I am not well informed

[Tom Rinaldo]

I don't receive daily security briefings. I don't have access to classified documents. I don't have direct personal contact with world leaders. I also do not have a large staff of trusted advisers who themselves attend daily security briefings, have access to classified documents and have direct personal contact with world leaders. I am very poorly equipped to personally make the type of difficult nuanced decisions on matters of national security that the President of the United States must make daily.

I do however have pretty good judgment regarding people. I can smell BS from a mile away. I usually know when a person's intent is to deceive and manipulate me into supporting something for all of the wrong reasons. I know when I'm being patronized and I usually know when someone doesn't have my true interests at heart.

That makes me a pretty good voter. That helps me decide who is trustworthy and who is not. I realize that there are always differing sides throughout history motivated by different goals and different world views. I can usually tell who is on my side and who is not. That makes me a pretty good voter.

George W. Bush may or may not be a decent human being deep down inside but I always knew he was not the right leader for the America I believe in. I did not trust his motives, I did not trust his goals, I did not trust his methodology. Therefor I worked hard to defeat Bush and the Party that nominated him.

But I supported Barack Obama for President for all of the right reasons best as I can tell. I knew that his world view differed significantly from Bush's, it feels more like my own. I never feel patronized by Obama, nor do I believe that deception is part of his leadership style.

I know that the situation in Afghanistan and the surrounding region is a complex one, and I'm convinced that it does not lend itself to obviously advantageous simple answers. I have deep reservations about Obama's decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and strong concerns. Compared to your average citizen I am very well informed about international affairs, but compared to Barack Obama and his intimate circle of security advisers, I do not consider myself well informed.

Barack Obama may be wrong about Afghanistan now, but I voted for him because of his character, world view, and overall judgment. As President, he is better informed than I am. I helped elect Obama to his job because of who he is, and now I am watching him do it. I do not do so calmly, and my eyes remain open, but I will not second guess him yet.

[Cant trust em]

1. Bingo.

[babylonsister]

2. Thank you. Rec'd fwiw as the trolls are out in force. nt

[Divine Discontent]

41. BS, please stop referring to a large swath of DU as trolls. Many of us agree with nearly every

policy that you do. I get sick of seeing first or second comments declaring, oh noes, the trolls are gonna come get you. It's a discussion forum, and we're not always going to agree - but it's hard to share common ground when you're throwing TROLL out towards people you very likely cheered with during election night.

[babylonsister]

48. If it wasn't you, I don't know why you're so agitated. I'm talking about

the trolls around here who would unrec a post such as this-there are people on here who are here to disrupt, period.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7138252

[Divine Discontent]

51. They can dispute and unrec if they don't like the content, even if it is thoughtfully written, the

thing I'm noticing is that this unrec/rec thing has made people focus more on that than the content. I have never discussed the unrec/rec arguments, but I know you're a very thoughtful DUer that I like reading, so I figured I'd mention that to you. Do you like the feature? No offense taken, btw, just saying, without further declarations it can sound like anyone stating discontent with a subject is a troll for merely voicing a thought.


Happy Holidays to you!

[babylonsister]

53. I am used to it by now, but have reservations, especially when

it's obvious the unrec is used by people who aren't here legitimately to either learn or voice their opinions, but to solely disrupt.

I don't consider most of my fellow DUers trolls, but there are some around.

And Happy Holidays to you, too!

[Mithreal]

56. Of course, there are some around. Why belittle anyone who would

unrec this by comparing them to a troll.

[babylonsister]

59. It's not belittling if it's true. And maybe because I saw this

being unrec-my disgust was up there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7138252

[Mithreal]

62. We all know there must be people who all they do is unrec

I am all for the admins doing something to put a stop to them.

I unrec'd this post but I did give it a few kicks. I unrec'd for all the innocents who will die because Americans of otherwise good will can't see that these wars were unnecessary, unwinnable, and illegal. Any ops that seek to muddy the idea that these wars should continue are disgusting to put it mildly. The deaths of soldiers and civilians is weighing heavily upon many of us and they need to stop.

[Divine Discontent]

65. ah, true. There are dozens of people daily who pray that they're performing some kind of

Palin Holiday Miracle® by keeping our threads down when any of us mentions they liked something the administration has done.

[Mithreal]

66. I think the same thing. Is it not technologically feasible to weed

those people out?

I am not a donor atm, but maybe unrecs should be reserved for donors? But even the trolls have money, so maybe there is a way to monitor recs and unrecs and disallow anyone from overusing unrecs. I know it really irritates some to talk about this but has it already been discussed and I missed it?

