The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Didn't Obama know this when he was running for office? Didn't the voters? What's changed here?

Molson, please comment on my post about where I stand on things be it in agreement with me, or as a slam. thanks

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm pretty sure Obama ran on a platform of "winning" in Afghanistan which I assumed would mean the addition of more troops once he pulled them out of Iraq (can't remember if he ever said that explicitly).

You might want to let his liberal base know that's actually a part of winning a war. I don't think moderates and conservatives are the ones complaining about adding troops outside of the hypocrisy when compared to his earlier rhetoric as a senator.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You might want to let his liberal base know that's actually a part of winning a war. I don't think moderates and conservatives are the ones complaining about adding troops outside of the hypocrisy when compared to his earlier rhetoric as a senator.

Please see Will, George

[Flasch186]

this from July 6th

If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

"It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists.

Obama, McCain split over Afghan strategy - The Boston Globe

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Didn't Obama know this when he was running for office? Didn't the voters? What's changed here?

July 15, 2008:

In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Molson, please comment on my post about where I stand on things be it in agreement with me, or as a slam. thanks

I don't understand the request.

I just have my perception, I could be wrong.

[Flasch186]

fair enough.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You might want to let his liberal base know that's actually a part of winning a war.

Given that it was a conservative President, supported by a gung-ho conservative base, that completely fucked up two wars, I'm not sure it's the left that's in dire need of education at this point.

But, you know, point taken. I'll let my brother, part of Obama's liberal base, who just happened to serve in Iraq, know that you think he doesn't know what it takes to win a war.

[molson]

I never really understood why Iraq was so obviously the wrong war and Afghanistan was so obviously "right".

Aside from the issues about how we got there (which are major issues), what's the difference?

The Iraq administration had actually killed tens of thousands of people with WMDs. The Taliban has closer ties to actual terroists, but had far less to actually offer them.

What will "victory" in Afghanistan accomplish that victory in Iraq won't? The goal is a stable democratic state in both instances.

And I say that even wishing, in retrospect, that we went harder at Afghanistan and ignored Iraq. But I don't even know why I feel that way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Pragmatism. As far as Al-Qaeda and the war on terror goes, a stable regime in Afghanistan does more for the US than a stable regime in Iraq.

[larrymcg421]

Afghanistan harbored someone who directly attacked us and refused to hand him over.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Please see Will, George

...and Coulter, Anne

...and Buchanan, Pat

...and Blankley, Tony


Sweeping generalizations are bad, mmkay?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Pragmatism. As far as Al-Qaeda and the war on terror goes, a stable regime in Afghanistan does more for the US than a stable regime in Iraq.

Could be, but I have no idea why.

Even Michael Moore supported the Afghanistan war. Even though, on paper, it's a tougher war to win than Iraq. I'm not convinced that if there was no Iraq, Afghanistan would be like Denmark at this point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Afghanistan harbored someone who directly attacked us and refused to hand him over.

And that guy's not there anymore (at least in the part that's really "Afghanistan".) Hasn't been for years.

If that's all the war is about - why haven't we invaded Pakistan?

And how do you "win" a war you started because someone wasn't handed over? Aside from the obvious, get them to hand him over, which doesn't seem like a relevant goal right now.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

And that guy's not there anymore (at least in the part that's really "Afghanistan". Hasn't been for years.

If that's all the war is about - why haven't we invaded Pakistan?

IMO once the Karzai government was established we had "won" and we should have started getting out. Now we're in a situation where we'll eventually lose to some degree because we can't define victory. There isn't any way to eliminate the Taliban or to ensure a stable democracy in Afghanistan. One of the lessons of history that the U.S. is loath to learn is when to declre victory and go home.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

IMO once the Karzai government was established we had "won" and we should have started getting out. Now we're in a situation where we'll eventually lose to some degree because we can't define victory. There isn't any way to eliminate the Taliban or to ensure a stable democracy in Afghanistan. One of the lessons of history that the U.S. is loath to learn is when to declre victory and go home.

Agreed - I think the war was really about revenge, which is fine, certainly everyone wanted that at the time. Kill as many taliban as you can and leave. If they come back, kill some more.

It's not like Iraq, where the military goal (in theory) is occupation, and if you leave too early, you have to go and occupy again, which is a messy job.

