 2 very unpopular wars. (He hasn't brought in OBL, either.) The troops have been raised over 100% in Afghanistan in his Admins. -- and there's no one reporting what the per month/billions will be, across the next 1/2 year, etc. The White House cannot blame Bush, now.. I believe this is it,the Honeymoon is over tonight.

I'm against this troop build-up and the soft-toss at the UN - when this should, by now, be a near fully UN sponsored operation and that the Afghans are inept, and we have a New Team in DC that should have realized this and made the All of None decision long before now. GB and Germany have been questioning Obama's delays, which was eye-opening. Taking 3 months, should have (to me) meant the USA was changing its course.

Taking 3+ months when there's troops there throughout, if they need the new support as its argued/decided, isn't helped by that passage of wasted time, logically -- especially when there's a 2-5 month delay in amassing them, there/deployed... makes it appear worse, that he's sending them (for waiting).

You should know I'm not a 'homer' for anyone or any party, etc. You should know that in 2003 and 2004 I was ALL OVER both GWB and JFKerry for their nonsense/debated over the "armor" on Humvees that are desert transport, while 80% of the DEATHs in Iraq were attributed to bombs/Humvees (and the retrofit was taking years - while they could have BUILT and shipped actual air conditioned Armored Trucks and Armed Personnel carriers, across those years). I know you couldn't have like the word "dawdling" - but there was no such hesitation the 1st time around for the 21,000 troops (which was a 40% increase, then) and now I believe that the delay was purely a PR stunt, to make it seem like he's agonizing (as much as that's possible, from his 2 weeks at Cape Cod to being in a tuxedo, 2-3x a week)... Military families watch 10x more acutely, than the rest of us, because they sleep every night in anxiety -- and know that it's not shared. Not by the golfing frat-boy that left, and not across a 3 month delay and a decision to stretch tours of duty, again.

GATE: As to the delay, maybe. But act in haste, repent in leisure.

It is his war now. And it is a change in policy. The right change? Dunno, but a change nonetheless. Like anyone else in his circumstances, he had to deal with the facts on the ground as he found them. We may have went in for the right reasons, but as in “Charlie Wilson's War,” we ultimately botched the operation. I suppose we could have left, but I'm not sure what we would have left would have been in any way cutting anyone's loses--we broke it and so we bought it.

The present policy was clearly unsustainable, and I, for one don't think the American people would stand still for any further open-endedness. And, after all, we are a democratic polity, so a policy without support cannot be sustained over the long haul. As such, I'm willing to support this, with trepidations galore.

I noticed Maxine Waters last night citing the wisdom of Congresswoman Barbara Lee to justify her stance against Obama‘s policy. Barbara Lee happens to have been the one member of Congress who voted against going after Bin Laden after my city was attacked. I do not consider her opposition (based not on pragmatism, but on “just say no” pacifism) to be visionary, and I am proud to be on her opposite side.

However, Waters was really no worse than Georgia Republican Jack Brinkley complaining:

“After three months of indecision, the President now comes up short of what his hand-picked commanding general requested.”

Yeah, Jack, the ELECTED leader of our nation listened to all the advisers WHO WORK FOR HIM, and then made the choice HE felt was best.

America, what a country!



Submitted by Mike Boyajian (not verified) on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 9:24am.
I am right with you, the president gave us a frank and honest appraisal of the situation in Afghanistan and stated why we need more troops and then did the right thing and stated that there would be an exit in July 2011.  Far better than all the lies we had been told by the previous administration and their neo con advisors.
Submitted by That Joe (Nardiello) (not verified) on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 2:30am.

 

War is not the answer, because only love can conquer ha-ate... 

Seriously, we really do need to "find another way".  Thank you, but there's no moderating my opinion here. We all respect our Forces. But bring them home. This country is tired of overseas war without end, of the pretense and the forgetfulness of everyday life that passes days, weeks and months if not years -- and media that doesn't report the news anymore, as if it stopped with the Obama inauguration. Our soldiers are Over There. Our allies are confused, the UN peackeeping doesn't seem important to bring up at White House press conference and diplomacy with Pakistan, Russia, China, India didn't seem, by any stretch -- to have come up for policing that region with India, being I heard they were in DC last week...

I was raised in the Vietnam Era of protest -- and there should be some right now. This isn't the time for escalation. (And the national GOP, should kick Cheney's hawkish nonsense to the curb - and actually become the exact same Opposition Party that the Democrats were under GWB for that matter, if Obama's going to continue this. Wouldn't THAT turnabout be something else to behold.) But also, it IS the time that our collective media should begin to pretend this Adminstration needs to be questioned, and the plug pulled from the teleprompter for real answers. There was no explanation. GWB's speech targeted a region, a push to bombard and attack and clear-away murderers and dangers to Iraqis. What is this all about? The USA is going to take 6 months to ferry 30,000 troops, only to begin leaving one year later - then why wasn't this begun from June, so it could have ended by next year? This doesn't make any sense.

Is Obama promising Osama's head on a pike? then?... is the USA going to kill tribal leaders, will we obliterate or ignore the opium fiefdoms that rule the country? Is organized crime ok, there, being its their culture? what about women's rights, or can't that be mentioned either anymore? are we nation building? are we building cars there or bringing industry and elevating the 219th or so worst world economy? 

Who, what, when and where? If 30,000 can't be done until next June, than does that mean all is well, right now? And in Jan. and Feb. and March they don't need more troops? And this Administration raised the troop levels and then tucked the issue out of sight... to delay and then spin another 30,000. Speech, smiles, spin.

For years -- these wars were bad ideas for the Democrats' perspective overall and what's changed? 51,000 troops pledged/being sent, that's what. Calling it Obama's War isn't enough. Our former President was called a fool for not being able to find Osama. We needed to get out of Iraq, remember. We heard JFKerry say "quagmire" again. We heard candidates say that we needed to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- and now that we've got one of those candidates as President, why isn't anyone holding him to it? where are all the elected leaders that wanted out, and why weren't they piping up last week, last month when the idea may have been more strongly advocated?

Fact is -- this IS an escalation and if this was a GWB saying it, there's not a journalist worth his salt that would have been using the word "Vietnam" and reflecting back on the Soviets again in Afghanistan, vs. finding ways to say nicely that our President must have really deliberated, being it took him 3 months to say OK to another 30,000 (because, the sale pitch was for 40k and he reduced that conjured figure by a sum that makes him a hero for actual reduction -- spin).

Afghanistan isn't Iraq. Why is our media trying to connect this with GWB's "surge" - because it was successful? There's STILL carnage and bombings and terrorism in Iraq. Hand over the keys, and step away. Our enemy was in Afghanistan years ago, and who's funding an opponent there - that we need to spend $5-6-7 billion now per month to defeat them?

Just bring them all home, so the blackout of news coverage from those two countries in our mainstream media can be warranted.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.