[Divine Discontent]

67. oh yeah, I've skipped over the threads in GD or GDP where they were months ago. I think it

distracts from the comments or OP's we make, but I understand it's purpose. Maybe we should have 3 a day or something.... I dunno. Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas to you Mithreal!

[Mithreal]

69. Hey thanks and to you. I was away from home a couple months

this past summer and came back to see the new feature. Missed all the excitement.

[bertman]

81. maybe changing your comment to say "the unreccers are out in force" would be less

inflammatory.

You may not intend the term "trolls" to mean DU'ers who disagree with you, but there are a LOT of DU'ers who use that term loosely and thoughtlessly.

[Mithreal]

55. Those ugly anti-AfPak War people, they are such malicious trolls

You can't second guess the MIC or the CIC, it isn't a democracy any more or a republic for that matter, we must all fall in line, we are at war after all.

That picture is of an Iraqi child.

Edit to remove some inflammatory content and because I think I mistook the comment.

[FrenchieCat]

96. Will the next pic that you post be that of an aborted fetus......?

[Mithreal]

115. Right, Frenchie, the victims of war deserve no recognition

There is a big difference between a rightwinger argument and an antiwar peace one.

Whatever respect I held for you just took a big hit.

[MercutioATC]

3. Just as long as you realize that many people said the same of Bush...

Good luck with that, I guess.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. If someone has a strongly different world view than my own

I expect that all of their decision making will be driven by strongly different criteria than I use. While perhaps I could concede that Bush like Obama "wanted what is best for America", that commonality is meaningless since his views on what is best for America are fundamentally different than mine and in my opinion wrong.

The people who said the same about Bush either did not truly understand his world view, or they agreed with it.

[grasswire]

4. then why did he patronize us last night?

I find that the most insulting aspect of his speech. He used the same manipulative tactics as the Bush administration and assumed that (apparently) his supporters would fall for it. He perpetuated lies, he used manipulative tactics, he hedged. I'm more mad about that than I am about the substance of the speech, because it reveals a cynical disdain for his own base and a deep predilection to political tricks.

[Dr Robert]

7. I think you are confused about what the definition of 'patronize' is

[grasswire]

9. welcome to DU n/t

[Dr Robert]

14. now that was patronizing. see, you're getting the hang of it now.

[Cha]

16. He didn't patronize me but then you thought the Obamas

were "putting on airs" at their State Dinner for the PM of India.

So whatever you read into things..it's not what I see.

[Mithreal]

58. Come on, in front of West Point?

I can understand how some would argue that as a positive but I can also see how many would see it as a negative.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Exactly

The minute he started off that speech by affirming the Chimp/PNAC 911 mythology, it was impossible for me to take anything he said after that without suspicion.

It would have been much more effective to say "Look, these assholes who were in the White House before me really fucked this all up. I want to fix it, and here's how we're gonna do it".

I still wouldn't have agreed with the escalation, but at least I might have accepted that he had good intentions about his approach.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Agreed, foreign policy wise, it's a continuation of American Crusade 2001 +

:(

[truedelphi]

38. His statement that in eighteen months we would be pulling out of Afghanistan has

The same lack of credibility as his now forgotten pledge that in sixteen months from the time he took office, we would be out of Iraq.

The only information that I want any President in office to understand completely is the line from the Founding Fathers stating that our nation must never entangle itself in wars abroad unless we are directly attacked by some enemy state. Screw Brezninski and the Kissinger clones, the Rand Corproation and their experts - unelss those guys want to fund this debacle!

[msallied]

74. Has it been sixteen months since he took office?

[Divine Discontent]

42. and many of us knew his speechwriter was going to do it. I was nauseated reading his lines.

it is very disingenuous to say the least.

[Cha]

5. Exactly and he may very well be right.

[Dr Robert]

6. Such Logic and Reason are rare around here these days...

[grasswire]

10. have you read this....

...thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7132963

I urge you to read it and the piece it links to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I don't want to shift discussion here to a different thread's OP

I went and read it, I will follow the link later when I have more time. But from what I read Silber's take differs from mine. For one thing I do not accept Silber's frame of how Obama considers dissent, and I believe that in today's world the U.S. will need some kind of continuing involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan whether or not we withdraw our troops; military involvement and other forms of involvement are not always joined at the hip in a simple in or out motion. But I won't discuss specifics of that thread with you here further.

[truedelphi]

88. One of the disturbing facets of Obama and his pet phrases is that

If you analyze them, they make no sense.

He speaks more coherently than Bush, in the sense that there is none of the stammering or loss for words.