We're coming up on 8 years Afghanistan. We'll definitely surpass the Soviet war there, in terms of length. All because the Taliban wouldn't hand over OBL? Really? I think in time, the Iraq war will have proved to have accomplished more.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Even Michael Moore supported the Afghanistan war. Even though, on paper, it's a tougher war to win than Iraq.

Why is this relevant? Were we given a choice of Afghanistan or Iraq?

I'm sorry, but it was pretty cut and dry to everyone. AQ attacks the U.S. AQ is clearly based in Afghanistan where they have carte blanche to operate without restriction by the local rulers, the Taliban. U.S. demands that the Taliban hand over bin Laden & AQ. Taliban refuses. U.S. invades.

The goal was to depose the Taliban, oust AQ from the country and capture key AQ leaders, such as bin Laden. This goal was compromised by the misadventure in Iraq siphoning needed forces from the campaign.

That's the facts. Anything else is simply revisionist history.

I'm not convinced that if there was no Iraq, Afghanistan would be like Denmark at this point.

Now that's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying you're not convinced that Matt Sanchez will be like Peyton Manning this year, when really all the Jets need him to be is Joe Flacco.

Without Iraq, there's a pretty good argument (based on the non-availability of specific forces at specific times) that the above goals could have been achieved by now. Afghanistan may not have been Denmark by now, but it certainly could have been Pakistan-lite by now.

Originally Posted by molson

And that guy's not there anymore (at least in the part that's really "Afghanistan".) Hasn't been for years.

He's been in the border regions of Pakistan for a while because up until recently Pakistan didn't enforce its rule in those regions, so he had more freedom there than in Afghanistan. Were Pakistan to exert more influence in that region and the Taliban make advances in parts of Afghanistan, I'm sure he'd be back over what's a pretty immaterial border at this point.

If that's all the war is about - why haven't we invaded Pakistan?

Don't be obtuse. Surely you've read about the recent successes by joint U.S.-Pakistani operations in the Pakistani border regions?

[larrymcg421]

We already fought a (covert) war in Afghanistan, and leaving once the basic goal was finished was a mistake that pretty much led to the current state the country is in now. Leaving now and letting the Taliban expand would be pretty dangerous and stupid, IMO.

[flere-imsaho]

Oh come on, this isn't rocket science.

The goal of the Afghanistan war has always been to create a situation where it's impossible for AQ to operate with impunity in that country. This goal should have been quickly achieved by the deposition of the Taliban and installation of a government strong enough to deny the Taliban (& AQ) re-entry into the region, but was short-circuited by the Iraq adventure, so that government never got the head-start it needed on the provision of security.

The goal remains the same, but it is considerably tougher now.

[larrymcg421]

Oh and I'm pretty sure Obama promised to bomb the fuck out of Pakistan if they didn't help us or got in our way. I remember McCain criticizing him for saying that during the debates.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed - I think the war was really about revenge, which is fine, certainly everyone wanted that at the time. Kill as many taliban as you can and leave. If they come back, kill some more.

If that's all the war was about, we would've just lobbed some missiles in.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Afghanistan may not have been Denmark by now, but it certainly could have been Pakistan-lite by now.

I admit that my Denmark comment was a silly exageration, but now THAT'S a ridiculous assertion.

You said that the "the was to depose the Taliban, oust AQ from the country and capture key AQ leaders, such as bin Laden".

Wasn't this all done, as far as practically possible, before the Iraq war even started? If not, how much longer, past 2003, would it have taken (without Iraq)?

These military objectives are so vague and they can't ever really be accomplished. If we didn't go to Iraq, we would still be in Afghanistan today, chasing vague military objectives. We might have left in the meantime (for home, instead of Iraq), but we wouldn't have extinguished Islamic fundamentalism and the Taliban completely.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The hope would be that the country would have been stable enough to keep the Taliban's resurgence at bay itself.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If that's all the war was about, we would've just lobbed some missiles in.

That's pretty much what we did.

The problem is that our strategy didn't quite match up with our objectives.

If you wanted the Taliban gone forever, you have to occupy. If you're only concerned with killing them, and reducing their danger to the world, missles would do just fine.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The hope would be that the country would have been stable enough to keep the Taliban's resurgence at bay itself.

