Bob Cesca: Obama's Unavoidable Cure for the Afghanistan Cancer

[Turborama]

Whether you like it or not, if you voted for President Obama last year, you are partly responsible for this strategy. That's not entirely a bad thing depending on your position on the war, but it's worth repeating that the president never spoke of drawing down our forces in the Af-Pak region during the campaign, nor did he mention such a thing during his first 10 months in office.

So last night's announcement shouldn't come as a shocker.

Admittedly, during the campaign, he never specifically said that he would drop 30,000 additional soldiers into the war. And while he never specified the exact "30,000" number, he also never said anything about a July, 2011 date for beginning the withdrawal either. In other words, and unlike the Bushies, he's making adjustments to his strategy based upon what's happening on the ground rather than holding himself to a firm "smoke 'em out" meets "bring 'em on" endless and unchanging war policy. And, suffice to say, this underscores his considerably non-Bushie penchant for thought, rationality and informed deliberation.

Nevertheless, this thing is painfully confounding.

Yes, I obviously voted for President Obama. Yes, I understand how this strategy is, in fact, a vast departure from the Bush administration's conduct and strategic planning (insofar as the Bushies "planned" anything -- all gut). Yes, I understood the president's hawkish language about "the good war."

But I'm very reluctant to support this decision, because history has proved that similar plans have too easily gone horribly awry. Be that as it may, I just don't see how the president's solution can be avoided.

=snip=

The impossible conundrum is whether we, as a nation, are willing to allow eight years of mistakes and mismanagement to go unmitigated knowing the long-term risks of an immediate withdrawal, or whether we risk more lives trying to at least clean up some of the mess before we bug out. Clearly, the president has opted for the latter with an eye on the former. And while I despise this war, I can't wrap my head around any other more reasonable solution.

There are historical lessons from Vietnam (more on this presently), but, likewise, there are lessons in the story of Charlie Wilson and our intervention during and following the Soviet occupation. But the added layer of several nuclear powers in the region, including Pakistan, raise the stakes and augment the risks in leaving without some kind of reconstruction as we go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x409479">Our failure in the 1980s to provide the civilian population with even the most rudimentary infrastructure following the Soviet withdrawal eventually helped to create al-Qaeda and this current FUBAR crisis. If we don't withdraw smartly, we risk decades of blowback -- or, I should say, additional blowback beyond that which has already been sowed. Yet if we leave behind some stability, as opposed to abandoning the region in its present state of chaos, we might actually ameliorate some of the anti-Western piss and vinegar that's been stirred up over the years. Then again, occupation is occupation -- a choice between "awful if we get out" or "awful if we stay."

Continues: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/obamas-unavoidable-cure-f_b_377482.html

[Oregone]

1. "you are partly responsible for this strategy"

Ok, so we should of voted for the disgruntled old kook that would of nuked the region? Or should we not of voted at all? Just curious about this meme.

People need to get past this tired shit thinking. Its irrelevant to whether the policy is beneficial of malevolent

[Frances]

2. I didn't read the post the way you did

Did I misread it? Or did you?

[Clio the Leo]

3. I'm sorry, I thought Kucinich ran during the primary....

.... it certainly wasn't like Obama came into the 2008 election season with an edge over everyone else.

[Oregone]

4. But for those who had other preferences, by the time the general rolled around...

Thats pretty plain to see.

And what is also plain to see, is that an election is irrelevant to the nature of policy pursued after the election (as is the letter after a politician's name)

[Cha]

8. Yes, there was quite an

array of primary choices.

[Turborama]

5. Did you get past the 1st sentence?

Just asking...

[Oregone]

6. Yes, but it doesn't mean the first sentence doesn't suck

[Cha]

7. Thanks Turborama, for more history on this vital issue..

"Our failure in the 1980s to provide the civilian population with even the most rudimentary infrastructure following the Soviet withdrawal eventually helped to create al-Qaeda and this current FUBAR crisis. If we don't withdraw smartly, we risk decades of blowback -- or, I should say, additional blowback beyond that which has already been sowed. Yet if we leave behind some stability, as opposed to abandoning the region in its present state of chaos, we might actually ameliorate some of the anti-Western piss and vinegar that's been stirred up over the years. Then again, occupation is occupation -- a choice between "awful if we get out" or "awful if we stay."

Karma's a bitch.