But how does anyone who relies on logic decipher "Obviously the most effective program to address t he health care crisis is Single Payer Universal Health Care, but since we already have a system in place, then we must work within that system." What the Heck? The system is broken, but since we have a system, we have to use that system's parameters? Say what?

Now he has moved on to discussing war expansion, and again, you analyze what he says, and it is so contradictory as to be illogical.

[Mimosa]

89. True, Delphi, sad but true

I thought the same last night. I was SICK. And sad.

[Tigermoose]

97. The statement on healthcare makes total sense

The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it is unintelligible to other people.

The statement on healthcare points to the fact that an ideal situation cannot be created out of thin air. We live in an actual historical world that cannot be changed by fiat of the President or the government. You have to work to improve what exists. If you introduce to radical a change in a pre-existing system, the change could cause chaos and leave you with a steaming pile of shit.

This is the reason why radicals on the left and the right "just don't get it." This is why mainstream America rejects their radical ideology.

To summarize: Reality is historical and not a blank slate to be changed at the whim of any one man or government.

[BklnDem75]

109. +1

That's why it's so hard to take people here seriously.

[truedelphi]

123. Ever read the Emancipation Proclamation?

'Nough said...

[firedupdem]

11. Rec'd... I understand what you are saying exactly... n/t

[Oregone]

12. "but I will not second guess him"

People are being sent off, and some, to die. Others in a foreign nation will be killed. Billions will be spent.

You damn well better second guess him under those circumstances. That is your duty, no matter what answer you come up with.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. You left out an important word: "yet". n/t

[Oregone]

24. No, I didn't

Now is when the questioning needs to start BEFORE people die...not in some far off future.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. You left out the word, but we disagree on the timing

I agree that an action of this magnitude must be seriously questioned, but I accept that Barack Obama spent a lot of time questioning this decision before he signed off on it. Now it must be questioned whether or not it helps fulfill ends we can agree with, but for now it is still a policy decision that has not yet been implemented.

[Yes We Did]

105. If you are going to quote... use the whole quote.

It is disingenious to do so.

[Oregone]

23. err

[John Q. Citizen]

61. Yes, I thought the OPs attempts to claim no responsibility to understand the issues and to defer to

authority were rather self serving.

In a democracy it is our duty to educate ourselves and to not just defer to authority. That would be what we would be expected to do under an authoritarian regime, not under what is supposed to be a constitutional republic, at least in my world view.

[Zodiak]

76. That is what got me

I do not have an authoritarian bone in my body. My worldview just does not have the word "trust" and any politician's name in the same sentence.

Also, argument by authority is a logical fallacy, so all of this "he knows more than us" argument falls far short of what I consider to be persuasive rhetoric.

There are concerns about this which can be enumerated, many of those concerns from the left were not even addressed in the speech, and many of the premises of the speech were based on what the left considers to be falsehoods. Not a good place from which to convince lefties to go along.

In short, I would like to see a real analysis of the situation. No lofty rhetoric, no invocation of fear, no appeals to authority, and no false premises. Until I see such a frank analysis concluding that we MUST continue this war, I remain unconvinced and disappointed in Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. The OP title was a rhetorical ploy

I make great efforts to understand the issues. When I used the word "trust" I never attached it to blind trust, nor do did I apply it toward any specific policy, including the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. The sense in which I use trust is identified with the word "trustworthy". A trustworthy person may not always be correct, but if character is being looked at they almost always are sincere. When it comes to seeking advice, a trustworthy person is someone who is serious about their area of expertise, who goes to great efforts to know what they are talking about, who is not blinded by biases etc. Still, even then, that does not guarentee that their advice will be correct in any given instance.

I believe in questioning authority, but not in knee jerk rejecting the premise that some situationally may know more than I do. Legitimate authority has its limits and must continually be earned, but I accept the fact that different people have different levels of expertise in different matters. I would not take the word of a medical doctor as God, but at the same time I accept that a Doctor might have access to a deeper understanding of the appropriate treatment plan for an illness I might have, because of his/her extensive training and experience, than I would.

[Zodiak]

85. I understand your position

But for me, trustworthiness is borne out from the results of previous actions. Unfortunately, I have not seen a tremendous amount of trustworthiness in the actions of this administration to date. I REALLY want to see it, but I do not.

From the active protection of war criminals, FISA, the continuation of PATRIOT provisions, the active role in preventing torture pictures from being released, the continuation of Bush appointments in very critical positions, to the coddling of the C.I.A. to the point where they are still allowed to torture, I just do not see a whole lot of trustworthiness when it comes to military and intelligence from this administration. They have not taken a firm hand at all with these powers that be, and so I am left with wondering who is really calling the shots on these foreign adventures. I had hope when Obama rejected the generals' overtures at first, but in the end, it looks like he backed down from that position.

