Seriously, so what are the generals/intel telling Obama that's convincing him this is a good idea?

[Poll_Blind]

I watched an interview with Daniel Ellsberg on ForaTV where he made the case that (paraphrasing) it takes about 3 months for any president's planned policy to be eroded by the opinion of the military establishment after he comes in office- especially after Bush (but really Cheney) who packed the intelligence establishment with their cronies.

Unlike George W Bush, who had "puppet" written all over him, Obama (most anyone would admit) is a markedly more thoughtful, intellectual-curious, and intelligent politician than his predecessor.

And yet...here we are.

I believe both our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan represent (at least) an enormous drain on our resources, the goals of which are certain to fail completely. From the echoing chants supporting Muqtada al-Sadr at Saddam's hanging to the histories of failed attempts to conquer Afghanistan, it seems that we could only be in less control of our future as a prosperous country if we'd decided to restart the Vietnam or Korean wars and settle old scores "once and for all".

That interview with Ellsberg I mentioned above was co-paneled by no less than John Dean and he said something interesting (again paraphrasing): On assuming the office of the presidency or on gaining the highest security clearances required in order to advise the President on matters of national security, one is briefed on much Top-Secret/compartmented information which renders almost all outside analysis useless and that only the President and his closest advisers have access to most vital information available.

So, while keeping the tone of responses as serious as one may on a Wednesday afternoon on DU, what in the fucking world is Obama privvy to which could possibly make these "strategies" worthwhile for our country?

I may not be able to respond for a while (I'm leaving in a few minutes) but if anyone has been musing about this question as I have, I am interested to hear what they believe is the real cause of this- because both on Iraq and Afghanistan fronts this is dragging on beyond all reasonable measure- longer than World War II and with hardly anything to show for it except unforgivable losses of life, money and material.

PB

[DJ13]

1. I dont think it would take much more than

"We know where your children live"

Seriously, the MIC are a bunch of sick fucks that dont give two shits about human life so long as they can profit.

[Myrina]

4. bingo.

n/t

[valerief]

11. Yep, made him an offer he couldn't refuse. nt

[Poll_Blind]

15. Do you think it's that bad, really? For real? I think there's pressure but....

...it's hard to imagine (or maybe hard to accept) that our President, that any president, would essentially come into office with a gun to his head.

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment but it's hard (for me) to believe that's the reality of the situation and (especially) that it's the motivation behind this/these policy move(s).

PB

[MNDemNY]

2. ..

" there's plenty o money to be made, by supplyin' the army wit' the tools o the trade....!" ..."and it's 1,2,3,what are we fightin' 4? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is ........"

[BobRossi]

3. It's not the generals and intel.

It's GE, Boeing, McDonnel-Douglas, Raytheon, etc.

[MNDemNY]

5. ,

:thumbsup:

[cdsilv]

6. That Unocal pipeline is essential to our long-term energy security!...

...and oil company profits!

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Especially oil company profits. Yep!

[FiveGoodMen]

10. I think you're correct.

If long-term energy security was the main concern, we'd be encouraged not to drive urban assault vehicles (sometimes called SUVs) everywhere.

[MNDemNY]

13. for a while, anyway?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7139404

[FiveGoodMen]

14. Ah, thanks for pointing that one out.

[valerief]

12. Same thing. They're always the deciders; generals are mouthpieces. nt

[Poll_Blind]

16. While the profit greatly from this ongoing misadventure, do you...

...believe that the reason for this is that Obama believes that if those companies (and the industry they represent) don't do well that the whole nation would collapse (further)? I agree with your sentiment but, again, it's hard for me to imagine that Obama would be sold on such a Bush-like idea.

Basically, most of the Bush-era lines of thinking are so one dimensional as to be lines drawn directly from the Treasury to the pockets of the companies you listed above. It's hard to imagine, though, that Obama wouldn't approach that sort of problem as an opportunity to steer away from that sort of crap and to something where Americans, in a broader sense, are helped. Not just missile/bomb/jet manufacturers.

PB

[Auggie]

8. IMO it's mostly about politics

The Obama administration is showing their aggressive side against terror so the GOP has less ammunition to use against him in 2012. This way they can begin pulling out in 2011 (which is also great campaign fodder) without looking like they abandoned Afghanistan all together,

It's mostly about politics as I see it -- though a lot of palms are still getting greased too.

[Poll_Blind]

17. This was something I had thought about too- I think this is the most...

..."obvious" reason why he'd make a move like this. I just don't see him being able to follow through with the pullout- and of course (IIRC) he described the pullout in general terms, not something absolute. I see 2010/11 seeing no change in the overall situation and so using that as a strategy would seem pointless- on the assumption that he does intend to withdraw the troops in some "complete" manner before the next Presidential election cycle.

[BeFree]

18. Could be

Certainly the way Obama has laid this out puts a big stfu rag in their mouths. It could be that the only way to politically get this over and done with with the least amount of fighting the teabaggers and the pentagon is this way.

And hope that a few more troops will actually control the situation and keep the violence down. It is possible, but it is a dangerous game. 'Twould be a fantastic game of chess with the ends driving the means.

I don't see what could have forced his hand otherwise, except that it goes back to the policy under Carter that was instituted to make sure that the US, in order to secure our oil from the Chinese taking it all, would interject ourselves militarily in the region and stay there until the last oil is drawn.

Might even be a combination of the two.

Still, as a zealot for peace, and as an individual that has to live with my conscience, I oppose this war. We can do better.

[Auggie]

21. +1

[izquierdista]

9. The one tool toolbox

Generals have only one tool in their toolbox -- WAR! That's why we have civilian control of the military, since the military never get enough of war. When you send warriors to do diplomacy and politics, all you get is more war.

[Sinti]

19. It's the Military Industrial Church's war = peace plan

You're with us....or you're with us.

[Thickasabrick]

20. It's Gates - he trusts him implicitly. Gates thinks this is a good idea

so there you are.

[Poll_Blind]

22. I thought it was odd that he kept Gates on after Bush. Why do you think he puts so much...

...faith in Gates? I mean, he could have the pick of anyone for SecDef and just about any Bush appointee would seem....shit, tainted in the least. Any thoughts on that?

[Thickasabrick]

23. I think that Gates disagreed with many of Bush's judgement calls

and probably all of Cheneys' so Obama respected that and trusted him to not be political about his decisions. I personally do not think Gates is that political and I don't think he's an extreme hawk...but he's still a hawk.

Not to forget the whole "bi-partisan" thing working.