Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Lessons of (a Little) More
As much as I hate to say it, folks, the President's decision to send those 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan is starting to look quite political; the troop surge itself serving to protect him from accusations of weakness, the 18 month time-table serving to insulate him from his liberal base. And, yes, because it's political, it's also highly unlikely that it'll succeed (this, in that, no, split the difference approaches - especially when it comes to war making - rarely do)..................................................................................................I don't know, folks - to me, it seems like the President has but two viable options here; a) commit to a long (5-10 year) counterinsurgency (one in fact that would probably take MORE than the 30,000 troop increase he's asked for) or b) do what his often maligned vice president suggested - execute a counter terrorism approach (which also happens to be what I favor); air power, special ops, intelligence, advanced technology, etc.. He obviously decided to do neither - trying instead to thread the needle/please virtually everybody. It's all terribly disappointing, folks - especially, ESPECIALLY, coming from fellow who claimed to be a different type of politician.........................................................................................................P.S. To those of you who'd say that this decision is only an example of Obama's "post-partisan" approach, I would counter by saying that war (unlike, say, an appropriations bill) is something that you either DO or you DON'T. Half-hearted compromises just don't cut it. Just ask Nixon/L.B.J..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Will,
I absolutely agree,a political decision.
Don't know if you have kids,but when there's an age difference and you try to find a middle ground between the 10 year old who wants to go to the park and the 14 year old who wants to go to the mall, whichever compromise you decide upon won't work. End result is always two unhappy kids who think you favor the other one.
Obama's probably a suck parent too.
That's a very interesting analogy. My suspicion, though, is that Obama is probably a far better parent and husband than he is (so far, anyway) commander in chief. Better than Tiger Woods, anyway.
Will,
Tell me if you think this makes sense.I consider Obama far more qualified to be president than Bush.Not beliefs or ideology,more like intellectual curiosity and grasp of issues.
But I think both were in over their heads,Clinton too.
I would look at LBJ or Nixon, or even Daddy Bush as more qualified.
LBG and Nixon came up thru the ranks, pretty much.Party politics,infighting.Not creatures of the media.
You could probably research it and show all in all they weren't any better,I guess.
But it's a feeling I have.Has nothing to do with age, JFK was 43 I think when he became president.Had family $ like the Bushes but JFK also was a political infighter.
Top 10 works for me for Sophia,I was just googling her image. Oh man.
Yeah, I agree as well about Obama's decision. Right after the election someone, who I can't remember, said Obama was like a college professor who was the head of his department. The idea being that Obama likes to bring his junior professors together and build a consenus over important matters. At the time I didn't really think much of that comparsion but now, to me, that is looking like the case and since he appears to defer to Congress wanting to build that consenus I have grave concerns about his ability to get any of the changes and reforms accomplished.
The problem we all know is that while it may be a bitch to get egotisical professors to agree on anything this approach does not work in a national political arena. I'm coming to the conclusion that unless Obama quickly pulls his head out his ass and shows the energy and drive that got him the job he will be looking for another in 2013. Even then, it might already be too late.
All things considered knowing what I do now, I would still vote for the man. I don't believe Hillary would have been any better, actually maybe worse, and McCain of 2008 sold his soul to the far right and I won't say anymore on that. And you know, I still don't think Mccain would have done much different on the bailouts and other economic measures.
As for Afghanistan, in the end I see us nuking the place cause we will pull out at some point and the place will go back to the way its been for thousands of years.
I agree, double b, Obama was the best of the final three. For a while I thought that maybe the McCain of 2000 would have been better. But then I realized that, for whatever redeeming qualities he may have had as a maverick/domestic reformer, he has always been a hawk/shoot first-ask questions later type. Biden, for all of his stumbling and bumbling, seems to be a prudent guy. Maybe HE would have been better....or not.........................I hear what you're saying, Oso. But I have to admit, Clinton is looking pretty darn good. Granted, he didn't face the crises of his successors but, still, balanced budgets, no wars. I hate to say it. But those were the good old days.
Will,
good old days.I've got a wan smile as I type this because you're exactly right. even the bubble under Clinton pretty much was restricted to the investment types rather than spreading to homeowners and what had previously been prudent sources like pension funds.
although the bubble with its private spending and tax flow helped Bill out a lot.
Post a Comment