So in the end, I am not convinced that Obama is doing the "right thing" at all...or even what he considers best for his country. I see political considerations, and hope to god it is not fear.

Afghanistan is not a place to fix in 18 months. The idea of a central government there is a pipe dream in any historical context. There is no true objective other than nation building, and no matter how much we attempt to stabilize the country, our exit is going to roll the dice again because Afghanistan tends to devolve back into civil war with any power vacuum. Al Queda is not even a major presence in the country, and the Taliban is not going to go away when they have a presence in 72% of the villages there. They also have a tendency to melt back and wait out timelines when things get heated.

Not to mention that we already had a "surge" of the 2 brigades Obama campaigned on that was largely ineffective, complicated by a fraudulent election in the end. We are doubling down with no true measure of success from the last "surge".

There are a lot of unanswered questions, and I am far from trusting when it comes to our politicians and the MIC.

This is my position.

[bvar22]

95. +1...LBJ was "smart" and had "access to information" too.

I'm not overwhelmed with Obama's "TRUST" record so far.

[FSogol]

13. Same here. K&R n/t

[Parker CA]

15. K&R although my R was reversed mid-click.

[tridim]

17. Same. K&R.

Don't be fooled by GOP "support", they only support the additional troops, not the President's exit strategy.

[apnu]

19. Nice post, K&R

[butterfly77]

22. And for all of those people who...

want him to leave could you please tell how the President should leave give us the details. Strategically now,the methods,timespan,logistics,etc...How specifically will it be done. I want to know if with your plan, can you do it quicker than the President.

[MollieBradford]

32. d'oh

no one here has the staff or the time the president has or the advisers so why should they feel obligated to prove themselves to you. He wanted the job, he got it and now he has to face the consequences of those choices.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Obama should call Gorbachav and ask him how he did it when the Soviets pulled out.

That way he could learn from the voice of experience.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Same exact rationale used to help support the escalation of troops in Vietnam.

We know how that worked out.

Based on his first ten months in office and his LACK of holding The Bush Administration responsible I no longer TRUST President Obama.

He's lost my trust and my vote in 2012. President Obama only need look in the mirror to discern who will be responsible for not being re-elected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. It's a rationale to support a difficult decision made by a leader who essentially is trustworthy

If you do not find the President trustworthy, then this rationale is understandably meaningless to you. For those who have some trust still in Obama it is no guarentee that this decision will be proved right, but Viet Nam isn't exactly Afghanistan, and that experience doesn't prove that this decision will be proved wrong either.

[TexasObserver]

28. That's the long version of what Britney Spears said about Bush and his wars.

I do not abdicate my thinking to the president, especially when I am confident he has no idea what's he's doing on this war.

[Cha]

33. Fuck the britney spears asshole meme.

[TexasObserver]

35. No, thanks. It's accurate, so I'll use it to describe slavish devotion to one's president.

[Cha]

37. Yeah, keep speading the shit.

[TexasObserver]

43. I'll keep making apt analogies and you can keep cursing like a middle schooler.

[Cha]

47. Right..keep living in your zombie world.

[Bleacher Creature]

57. +1

[billh58]

60. +2 n/t

[Mithreal]

80. This debate really is about life and death.

After we kill the remaining 100 Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, maybe we will have to fight zombie Al Qaeda? How many troops does it take to kill about 100 Al Qaeda? Blah blah blah, I know it never was about Al Qaeda anyway.

[billh58]

44. +100 n/t

[billh58]

46. The entire

"Britney" premise falls apart when comparing Dubya's intellect and his cult-like, blind-worshipers to President Obama's intellect and his thinking supporters who offer reasoned criticism instead of cries for "off with his head."

Talk about juvenile...;-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. If I too was confident that Obama had no idea what he's doing on this war...

I would not in any way be influenced by his thinking. I feel no slavish loyalty to Obama and no one here has ever accused me of being a cheerleader for him.

[Clio the Leo]

29. Well said. NT

[billh58]

30. Bravo!

Well said, and can not be repeated often enough!

