The Afghanistan strategy would make sense to me if...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

My gut sense is that we cannot accomplish our stated objectives in the suggested time-frame. And I think the mode of presentation (letting some think we are leaving in 2011 while reassuring others we are not) is so insulting that it gives me a bad vibe.

But, giving the administration the B of the D, I ask myself what on Earth will we accomplish by adding a bunch of force temporarily? The stuff we are talking about is very long-term... clearing and holding provinces is patient work. Standing up a centralized Afghan army in a nation that isn't really a centralized nation, but more a collection of regional agendas, is patient work.

But we are very good at killing people and breaking things in tactical bursts. If there is some coherent enemy we plan to blow up in mid-2010 to mid-2011 then the policy would make more sense to me.

If Pakistan is going to go full out in a civil war with the tribal regions in 2010 I could see a reason for a short-term surge of US forces to provide an anvil to Pakistan's hammer. Otherwise Pakistan would just be chasing people into Afghanistan the same way we chase people into Pakistan.

But to make sense that would mean that Pakistan really, really wants to accomplish something in the tribal west--not that they are willing to pretend to get tough to mollify us, but that they've decided to go after the thing for real as an essential domestic security issue.

Since Pakistan is kind of like Lucy with the football I don't know how seriously I could take it, but at least it would make sense to me.

I am not suggesting there is a secret co-ordinated US/Pakistan all-out war on both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban happening next July, only noting that, unlike some of the stuff being talked about, it would make sense to me. Pincers of force, coordinated intelligence, air support, holding key passes. That military stuff we actually do well.

This is not one of those delusional "Obama has a super clever plan but he can't tell us the details" posts. I am quite willing to believe that this thing is just another stumble in the dark with more political overtones than I'd prefer.

But if we are going in anyway I want it to make sense to me.

:shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

1. Well, I think it's important NOT to base criticism of the President based on one's gut...

... and instead base it on informed opinion. (which is not to say your opinion is uninformed, I think you've likely studied the matter more than most of us.) It just bothers me that someone not privy to intel briefings is basing displeasure on "their gut."

As for "the mode of presentation (letting some think we are leaving in 2011 while reassuring others we are not) is so insulting that it gives me a bad vibe." I'm afraid I dont know what that's in reference to.


And, "I ask myself what on Earth will we accomplish by adding a bunch of force temporarily?" .... I can sympathize with you on that because it was the same thing I was thinking in the winter of 2008 when the notion of a fixed deadline for leaving Iraq was being debated. I felt we shouldn't have one ..... someone else convinced me otherwise and I voted for him for President. I think we can all now agree the deadline was a good decision.

And if you haven't already read this thread, I'd recommend it to you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34387&mesg_id=34387

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. I noted that the word was problematic but did not edit it

My "gut" is, on most things, my overall intuition based on taking in a bunch of information in light of everything else I know about the world.

So it's not like someone's a priori gut or an emotional response that is preferred to evidence.

But we do process complexity in a somewhat intuitive fashion and I didn't want to dress my objections up as "analysis."

Truth be told, this decision came down to Obama's gut... well-informed, but still a decision based somewhat on intangibles like "this approach gives me confidence."

As for the mode of presentation... I have already seen pugs called idiots for suggesting there is an arbitrary exit and anti-war types called idiots for not understanding that there IS an arbitrary exit. When you give a speech and you are a smart guy and excellent speaker and so many people hear whatever they want to hear it's not an accident.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Yeah but...

... Obama's gut knows a LOT more about the situation than you or I do. ;)

That's not to say that we must blinly follow dear leader ... but it's the simple truth of the matter.

[blm]

5. I do think you are accurate about the Pakistan hammer and US anvil analogy.

Bush let Al Qaeda travel freely between the two countries and didn't care one whit when Pakistan looked the other way, too. THIS is what led directly to the clusterfuck situation there now.

I think we will know fairly soon if this nation is FINALLY undertaking an HONEST attempt at dealing with Al Qaeda.

[blm]

2. That's why some of us have been following the Pakistan aspect for many years now.

Too many people eager to spout black and white memes have also avoided listening to the hearings on Pakistan, but, those hearings, especially over the last 11 months, have really have been a window on what needs to be done and what CAN be done.