What does whether it was or not have to do with the Iraq war?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well, in order to stabilize Afghanistan you would need manpower which we didn't have because they were fighting elsewhere.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, in order to stabilize Afghanistan you would need manpower which we didn't have because they were fighting elsewhere.

I wonder if the American people would have stomached a lengthy occupation in Afghanistan. As much as Iraq diverted our resources, it did the same for Al-Qaeda and related groups. Without Iraq, Afghanistan would have been the site of the holy war and islamic resistence, just as it was in the 80s. It would have been a bloodbath.

And if it wasn't, we wouldn't have had so much more manpower there anyway, regardless of Iraq.

So either Afghanistan would have been drawn out and bloody, or it would have been secure, in which case we wouldn't have sent more troops there anyway (until later, during the next Taliban uprising)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if the American people would have stomached a lengthy occupation in Afghanistan. How much more manpower would we have had? It was pretty well believed in around 2003ish that the Afghan war was over. Would we really have had signficantly more troops there without Iraq?

Well, I certainly feel we would have had significantly more. Whether it would have been 'enough' is up for debate, and the question is really unanswerable.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Wasn't this all done, as far as practically possible, before the Iraq war even started?

Originally Posted by molson

Without Iraq, Afghanistan would have been the site of the holy war and islamic resistence, just as it was in the 80s. It would have been a bloodbath.

How do you square these two statements?

Prior to Iraq, the Taliban & AQ were ousted and there certainly wasn't much in the way of holy war or Islamic resistance. Perhaps we should have left then, and let Karzai be the dictator he always was going to be, but Bush surely couldn't leave without catching bin Laden (though, again, it was Rumsfeld's incompetence that led bin Laden get away).


Anyway, I still don't think it's wise to compare the two. If you summarily left Iraq, for instance, you probably ended up with an Iranian client state. But honestly, I think the good money is still on Iraq being effectively an Iranian client state in a few years, if it isn't already.

If you summarily leave Afghanistan now, the Taliban probably take it back, and that both a) gives AQ a base of operations again (they really don't have much of one now, now that the Iraqis kicked them back out of Iraq) and b) destabilizes Pakistan, which no one in the region wants.

It's more apples and oranges than apples and apples.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given that it was a conservative President, supported by a gung-ho conservative base, that completely fucked up two wars, I'm not sure it's the left that's in dire need of education at this point.

But, you know, point taken. I'll let my brother, part of Obama's liberal base, who just happened to serve in Iraq, know that you think he doesn't know what it takes to win a war.

So your brother believes that a reduction of troops is essential to finishing off this conflict? I'm thankful that he served our country, but I'll agree with Obama anyday from a strategy perspective. We need more troops. I'm only opposed to the increase use of contractors, which I didn't even like under Bush. I'm not opposed to the increase.

The liberal base wanted a drawdown of troops, which is exactly the opposite of what's needed.

Also, people are quoting Obama's comments from the campaign in response to my hypocrisy comment. I'm not talking about his campaign comments when I call out his hypocrisy. I'm talking about his unwillingness to fund the troops and fund the surge in Iraq when it was obviously needed to save lives. The surge worked despite Obama's unwillingness to support it.

[Flasch186]

the base wanted a drawdown in Iraq.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the base wanted a drawdown in Iraq.

Which was obviously the wrong approach. The surge did wonders for that situation. A reduction of troops in 2006-2007 as Obama and other democrats wanted would have left us with two messes rather than one. I'm not going to justify how we got in Iraq, but to ignore the fact that the surge turned out to be a very effective method in Iraq is silly.

[Flasch186]

I was talking now, after the campaign. You know the one in which you predicted MCCain would win, how awesome a pick Palin was to get the 'win' and quoted polling data showing the tide had turned.

Obviously the surge worked...thank god.

How do you jive talking about "his liberal base" and than quote him from the Senate before the "base" even knew he'd be their choice to run for Pres.? Your choice of timeline is convenient.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which was obviously the wrong approach. The surge did wonders for that situation. A reduction of troops in 2006-2007 as Obama and other democrats wanted would have left us with two messes rather than one. I'm not going to justify how we got in Iraq, but to ignore the fact that the surge turned out to be a very effective method in Iraq is silly.