[dave29]

31. K&R

n/t

[NoSheep]

36. Well put.

[Bonobo]

39. GDP: Great. Damned. Post. K&R

[mstinamotorcity]

40. This is so ridiculous

The President IMHO is a man of integrity. I have not seen one person, house ,senate,civilian,teacher or bus driver come up with a plan for Afghanistan. This was the war that was declared and not thought through. At least not by the previous administration. Now we get someone who has the concern for the vast amount of difficulties associated with this war, what is it you want from the man. He is not the genie in the bottle where he can fold his arms and blink our troubles away. Seeing as how the trolls under the bridge are the ones who started this s--t. We all need to take a deep breath and try and show a little support for the leader we put in place. You know whatever he does we always get something out the deal. Probably some more trolls that will fall by the wayside. And for those of us who are so sadly disappointed in the President you know there is no competition for 2012 step up and put your agenda forth. If you thought you were going to get a President who you would agree with everything on, you should have elected yourself. You see i am not well informed either about what goes on in the security briefings. And besides were is your degree in foreign policy to those who are so worried that we can't get out of afghanistan in one day.x(

[Tigermoose]

99. Well said.

It is ridiculous. I guess when the adults are finally in charge, we should expect that the rebellious teenagers are always going to be complaining.

[mstinamotorcity]

101. thank you

Look i don't want everyone to get the wrong idea,i don't agree with everything the President does but if it means President Obama getting my support or someone like Dubya hey there is no choice except our current President. Because the previous eight years before he got in office was a working hell in progress.:hi:

[butterfly77]

102. Yeah,and did you hear that...

Scarborough is running for President?

[mstinamotorcity]

104. What the f--k

Oh hell no who in the fuck do he think his ass is. Oh it will be a cold day in hell before i let that found a dead woman in his office punk ever be my President. I will be screaming dead woman in office outside every rally he gives. Dead woman in office everybody with a political cover up :grr: :grr:

[butterfly77]

108. Scar has been trying to portray himself..

as the moderate Repug but,isn't fooling anyone. As far as I am concerned he is another Bush!

[mstinamotorcity]

125. no he is worse

he is the great pretender.dead woman in his office with a political cover up.dead woman in his office.:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Divine Discontent]

45. thoughtful, be wary though of aligning too deeply with him because of feelings though

you know that warmongering and troop invasions are not good and just. Did you watch Michael Moore on the homepage? Do you disagree with those facts he stated? Bloodshed is not to be taken lightly, that's why millions of people worldwide protested el Busho in 2003.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. Agreed

My alignment is tenuous, good feelings about Obama don't substitue for good results, and war is an extremely somber matter of life and death. Shades of grey make most people uncomfortable. A proper troop invasion of Rwanda IMO would have been good and just. I agree that warmongering is never good, but people differ on the definition of that within various real world contexts. During the Cold War the U.S. warned the Soviet Union that an invasion by it of Western Europe would lead to war. Was that instance warmongering? However there were other examples of statements and actions by the U.S. during that time that I would probably define as warmongering.

[ecstatic]

49. k&r.

[debbierlus]

50. More excuses, more rationalization. Just as it was possible to know Iraq was a HUGE mistake

Going in...

It is possible to discern the smartest policy move without CIA intelligence.

There are many, many, MANY known facts. And, every one of them points to this being a giant mistake.

I can't believe the right wing talking points being resurrected on DU over the past couple of days.

(And, you know what. I do not trust Obama. Ever since he appointed Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, & Ben Bernacke and taken a page from the Bush book of expanding executive power, I have not considered him a person to trust).

[Fire1]

52. Kudos. n/t

[get the red out]

54. Thank you for sanity

We need all the sane comments we can get, people are so filled with anger that reason has left DU, but only temporarily I am sure.

[Mithreal]

63. No, you are not.

[Divine Discontent]

68. speaking of recs! I rec your post.

[BklnDem75]

110. Neither are you

Quit acting like you are.

[Mithreal]

114. You are so right. You have to experience war to know the horror.

[msallied]

73. Thank you.

Huge K&R for expressing my sentiments to the letter.

[Phx_Dem]

75. That's a pretty thoughtful, well-reasoned post.

WTF is up with that? ;)

:fistbump:

[me b zola]

77. K&R

[quaker bill]

79. Thanks, well said

[moondust]

82. K/R

I don't see any obvious ulterior motives in this commitment such as corporate profiteering and I don't think Obama is a glory-seeking "War President" wannabe like Bush/Cheney. I am therefore inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best.

[bertman]

83. It was the way he tried to tie the 9-11 attackers to Afghanistan that pissed me off from

the gitgo. That was BushCo methodology to the hilt.

I kept waiting for him to say that we will be sending 30,000 American troops into Saudi Arabia to smoke out those who supported the 15 of 19 alleged 9-11 hijackers who were Saudi nationals. You see, it's all about 9-11 and who was responsible--and us getting them. Except it ain't.

