White House braces for tough sell on Afghan policy
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 4 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
37 Comments
Login to comment
0
timorborder
This whole "whether to or not" drama is infuriating. The folks on the ground need to know what direction things are going to take. Making policy choices while sniffing the winds of public approval can do no good for anybody. There comes a time when decisions have to be made. Whether such decisions are right or wrong is a secondary consideration. Indecision weakens morale and gets people killed. The sooner Washington comes to grips with this rather harsh reality the better.
As I have said on numerous occasions, make up your mind Mr. President. Either you are in for the long haul (which means letting the commanders act as they see fit without having to worry about politicians playing general back in Washington), or you decide to pull up camp (which again will mean that the field commanders will need room to maneuver). As it is, however, the current indecision is doing nobody any good.
0
SushiSake3
Unfortunately, Afghanistan is such a big problem now because the previous U.S. administration never really gave a damn about it while they instead chased after fairies and non-existant WMDs in Iraq.
To me, the current size of the Afghanistan problem is in approximate proportion to the degree the previous U.S. administration ignored it.
0
SushiSake3
timorborder - "As it is, however, the current indecision is doing nobody any good."
I have to disagree.
We have all seen the disastrous effects of a war not correctly addressed - both in planning and implementation - Iraq and Afghanistan under bush/cheney.
As I said above, the current size of the Afghanistan problem is in approximate proportion to the degree the previous U.S. administration ignored it - which means that the more sensible planning we have, the better in my book.
Bush was all about shooting first and asking questions later.
Obama is all about asking the right questions (including planning an exit strategy, which is reportedly a key reason his decision is taking longer than some people would want) before making a momentus decision such as the one he will soon have to make.
0
sailwind
If his wise leadership is so great and his decision so perfect when he finally makes it, why then is his Whitehouse bracing for a tough sell?
Should be a cakewalk to get Americans to support it after his wise and long deliberations after all.
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind - "If his wise leadership is so great and his decision so perfect when he finally makes it, why then is his Whitehouse bracing for a tough sell?"
Really Sail, you of all people should know why.
How long had this war gone on - even before the presidency changed hands in the States?
A: Longer than WWII.
Add to that, the dismal planning, strategy and waste of life in the stupid Iraq war and you shouldn't be surprised in the slightest that any strategy involving sending more troops is going to be a hard sell.
0
SuperLib
I'm expecting to see a pretty comprehensive plan overall that goes well beyond troop numbers.
0
USAFdude
timorborder -
Quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've ever read on JT. Right decisions are based on careful planning and consideration of the facts; wrong decisions get more troops killed and weakens morale for more than "indecision".
What on earth did they teach you at Duntroon?
0
Madverts
"Quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've ever read on JT."
Dude, I don't think that's the best way to make your argument, especially in light of some of the truly idiotic posts here on JT.
It seems to me that war planning shouldn't be discussed in the media anyway.
0
USAFdude
Heh, point taken, Madverts.
0
combinibento
Ahh, the old 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach. This works pretty good when selecting an foreign lunch dish from a menu you can't read. Not so much with decisions that will impact global security, not to mention countless lives of Afghans and Americans.
0
skipthesong
Why doesn't he just end it and bring everyone home? If he's gonna prolong it with no win in sight, its his war and Bush is irrelevant.
0
timorborder
What on earth did they teach you at Duntroon?
Surprisingly little, I'm afraid. Bit of tactics, bit of military law, bit of combined operations planning, and lots of academics. Most of the handy stuff I picked up at the school of infantry on the platoon commander's course.
Anyway, perhaps I made the point poorly, however, at a point in time as a military commander, decisions have to be made, whether you are a commanding just a platoon or a whole army. Such decisions have to be made irrespective of the casualties that result. Indeed, this is a core fundamental of what people in the military appreciate as leadership. It is also what you are paid for. That is just the nature of the business, well at least the business on the front lines when commanding infantry units. Furthermore, the most dangerous situation is the one that currently exists. You have a case of not going forward and not going backwards - an uneasy status quo exists. Such a situation is not good for morale, because it only results in attrition (what some people call acceptable losses - I would disagree with such sentiment), which can suck the blood out of an army (excuse the pun). What I want from Obama is a clear decision. If the US wants out, then it should get out. If it is going to stay for the long haul, then the head boys in charge at the moment should be let off their leash, without political interference.
