I want to think President Obama is doing right in Afghanistan

[Blue Owl]

I want to agree with our president, the good guy we all worked so hard to elect last year who was going to help us out of the Bu$hCo swamp.

But then I keep flashing back to the image of Karl Rove, Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and the PNAC assholes rubbing their hands with glee over this.

How can something sinister NOT be going on here? This isn't sitting right. This feels like a setback, not progress.

Ultimately I can't overcome the feeling that supporting this decision is a step towards the dark side, where the gleeful, bloodthirsty neocons lurk, where black is white, up is down, good is evil, etc.

[BeFree]

1. Me too

But I know better than to put my trust in the MIC. Obama has too.
It's ingrained in him. You don't get to be president by opposing the MIC.

[eleny]

4. The MIC wins in the short term because it makes profits

And when this effort fails, the GOP wins when they blame Obama for his decision.

No matter that they agreed with him on Tuesday. They rewrite their history day by day.

[BeFree]

7. The MIC will lose...

...when free hands on both sides of the big ditch can press the button at the same time!! <grin>

iow. We can rewrite history, too. We have the power.

But when I see too many DUers shirking their responsibilities, I begin too wonder.

[beyond cynical]

2. I feel the same way that you do--I believe most people do.

However, it will be difficult for anyone to "do right in Afghanistan."

[panader0]

3. Welcome to DU

If I was the POTUS, I would pull every soldier home as fast as possible. But then I probably wouldn't get reelected. The US is not in some mortal danger from Afghanistan. Our biggest enemies are here at home. If we are alert, (as opposed to bushco), there will be no more attacks on US soil. We don't need 'boots on the ground', we need intelligence. Our policies as they are right now are not making us more safe, but less. Not to mention the obscene costs. Not to mention the moral failure of war.

[Fire1]

5. How can it feel like a setback when he made his position on

Afghanistan known repeatedly, during the campaign???!!!!!

[Blue Owl]

8. I hoped he would come to his senses

and help expose the fraudulent reasoning behind Bu$h's war -- but I am guilty of wishful thinking.

The part I can't get over is that is was the Neocon's idea to wage these wars.

I wish President Obama would say we need some new or different ideas other than the Neocon's, whose answer to everything is more war.

[CJCRANE]

10. You say "these wars" but the Afghan war

was initiated under different circumstances to the Iraq war. Mainstream political consensus agreed with Bush's campaign to oust the Taliban and eliminate al-Qaeda. The problem came when Bush simply forgot about Bin Laden and let Afghanistan slip back into chaos.

For most people the Afghan war was the expected reaction to 9/11. Things started to go wrong when Bushco did a bait and switch with Iraq.

[zipplewrath]

9. When did he say 50,000 troops?

Did I miss the speech where he said he was sending in 50,000 new combat troops until 2011+? I know he wanted to "focus" on the Afghan/Pakistan region, but much of his talk was about Pakistan and Al Queda, not to mention OBL. I didn't hear him discuss OBL at all on Tuesday. His talk about Afghanistan was far more about using NGO's and diplomatic means, not just killing more innocent Afghan civilians whilst hunting for "the bad guys".

[NYC_SKP]

14. It's beginning to look like some just oppose the government. Period.

It wouldn't have mattered if Biden or Clinton or even Kucinich had won, there would still be war and corporations and things that would piss people off.

When Bush was it, it seemed like we were more on the same side.

Now that a Democrat, and a pretty reasonable and intelligent Democrat at that, is in office, half of the membership here seems to be all up in arms against the administration.

So maybe it never was about Bush, but about the government in general, and the administration in particular, republican or democratic.

:shrug:

[TicketyBoo]

15. I can't help but think

that this is a different war than it was during the campaign.

Karzai has been the beneficiary of a fraudulent election. This is not what we should be fighting for.

I am disappointed, but not angry. He's doing what he said he'd do, but I had hoped that he would change his mind. He didn't.

Now I hope for the best, as I'm sure we all do. I hope that our military can go forward with more hope of a positive outcome.

I am skeptical, myself, but I hope I'm wrong and that things go well.

[treestar]

6. There is a focused effort to stabilize the region and get out of there

Rather than just stay there open endedly, and get involved in yet more wars.

[Blue Owl]

11. It's a very faint ray of tainted hope

I will give him credit for taking on more responsibility than the previous administration, and making more of an effort to organize a withdrawal plan.

I hoped maybe we'd find some better ways to deal with the situation rather than ramping up the neocon's illegal war of choice.

[treestar]

13. Ramping up and escalation aren't good words for it

Since it was what Bush should have done years ago, rather than sending troops to Iraq. Those troops should have been in Afghanistan.

[Sinti]

12. Welcome to DU

I would assume that President Obama took the option that he thought would lead to the least total death from the options that were offered. Those options were offered by the Generals, he cannot create war strategy by himself, it's unheard of. I'm sure they convinced him it was the best thing and gave him options leading him to the one they wanted him to take. That's how you sell your product.

The fact that Gates and McChrystal are both hold-overs from the Bush Administration would suggest they're continuing the Bush-era policy.

You can read about his views on the torture in Iraq. I feel that says a lot about him, maybe it's just me being judgmental.

So how does McChrystal respond to these questions? “We must at all times obligation treat detainees humanely… Military necessity does not permit us” to deviate from those obligations, says Senator Carl Levin, reading form McChrystal’s prepared statement.

**snip**

“I do not and have not condone the mistreatment of detainees and I never will.” McChrystal said he investigated every abuse allegation. But the interrogation structure was inadequate for his task forces. “We stayed within all the established and authorized guidelines, they were there when I took command,” McChrystal says. He says “constant improvement” turned something “acceptable and legal” into something “I could be more proud of” as time wore on. Concedes that he initially was informed by Rumsfeld’s memorandum authorizing “stress positions, use of dogs and nudity” and said that “some of were used.” He said he was uncomfortable with those authorized techniques and worked to reduce their usage.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/06/hbc-90005091

He was head of JSOC for 5 years so you can look at what they do, or did during his time, to get more of a picture. He was supposedly quite good 'friends' with Rumsfeld, for what it's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Command