Anyone who falls for this bullshit has given up the use of their reasoning abilities. What we heard last night is what we have heard from our Presidents for EVERY military incursion, invasion, troop escalation, or surge since I was in high school in the 60's. It goes sorta like this "We're going to send in these xxxxxxx number of our courageous American troops (plus some Aussies/Thais/Ugandans/Uzbeks--take your pick) and that will allow us to win this war and bring all of our troops home after we save the poor, suffering Whoevers". We Americans just cannot let go of the notion that we are the saviors of the world and we have to exercise our savior muscles by killing hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of people in smaller, third-world countries that have resources or strategic value to us. Problem is that it's not about SAVING anybody. It's about doing the bidding of the Military-Industrial-Corprorate complex, aka the War Profiteers.

President Obama did what he HAD to do last night. He had to toe the line that has been drawn by the elites who control our country and our Presidents. I did not expect him to do otherwise, but that does not make me less disgusted with the way he tried to delude us into thinking we are making America safer and more secure by ramping up that war and sacrificing more Americans and Afghans as well as our national treasure.

[elleng]

84. I'm with you, Tom.

You may be interested in Eric Massa's pov.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/2/809895/-Almost-convinced,-Rep.-Massa-completely-changed-my-mind-on-Afghanistan.-Transcribed-for-you.

[pinto]

86. Kick

Well said. I share much of your point of view -

"Barack Obama may be wrong about Afghanistan now, but I voted for him because of his character, world view, and overall judgment. As President, he is better informed than I am. I helped elect Obama to his job because of who he is, and now I am watching him do it. I do not do so calmly, and my eyes remain open, but I will not second guess him yet."

Afghanistan seems a classic no-win situation, yet one which calls out to be won, or at least resolved. The solution is part of the problem and the problem is part of the solution. Mr. Obama has been dealt a tough hand to play, and how it plays out remains to be seen.

[Avalux]

87. Another K&R for you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I am not enthusiastic over Obama's decision, but I will give him a chance to make it work. I trust that he's weighed ALL options and this is the best one at this moment in time. Obama's motives are not that of Bush and his neocon buddies.

:patriot:

[Kablooie]

90. Yes. I worry that his decision may go terribly bad. But his other choices may have gone worse.

[leveymg]

91. I'll rec this, even though my reservations are stronger and I am less trusting of decisions made by

those with security-clearances. I have found over time that the knowledge gap between government decision-makers and well-informed members of the public is not so great, and is declining.

Most intelligence analysis is based on open-sources. What's most important is the quality of analysis -- what's done with information available -- rather than the sheer volume of raw data. Events have shown my own judgment in world affairs is usually more reliable and trustworthy than that of those whom I helped elect.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. I accept your point

I think you're right, that gap is shrinking but it will never vanish completely, if for no other reason than the fact that knowing major players personally, and speaking to them directly, can provide insights that can't easily be gained in any other way, IF you are astute enough to read people well. And a hand picked team of advisors can amplify one's ability to make sense out of complex matters. I am sure you or I, no matter how good our own analytic abailities may be, would find our judgment enhanced were we able to assemble our own full time team of carefully chosen experts to collaborate with in person.

I can relate to your last comment about comparing your judgment with that of those who we have been party to electing, but for the most part I have not felt good about the political leaders who have been elected in America over the last 40 years. I have not felt good about the teams of advisors they have assembled nor the reasons why those were the people they chose to have advise them. I feel a whole lot better about Susan Rice being in the loop than I did about Condoleezza Rice being in it.

[leveymg]

94. Similarly, I agree in general with the many good points you're making here

Personal acquaintance is extremely valuable when it comes to judging intentions. However, capabilities are at least as important, and can be read fairly accurately from multiple solid public sources as well as from inside. In a purely rational world, intentions and capabilities would coincide or closely overlap. Of course, no institution and no leader truly is rational, and there is also the element of systematic deception and disinformation to contend with - that's where judgment and a well-developed "gut feeling" about character come in.

If for only one day I could sit down with Obama and his team, that would provide a lifetime worth of insight into their characters! That would be very valuable, indeed.

I agree that Obama seems to be well intended, and that he operating under institutional constraints that we have only limited knowledge. However, if you think carefully about how you would run the country under similar circumstances, there's no great mystery about what those constraints are and how you might deal differently with them.

In the case of Afghanistan, there is no question in my mind that some sort of continued U.S. presence is a good idea, at least to provide security for international aid workers, but escalation in order to begin pulling out in 18 months makes little sense unless there's the intention to go on the offensive militarily, and I think that's a mistake because 30K additional troops aren't nearly enough to make a long-term difference on the ground, particularly in the 90 percent of the area outside Kabul we do not now control. However, it's simplistic to assume that it's a zero-sum game of either us or the Taliban taking over. In the end, Afganistan is a crazy-quilt of ethnic tribal groups, and life by and large has not changed for them since the time of Alexander.