Talking about political interference, I would like to point out what Sushi mentioned regarding the quagmire that became Iraq. Now irrespective of whether that conflict is justified or not, the issue that really caused so many problems was the politicians (you know who they are) double guessing the military regarding troop numbers and materiel. Think back to General Shinseki, who was given the boot for basically standing up to Rummy when the Rummy wanted to do an invasion on the cheap (outsource everything to Haliburton and all that). What was the result? Anarchy and no plan to win the peace. To quote the famous t-shirt that Shinseki's Westpoint classmates made. "Eric was Right!"
Fast forward to the present day. You have another chap in the White House who seems to be afraid to make the hard decisions, rather vacillating backwards and forwards in response to public opinion polls. Such indecision does nobody any good. Indeed, what I hate about politics is the ease with which soldiers are put in harms way, despite having their hands effectively tied behind their backs. Furthermore, the commanders are not allowed conduct the so-called "science of war" without having some politician perched on their shoulder like a pirate's parrot.
Again, I would call on Mr. Obama to act in order to move forward, as the time for prevaricating on this issue has long past. Either America (and by default its allies) ramp up the effort in Afghanistan, or they decide that an exit strategy is a better option. Only by giving those in command on the ground a clear set of instructions can the whole process move forward.
Furthermore, my argument is not one that is diametrically
0
Badsey
I believe the decision has already been made and more troops and weapons will be installed in Afghanistan. Obama is just trying to find a way to sell it. -Of course this upsets many who thought Obama was anti-war, but these decisions are basically made for him.
More pressure will be put on Iran -trying to escalate them into war or self-destruction.
0
MildredRoper
Men fighting each other as usual. America wants to send more men to fight the Afghan men. The world is in total chaos.
Let the women take charge and watch wars end.
0
Molenir
The man has had a year to make a decision about Afghanistan, and in that year, he did next to nothing. Only when it was rubbed in his face by his own hand picked General, did he realize he was going to have to make a call. Something he has strenuously avoided doing. Even now, more then 4 months after he needed to make a call either pulling out, or sending in, he has yet to make a decision one way or another. Obama is proving to be a weak and indecisive leader, much like Carter was. World leaders may have hated Bush, and disagreed with him on many policies, but they respected him as well, Obama gets no respect.
0
Madverts
"Let the women take charge and watch wars end."
Heh, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while. It reminds me of Borat seeing a woman driving for the first time ever....
0
SushiSake3
Molenir completely misses the fact that President Obama has more important factors to consider in his decision - namely the economy and how his military decisions will affect it.
This is where the generals are pretty much out of the loop - they only ask for reinforcements and supplies without having to worry how to pay for it - which is something the president **does **have to consider and that flew way over the head of Molenir.
0
SushiSake3
Another fact Molenir completely failed to mention was the outcome of the recent rigged elections - a factor that was not expected at all by any camp outside Afghanistan.
Not only did Molenir miss this, but s/he also missed mentioning how President Obama now has to decide whether the Afghna government is worth working with and if so, to what degree.
0
SushiSake3
Molenir - "The man has had a year to make a decision about Afghanistan, and in that year, he did next to nothing."
Was that because he had a far more important problem to tackle - the tanking U.S. economy bequeathed to him by the last occupant of the WH?
0
LIBERTAS
Doomed to repeat the unlearned lessons of history, Af-Pak is where the American Empire has gone to die a slow, painful and public death. Pity, 'cos it used to be such a wonderful place. America, that is. Not any more.
0
Taka313
I wish President Obama would make a decision so republicans can figure out how much they hate it. This indecision has them wondering what they will hate and how much they will hate it. How can they properly channel their hatred with the actual decision.
President Obama just doesn't take republicans' feelings seriously.
Taka
0
Molenir
Sushi, 3 posts hating on me. So many issues I'm either too stupid to recognize, or just missed. Paying for the war, hmm, let me think. He is all ready to spend trillions on the government takeover of health care you are so in favor of. He is likewise not worried about destroying the US economy and putting millions of people out of work, ala cap and tax. And you are saying he is now worrying about how to pay for the war? Thats just unbelievable.
