Obama's original sin on Afghanistan. What cost to avoid the "peacenik" label?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/25/obama_afghanistan_original_sin

Obama's original sin on Afghanistan
He didn't want to be the antiwar candidate in 2008, and Afghanistan seemed like the perfect way to prove he wasn't
By Steve Kornacki
Friday, Jun 25, 2010 09:01 ET

<edit>

In this sense, the most significant aspect of the McChrystal story wasn't that Obama fired the general, however dramatic that was. It's that, in doing so, he took pains to insist that "this is a change in personnel, but this is not a change in policy." With that statement, the president extinguished any hope that he'd use the moment to reevaluate the wisdom of America's nine-year fight in Afghanistan -- and with the appointment of Petraeus, he signaled that no serious course change is on the horizon, either.

<edit>

When he hit the campaign trail in 2006 and 2007, this made for brilliant political strategy. The Iraq war had become broadly unpopular and the Democratic base was still seething over the assist so many of its leaders had given President Bush in launching it. In the primaries, it was a no-brainer for Obama to contrast his early opposition to Iraq with Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize it.

But Obama also feared that the "peacenik" label could hurt him in the fall. So Afghanistan, then not nearly as unpopular a venture as it now is, became a useful tool. He could embrace Afghanistan, prove he wasn't scared of war, and frame his difference with hawks as one of judgment -- not toughness. So it was that Obama was able to spend the fall of 2008 taunting his Republican opponent, a war hero who touted foreign policy wisdom as one of his chief assets, for foolishly believing that the "central front" in the war on terror was Iraq, when it was obviously in Afghanistan (and Pakistan).

<edit>

But, just like all the Democrats who buckled in 2002, he wasn't interested in being the antiwar candidate. Instead of challenging misguided popular sentiments about the wisdom of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, Obama chose to cater to them. This right war/wrong war distinction made for great politics in 2008. But as policy in 2010, it just doesn't work. The question is whether it will be too late before he admits it.

[ProSense]

1. "he wasn't interested in being the antiwar candidate" I don't know

ending the wars may earn him that title in the long run. Look at Alan Grayson. He somehow earned the title peace champion despite his absolutely atrocious position on Israel (he makes Obama look like Kucinich on the issue).

[msongs]

3. maybet grayson disagrees with obama on 2 out of 3 nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. my friend who is a retired colonel who always voted Repub voted for Obama

and the main reason was to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. I fear the admin is trying to please cheney?

[treestar]

7. A retired colonel yet he paid little enough attention that he did not

know Obama was for continuing the war in Afghanistan? :wtf:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. I guess not

[Oregone]

4. This all started in the campaigns

Afghanistan became the cool war, which Democrats could safely support (it was out of sight, and mostly out of mind). Supporting this war was another way to criticize Bush, who abandoned it for the Iraq clusterfuck. I found the "support" trite & generic politically driven attempts to score points against the Republicans. Somewhere the narrative took a life of its own, and Democrats started believing their own rhetoric. Next thing you know, the party also became pro-war (just of a different war)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

6. Maybe Obama really believes that war should be fought

80% of Americans did when it started.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. Count me as one of the 20%.

Afghanistan, where empires go to die.

[Oregone]

10. He isn't that dumb. Just more 3-D chess, right?

:shrug:

[Vattel]

11. Speculation about Obama's motivation

for his policy in Afghanistan is just that: speculation. And I might add that it isn't very plausible speculation. There is a very common view about Afghanistan that, right or wrong, Obama seems to share, namely, that it would descend into chaos if the US and NATO left too soon, and that that chaos would foster extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan of the sort that poses a threat to U.S. national security. It would be more useful to argue that this common view is mistaken than to pretend that you can read Obama's mind and divine that he is cynically sacrificing the lives of American soldiers so that he avoids being seen as weak on defense.

[SunnySong]

12. The guy already has the Nobel Peace Prise... no real upside to ending the wars now...

:sarcasm:

[Karmadillo]

14. Kick

nt