Random header image... Refresh for more!

Both And And And And And And…. Thinking

by Scott H. Payne

I can’t help but see what appears to be the content of Obama’s immanent anouncement on Afghanistan as anything but the worst of all possible outcomes. Listen, I like Obama and on more than one occasion I’ve stuck up for his position on issues against my better judgment because I believed that he had a long range plan that he’s following and I’ve, on more than one occasion, praised his non-zero sum “both-and” thinking.

But let’s be honest, there are limits.

It doesn’t strike me that you can credibly talk about deploying an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but make the focus of your speech how you plan to wrap things up by turning the bulk of fighting over to Kabul. It seems like a rhetorical bridge too far to say that the focus will now shift to the end game in Afghanistan, while at the same time acknowledging that, “a significant American presence in Afghanistan [will] remain for a long while”.

Obama is a smart guy and a very nuanced and careful thinker, but the spin on his announcement just comes off as the worst of rhetorical hair-splitting, a fundamental unwillingness to take a position and defend it. No matter what he did on Afghanistan, Obama was going to draw criticism — welcome to politics. But this kind of “everything-to-everyone-at-all-times” game that results in flaccid, DOA decision making is precisely what has deflated every corner of Obama’s base and is going to kill his presidency, in the end.

I appreciate the desire to take all perspectives into consideration when charting a course of action for the country, I think that is not just the right thing to do, but, frankly, vital to good decision making. And as far as that front end work goes, Obama is unsurpassed. But the back end, and arguably the most important component of decision making, is to then wade through all that information and analysis, sift the options and opinions, make a determination about what seems to be the right (or at least best) course of action, and then make a firm decision to follow that course.

Increasingly, it seems like Obama’s back nine is lacking in direct correlation to the impressive and charismatic appeal of his front nine. In short, the man ain’t got no follow through. But this Afghanistan announcement just stinks of the most obvious and blatant attempt to dress a half-finished process up and call it strategic wizardry. I’ll be heartily surprised if it flies very far.

Besides, what does it say when George Will and Michael Moore are on the same page and it’s a different page than you’re on? Yeah, might be something to think about.

Bookmark and Share

Share and Enjoy
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Related posts...

Tags | , , , , , ,

15 comments

1 Bob Cheeks { 11.30.09 at 1:54 pm }

Well Scott, kinda like dating that first girlfriend. First, she can do no wrong and the next thing you know she’s got bad breath.
I’m making a note that on this date your support began to erode! I think you may be way ahead of the librul curve on this one, palsy!

2 bartkid { 11.30.09 at 1:57 pm }

I would fully support additional troops sent to Afghanistan with only one provisio: Bill Kristol gets drafted and he gets put on the front lines.

Otherwise, just declare victory and send the boys home.

3 Nob Akimoto { 11.30.09 at 3:05 pm }

I don’t know, if both George Will and Michael Moore think I’m doing wrong, I usually think I’m doing something right….

4 Mike at The Big Stick { 11.30.09 at 7:52 pm }

Maybe he should have had ‘foreign policy guru’ Biden announce this plan?

‘Indecision’ is certainly going to be the defining characteristic of this administration.

5 Scott { 11.30.09 at 9:24 pm }

What is Obama supposed to do at this point? If he runs like some Dems want him to do, the Taliban will come back and I’m fairly confident their al-Qaeda buddies will come back as well. The best hope may be to pump in more US troops and try and stabilize the afghan gov’t, so they can take over.

Zach
December 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm

The Taliban do not have to “come back” from anywhere. The Taliban already control significant portions of the country.

Scott
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am

Yes the Taliban control some parts of the country but not most of the country as they did when they ran the gov’t and were hosting OBL. You do understand the difference between some and most?

Zach
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm

I’m not sure what difference it makes for the United States, no. To your earlier point, you claimed that the Taliban would come back. But the Taliban already control significant parts of the country. If you mean back to power, well, that’s already happened as well. Leaders of what now constitute the Taliban will in all probability continue to play a role in Afghan politics and society well into this century.

Mike at The Big Stick
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm

The issue really isn’t about who controls what in Afghanistan. AQ is not hoping for a Taliban return to power so they can have a bse again. What they actually want is areas that no one controls. While yes, the Taliban might have been sympathetic to AQ’s Islamic goals prior to 9/11, AQ was in Afghanistan because it was a lawless region where they could operate with no interference. If they could get the same situation in France, that’s where they would go.

So the ultimate goal for the US is wither A) prevent lawless areas from existing anywhere in the world or B) Hunt AQ wherever they are, damn international borders and kill every last one of them.

A) Is not practical. B) Is do-able but made harder if we are wasting resources fighting a Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan that really has nothing to do with terrorism and is much more about an Afghan civil war that has been fought for the last 30 years or so. Because we targeted the Taliban in 2001 we have now been sucked into this civil war and lost nearly 1000 men in the process.

Scott
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Your really not sure what difference it makes? How about the difference between a regime that hosts our enemies while they plot to attack us and one that doesn’t?

Mike at The Big Stick
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Scott,

Isn’t ‘host’ a little bit of an exaggeration? Could have the Taliban removed AQ even if they wanted to? They controlled maybe even less of Afghanistan than Karzai does currently. AQ was there because the country was lawless…not because they had found a great ally in the Taliban.

Scott
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm

No, not an exaggeration. The Taliban are Pashtuns who live with a code of honor that demands unfailing hospitality towards guests, like al-Qaeda. The US asked the Taliban to give OBL at the start but they refused.

6 Barry { 12.02.09 at 9:58 am }

“Besides, what does it say when George Will and Michael Moore are on the same page and it’s a different page than you’re on? Yeah, might be something to think about.”

How often in the past 20-odd years has George Will been correct? He’s pretty close to a perfectly reliable wrong-way compass – just see what he says, and then do the opposite.

7 Trackbacks { 02.09.10 at 5:28 pm }