Is Obama Bullshi*tting About 18 Month Afghan Withdrawal to Appease War Critics?

[IndianaGreen]

Is Obama Bullshi*tting About 18 Month Afghan Withdrawal to Appease War Critics?

Miles Mogulescu
Entertainment attorney, Academy Award-nominated filmmaker, writer, activist
Posted: December 7, 2009 01:02 PM

After watching Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton on Meet The Press on Sunday, and parsing the words of Obama's own speech at West Point, it unfortunately seems that the answer is "yes".

Obama was faced with a political dilemma. He had decided to give the Generals most of what they wanted by escalating to over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. But he faced a country at home divided down the middle on the War with a majority of his own supporters opposing escalation. So to quiet critics, he threw them a bone. He would escalate the War. But he made it appear to War skeptics that the escalation would only last 18 months. This would hopefully be enough to quiet the critics, and marginalize those who wouldn't be quiet.

Even on its face, however, a policy of escalating and simultaneously setting a deadline to begin withdrawal is nonsensical. In his West Point speech, President Obama declared that sending additional troops to Afghanistan is "in our vital national interests". If that's so, the logical conclusion is that we should send as many troops as it takes, and keep them there as long as it takes, to defeat the Taliban.

President Obama proclaimed that "We will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months." From Obama's lips, to God's ears, as they say.

But what happens in 18 months if, as is equally likely, the Taliban's momentum is not broken and the capacity of the Afghan government, army and police force is not substantially increased? Will the stability of Afghanistan suddenly no longer be "in our vital national interest" so Obama will start to substantially withdraw American troops anyway? To do so would, by Obama's own logic, be an abandonment of America's "vital national interest". Having committed over 100,000 American troops to the war effort (and by then having suffered several thousand casualties), Obama will have little choice but to maintain the War effort and keep the troops there indefinitely, or be accused of surrendering to America's enemies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/is-obama-bullshitting-abo_b_382773.html

[polichick]

1. That's what it seems like at this point. He's painted himself into a box. th

[mdmc]

2. appease Americans, not war critics

Even war supporters oppose Obama.
America was divided by Bush.
War critics hate bush - war supporters love bush.
Now Obama has Bush supporters and war critics..
no one wants this war..

[classysassy]

3. Who is in control?

people wakeup,Obama is just a figurehead,wall street is in charge of this country.

[Orsino]

4. Of course he is.

However, he may actually believe that he has an achievable victory, or something that can be spun that way, in his sights. This was a war that a majority of Americans wanted--and may still want--so he does have some obligation to prosecute it as best he can.

I see only more failure and death ahead, however, and all for the sake of putting off our inevitable admission of failure.

[Bullet1987]

5. I PERSONALLY don't believe Obama even wants this war

It's just not in his character. I honestly believe he's being forced to do this. By whom? It's hard to say because it could be anyone. And whoever is pulling his strings may be taking orders from someone else. It's not historically-inaccurate to say past Presidents have been forced into positions they didn't want. Sadly also, that's not the sign of a strong President.

[VMI Dem]

6. Only an idiot would think otherwise at this point.

Given what SOS Clinton and Gates are saying.

[timeforpeace]

7. Too many slip-ups from his supporting cast not to conclude that this is the case.