The surge certainly reduced violence, but the big political questions weren't resolved. The Kurds are still almost a separate state and the Sunni's haven't been integrated into the security apparatus and there have been a number of high casualty attacks since the U.S. left the cities. It's still very much an open question whether the surge permanently changed the dynamics in Iraq or was merely a temporary reprieve.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The surge certainly reduced violence, but the big political questions weren't resolved. The Kurds are still almost a separate state and the Sunni's haven't been integrated into the security apparatus and there have been a number of high casualty attacks since the U.S. left the cities. It's still very much an open question whether the surge permanently changed the dynamics in Iraq or was merely a temporary reprieve.

Yes, but you know as well as I do that we'd never change those dynamics. We've put it back into a position where it's relatively stable. They now have the opportunity to work those things out should they choose to do so. We can only hold their hand for so long.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if the American people would have stomached a lengthy occupation in Afghanistan. As much as Iraq diverted our resources, it did the same for Al-Qaeda and related groups. Without Iraq, Afghanistan would have been the site of the holy war and islamic resistence, just as it was in the 80s. It would have been a bloodbath.

And if it wasn't, we wouldn't have had so much more manpower there anyway, regardless of Iraq.

So either Afghanistan would have been drawn out and bloody, or it would have been secure, in which case we wouldn't have sent more troops there anyway (until later, during the next Taliban uprising)

You can't equate the resistance to the Soviets with anything the U.S. might have faced. Without the support of the CIA the Afghan resistance was little more than a nuisance for the Soviets. They were only able to bloody the Soviets to the degree they did because of U.S. purchased weaponry, primarily surface to air missiles. There is currently nothing like that level of state support for any resistance. They can hold out for years, and I don't think we can accomplish much more than we already have, but I don't think it could ever get as bloody as it did during the eighties.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if Obama can get through two whole terms with his supporters just blaming the previous administrations for any of his own struggles and problems.

I don't think the campaign rhetoric was along the lines of - "change we can believe in - except for stuff involving other countries. That will still suck but it will be Bush's fault, not mine."

I would see that more of an excuse of "hey, this is going to take time to correct because the hole we are in is so deep". I mean, the man hasn't even been in office a year yet.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How do you square these two statements?

Prior to Iraq, the Taliban & AQ were ousted and there certainly wasn't much in the way of holy war or Islamic resistance. Perhaps we should have left then, and let Karzai be the dictator he always was going to be, but Bush surely couldn't leave without catching bin Laden (though, again, it was Rumsfeld's incompetence that led bin Laden get away).

Anyway, I still don't think it's wise to compare the two. If you summarily left Iraq, for instance, you probably ended up with an Iranian client state. But honestly, I think the good money is still on Iraq being effectively an Iranian client state in a few years, if it isn't already.

If you summarily leave Afghanistan now, the Taliban probably take it back, and that both a) gives AQ a base of operations again (they really don't have much of one now, now that the Iraqis kicked them back out of Iraq) and b) destabilizes Pakistan, which no one in the region wants.

It's more apples and oranges than apples and apples.

Ya, I'm definitely talking in inconsistencies here, as I don't fully understand it, just talking out loud.

You're right that prior to Iraq, Afghanistan seemed settled. So what exactly did Iraq take resources from? Would we have just maintained a massive occupying force in Afghanistan? Is that what people think we should have done, or more relevantly, is that what they wanted us to do at the time? I don't remember Democrats arguing for a massive occupying force in Afghannistan at the time.

Without that massive force (which would have invited fierce, ongoing resistence, of course), then the Taliban would have regrouped and become a problem again anyway, right? We left for Iraq, but without Iraq, wouldn't we have just left for home?

[JPhillips]

I think what you're getting at is that our strategy after the Taliban was deposed and Karzai installed wasn't clearly defined. (and still isn't)

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I would see that more of an excuse of "hey, this is going to take time to correct because the hole we are in is so deep". I mean, the man hasn't even been in office a year yet.

SI

The campaign rhetoric was just over-the-top though, both from Obama and his supporters. Everything's so practical and reasoned now in comparison. Which is good, it just makes me resent that campaign so much more. He came in promising the world and has unsuprisingly settled for what's actually possible.