What I really think is behind Obama's decision is not Afghanistan. I am afraid that it is the growing civil war in a fragmenting Pakistan and confrontation with Iran. Afghanistan is a pretext for putting in more resources that can be moved either way. Either way, I see a disaster ahead.

[olegramps]

98. I agree with your assessment:

What disturbs me is that I see little willingness on the part of the Afghan people to support the war effort. Why aren't their young men wholeheartedly engaged in this struggle to establish a democracy? Of primary concern is there any real hope in actually unifying the country? From my reading it appears that tribal loyalty transcends any sense of national unity and is not likely to change in the near future if at all. It appears that the country is locked in some type of time warp that defies any real hope for advancement into the 15th century let alone the 21st century. The people seem content to live as their ancestors have for a thousand years.

How do you defeat the Taliban when its adherents are driven by religious zealotry? Are we engaged in a religious war that can only intensify their opposition and in the end create even more animosity? If the Afghan people don't want to live under the harsh jurisdiction of the Taliban extremists then it is solely up to them to resist. We can't save them from themselves. In fact, I don't see the masses welcoming us a liberators but perhaps their apparent apathy is that they regard us as just another invader propping up the latest in a long list of corrupt regimes. I can't help from thinking that the situation is really hopeless and a waste of our fortune and it especially doesn't warrent any more of our young people being maimed or losing their lives.

[NJmaverick]

92. Kick for critical thinking over simplistic views and blind adherence to ideology

[Tigermoose]

100. K & R

nt

[freddie mertz]

103. Lots of people said the same thing describing their support of Bush.

It's your responsibility as a citizen to be as well-informed as you possibly can.

Assuming that the people in charge have better judgment than you and submitting to their judgments without criticism on that basis is one of the cornerstones of dictatorship.

Fortunately, you do not get top decide this for everyone else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Yes and they for the most part are supportive of the opposing team with all of its implications

I have commented on all of the content of your comment in my replies to other posts above. Suffice it to say here that I take my responsibility as a citizen very seriously.

[freddie mertz]

107. I am sure you do. And I've since read your other comments.

If I read you right, you are suspending judgment for the time being out of trust for the man.

But the counter-argument I would make is that it is not just a decision made by one man, but an institutional one, made by the whole power-structure system, of generals, political, military, and economic advisors, corporate "sponsors," intelligence agencies, foreign governments, etc.

I do not fundamentally trust these institutions to do the right thing, or have the best interests of the American people, or the people of Afghanistan, in mind when they made this decision.

Hell, after all the movement to the right we've seen in past year from the administration, I've pretty much lost trust in Obama and his team as well.

Somehow, somewhere, they seem to have drunk the DLC-MIC kool-aid, and drunk it deep.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. You roughly summarize me correctly

Though of course it isn't quite that simple. My own study of the situation convinces me that the situation now in Afghanistan is far more complex than the one that existed in Iraq prior to our invasion there which I felt secure in wholeheartedly opposing. Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is a very complicating factor for one thing. Unlike Iraq which WASN'T even trying to build nukes, Pakistan already has them. And unlike Iraq where religious extremists had very little influence, they form a very strong current in Pakistan.

I am glad that Obama "dithered" over his decision, I'm glad he took it that seriously. To be honest with you, my own opinion is very closely divided. I see much truth in what you and other critics of this troop build up say. But I felt it irresponsible for me not to ultimately express an opinion one way or another on this gravely serious matter. Yes, my judgment currently is suspended, but not surrendered.

[freddie mertz]

124. I understand and appreciate your thoughtfulness and patience in responding.

I'm pretty torn up about the whole thing myself.

And while I think the escalation is a mistake, I don't feel especially self-righteous abut my own opinion.

I think "we" (the US) really blew the situation over there, and wonder if there is ANY way to patch it up again...

If there ever even was a possibility of doing any good over there.

(I couldn't sleep after the speech.)

We seem to less far apart than it appeared at first.

Best.

[Martin Eden]

112. K&R - with text

The only thing I might add is to be ever vigilant, but I'm with you -- those who are condemning Obama and equating him with Bush need to understand the president doesn't have the luxury to indulge of adhering to s strict ideological agenda in the face of complex world problems.

It just may be possibly -- nay, probable -- that he is better informed than us and is indeed working on our behalf to the best of his ability.

[Vinnie From Indy]

113. Didn't Britney Spears offer something similar?

"I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

I do agree with much of what you wrote. Some, not so much!