Lets set those issues aside and talk instead about what the Presidents role and job is. To put it simply, its not the job of the chief to figure out how to make stuff happen, nor how to pay for it. Thats the job of those people under him. Its the chiefs job to set the policy, and lead. He is thus far failing badly in this. I guess thats something you missed. Regarding whether or not he should work with the Afghan government. Yes, thats a good point, but irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Whether or not we are even going to stay in. Thats the call he needed to make 4 plus months ago, thats the call he has been putting off making. Thats why he is being viewed around the world as a weak President. Finally, regarding the tanking of the US economy. His actions thus far have only made the problems worse. For better or for worse, as he himself said. He owns the economy and this recession now. It is his. His to solve, or not to solve, and his goals thus far seem antithetical to solving the economic problems facing the country.
Hey Taka, I actually agree with you on this. I wish Obama would make a decision as well. You're right as well, in that regardless of what the decision is, he will get criticized by some, both on the left and on the right. Even still, he needs to make the call, not waffle over the subject for months the way he's been doing.
0
tclh
In the ideal world McCain should be US president and Obama should be health minister because he so concerns with health policy. So US president did not declare Tibet is part of China like Obama did in Beijing or was refused G2 proposal by China...or take forever to have a dicision on direction of Afghan war.
0
Badsey
Tibet is part of China and Afghanistan, Japan is part of the US. =The child must never be allowed to leave the mother. As you get older you will learn about Colonialism, supporting Mother, and being a good slave to the Fiat Dollar.
0
Badsey
I am a slave to the Fiat Dollar, but I refuse to pay the Lib's "War SurTax"
0
Wolfpack
If President Obama gets his act together and sends the additional troops - as it appears he will - Conservatives will support him. It's the Left he has to worry about.
0
skipthesong
I wouldn't mind paying a war tax, I just don't like the government's spending habits. All they're gonna do is waste it, maybe find some little fish in a pond in Afghanistan and pour millions to save it. The troops can suck it up as far as Nancy is concerned. No, let us give it straight to them.
0
tclh
The child must never be allowed to leave the mother: so funny, the same as America should never ,ever be allowed to get independent from Britain?
0
Molenir
Actually, for me, the ideal world would have Romney as President, not McCain. I wasn't a fan of his before he ran for President. While I'm sure McCain would do a better job then Obama, I don't think he would have been that much better. Romney at least knows something about the economy, and can tell the difference between what would work, and what wouldn't.
0
lostrune2
The majority of Americans are now against the Afghan war, just as they are against the national health insurance; so it is a tough sell. Why would Obama go against the majority of Americans?
0
adaydream
The tough sell will be from the republicans. They don't want to see an exit strategy, it might result in more credit for a reelection bid by Obama. < :-)
0
Molenir
There are some republicans like that. Most however would be satisfied just having any plan, whatever it might be. So far, months after it was needed and requested, we're still waiting. Hey, that sounds like the name of a good book. Waiting for Obama
0
adaydream
It would have been quick and easy for Obama to just sign off on the troop request or to say no and stay the course. But he's taken the time to not only supply more troops to the Afghanistan effort, but to also come up with an exit strategy.
Yeah, Obama and his war team took a while. But he's trying to do it right. < :-)
0
lostrune2
Being satisfied with any plan is dangerous, especially when playing with soldiers' lives. Don't settle.
0
Molenir
No, it would have been hard politically for him to just sign off on the troop request, or to pull out. Instead he chose to stay the course, and for months waffled on what to do, while soldiers were dying.
Having a plan in place is a good thing. It provides a framework from which to operate, a goal to shoot for, and provides evidence of leadership, whether or not that leadership is good or bad, a plan is a good thing. People can then tear into the plan, point out its flaws and then hopefully get the plan fixed so that it works better. When it comes to peoples lives on the line, having a plan in place is something that needs to happen, sooner rather then later. Once Obama finally, months after he needed to make a decision, finally comes out with his plan, we can finally move forward.
For me, I would have been happy pulling out entirely, or staying in. But if we're going to stay in, we need to ramp up the troop levels to what McCrystal requested, not Mickey Mouse around like what Obama has been doing thus far.
0
lostrune2
Molenir,
Would you be really happy pulling out entirely?
0
victimcrat
Hmmm, gots to buy me some keyboard stock maybe - gonna be a lot of pounding, smashing and breaking done by angry, disappointed progressive dupes over the next few weeks.
Back to top