Renedition is awful! (but we'll still do it). We will immediately begin a phased withdraw from Iraq! (eventually, but now that I talk to these generals, it's going to take longer than I thought, let's go with the regular plan that everyone agreed with anyway). We will close GITMO (geez, there was some stuff I didn't consider here too, this is going to take some time). We will reform our legal process for foreign prisoners! (Hmm, civilian courts were a bad idea after all, let's not change much), torture is bad! (let's investigate the previous administration to make them look bad, but not actually do anything to reduce torture going forward)

And yes, it hasn't even been a year, and this is based somewhat a prediction on how the next 2-3 years will go.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So your point is that candidates make promises during campaigns that either they can't or don't intend to keep?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think what you're getting at is that our strategy after the Taliban was deposed and Karzai installed wasn't clearly defined. (and still isn't)

That sounds right.

And that because of that lack of a defined strategy - I don't think not going to war with Iraq would have made any difference.

It's funny, people crap all over the Bush administration when it comes to how the war was fought in Iraq, but assume that without that, they would have waged a perfect war with a defined strategy in Afghanistan. Isn't it likely that things would be messy there regardless?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So your point is that candidates make promises during campaigns that either they can't or don't intend to keep?

Yes.

I also want to make the point that the sky is blue.

But seriously, it's still painful to see people buy into the rhetoric, and it still causes me to hate those that intentionally mislead them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So your point is that candidates make promises during campaigns that either they can't or don't intend to keep?

Isn't the point that Obama was supposed to be different, and that all these things were items Bush was bashed for but Obama seems to be admitting were maybe the right thing to do anyway?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well, to be fair you would have to distinguish between that which Obama has chosen to continue, and that which he tried to change and failed for political reasons (mainly Gitmo/due process).

And isn't attacking the bright eyed liberals who saw Obama as different kind of aiming at low hanging fruit?

[Arles]

I think the point is that it's easy to throw stones at the currently military situation/strategy in a campaign, but the reality was that Bush/McCain/Obama were all going to take roughly the same steps in regards to Iraq or Afghanistan - regardless of campaign rhetoric.

To be honest, it doesn't really bother me all that much as I didn't see too many plausible options in 2007 or 2008 to try something different. It didn't make sense to immediately close Gitmo, redo the "Cheney" holding policy in regards to interrogation, go to civilian courts for foreign prisoners and withdraw from Iraq on a quick timetable. Most conservatives were not in favor of these policies and were tarred and feathered by those on the left for not seeing the simple changes that need to be done.

Then, Obama comes in and keeps the exact same policies and the answer is "Well, what else is he supposed to do. Nothing practically can be done."

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, to be fair you would have to distinguish between that which Obama has chosen to continue, and that which he tried to change and failed for political reasons (mainly Gitmo/due process).

And isn't attacking the bright eyed liberals who saw Obama as different kind of aiming at low hanging fruit?

Yes - that's why Obama promised more than he could deliver, and that's the problem. This rhetoric wasn't qualified as, "as long as politics don't get in the way". Which of course, no candidate would ever say, so maybe we should just assume that level of deceit and not be upset by it.

#2 yes, but those people, many of them first-time voters, really carried Obama into the white house. Targeting that group is smart election strategy, but I wish that's not what it took to win elections.

By the way, reviewing Obama's campaign promises, I've decided this one is my favorite:

"Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years"

They're ambitious, I'll give 'em that....but how would they even know they've secured "all loose nuclear material"? Does North Korea's count?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I guess I don't see the "most conservatives were not in favor of these policies."

And for what it's worth, I still think he should close Gitmo, redo the "Cheney" holding policy in regards to interrogation, ensure some degree of due process for detainees, and get out of Iraq as quickly as is feasible.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then, Obama comes in and keeps the exact same policies and the answer is "Well, what else is he supposed to do. Nothing practically can be done."

And this is where I disagree and Molson didnt 'see'...

I think something can be done and I am disappointed in the admin's decisions when it comes to rendition, Gitmo, and the courts regarding those being held.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Curt Schilling says he's interested in running for Teddy's seat.

I doubt it ever gets that far, but that would be one interesting race.