Cheers! K & R

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. LOL You really got me with that one :)

As I was opening your post I was preparing to write that my decision making process is to support whoever Bitney Spears doesn't because that saves me the trouble of having to figure anything out on my own. I was only debating whether I would add a SARCASM emoticon to my post.

Cheers back at 'ya.

[Sinti]

116. Well said - and I also have deep reservations about COIN n/t

[pansypoo53219]

118. ditto.

i trust obama to play 10 little indians and not georgee/dickie. AND he threw out what the defence dept sent him and said he wanted new options. what exactly did he throw out, what were the different strategies?

[redqueen]

119. K&R

[gorfle]

120. We all did.

Barack Obama may be wrong about Afghanistan now, but I voted for him because of his character, world view, and overall judgment. As President, he is better informed than I am. I helped elect Obama to his job because of who he is, and now I am watching him do it. I do not do so calmly, and my eyes remain open, but I will not second guess him yet.

We all voted for Obama because of his character, world view, and overall judgment, especially given what the alternative was.

But this does not change the fact that every time Obama propagates a Bush-era position, all my Republican friends say, "See! Bush must have been right all along because Obama is doing the same thing!"

So we lumber on with war, extraordinary rendition, pervasive domestic surveillance, and who knows what else.

It sucks.

[BREMPRO]

121. good thoughtful post. easy to criticize when you are not responsible for the safety of the america...

people. I too am skeptical and worried it may be the wrong move, but he had NO good options- especially given the neglect over 8 years by bush/cheney and the growing border threat from the Taliban to nuclear armed Pakistan. We are essentially starting from scratch on a new problem. I trust that Obama has been well advised and has a plan and a strategy, as opposed to just throwing troops at the problem and just ceding responsibility to the generals.

[midnight]

122. You don't allow innocent people to be blown up by a man's wrong decisions.

No matter how much you like this man's character, or because of who you believe this man to be. Now this decision is wrong because the information surrounding it is being held back..... This decision is nothing more than a holding pattern for our troops. And they will hold this pattern for a long time to come.

[Uzybone]

126. brilliant, thanks

I 100% disagree with this Afghanistan escalation, but the OP is dead on.

[PATRICK]

127. Yours is a clear and reasonable position

The problem I have is that such positions have rarely matched the quizzical, corporate neocon leaning leadership. The GOP has been consistent and predictable. Their surprises have been limited to (almost by neglect) having their incredibly venal and harmful motivations leak out in vindication of the human sense of smell.

The Dems have simply been unfathomable allies of the GOP charade.Unfayhomable in a fog denying even the reality of stolen elections which questions their rudimentary competence as politicians very strongly. So many motivations, some even positive have come and gone- the lamentable remains, for me at least. These are decent, intelligent people in a party dedicated to real people and a compassionate idealism. The brand of American insanity(at the top of nearly everything with a buck in it) these days has not spared them nonetheless.

Unfathomable, not just crazy destructive and mired in myths and plans devoid of underlying physicality as much as the stock market.

Whatever. The fact is the my bottom line for presidents still golds true. They perform basically to complete consistently with their worst characteristics, moral change voided by the rush of affirmative power. Yet it never fails to gut punch and take your breath away and create that common repeating twinge as the old slot machine by the command of logical odds says you lost again.

All Dems want to be New York. Parity career pols sleeping with lobbyists in a monopoly of irresponsibility and shamelessness. The current moves in health care and war and the economy will likely doom the party majorities for 2010, bleeding away as many progressives as corporatist boobs. Yet the corporatist losers will be kept on the scene somewhere and be rewarded, maybe even switch horses on the merry-go-round of Treasury looting. On the apparently but slightly tweaked Clinton model the president will soldier on to a second term and more party losses(or lose to a GOP utter horror). People will die needlessly neglected, clucked over brainlessly by world crime status MSM morons.

Yet the danger will be avoided. That of a second Dem super majority with progressively sweeping change- in peace- and the emergence of any semblance of a caucus of reps who actually represent the people and true national interests. The threat of having pols not only accountable to nation of laws and democratic voting and free flow of good information. The threat of saving our skins from the real world. The threat of ever having a clue emerge on the national landscape. That is well worth destroying the easy political wins of simple populist and legal and American value agenda.

As for Afghanistan, its survivors might thank someone. It is unfathomable to me exactly who and exactly why. And it is this dark cloud of unknowing that prominently lied about in mysterious brainless and illogical terms that defy even our understanding of human evil and madness. As far as that goes the real improvement has been in deigning to make better plans and speeches about the wrong things. Somewhat more heartwarming and assuring in the human world's (IMHO)inexorable march to obliteration by all methods possible.