Take the Obama War Council Quiz
EmailHere are some of the tough questions President Obama and his National Security Council are debating, according to administration sources.
What is the impact on security in Pakistan of any decisions regarding Afghanistan?
How will al Qaeda message about the decisions the United States makes?
Does providing security for the provinces against the Taliban make sense if most al Qaeda are now in Pakistan?
Can the success of the surge in Iraq be replicated in a country of harsher terrain, and that is 80,000 square miles larger and not nearly as advanced in terms of government or economy?
Does the Taliban pose an existential threat to the U.S.? If not, need they be defeated?
Does “nation-building” in Afghanistan make sense if it’s not clear that nation can be built?
Will allowing the Taliban to reconstitute itself even further allow al Qaeda more safe havens?
Is Hamid Karzai more albatross than ally?
- jpt
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
I was hoping this was gonna be multiple choice!
Posted by: Danny | October 1, 2009, 1:07 am 1:07 am
What they really mean is how Obama will package his ”cut & run” policy so it doesn’t look like defeat. He doesn’t care about consequences, exception made for consequences for himself. The sad truth is that Obama likes thugs & dictators – witness his policy on Sudan, Syria, Iran & the shabby treatment of our allies (Poland & Czechoslovakia, Israel, Honduras, Columbia). Of course, the mainstream media glosses over most of the disasters & blunders – luckily, there are other sources of information.
Not a doubt, Obama will replace Jimmy Carter as the worst American president in history.
Posted by: Terry | October 1, 2009, 2:57 am 2:57 am
How many months will it take Obama to ponder over these questions? Our Troops will all be dead, God forbid! There have been 43 deaths among our Troops in just the last 47 days since Gen. McCrystal asked for reinforcements. Time is of the essence, Mr. Obama! Get it in gear!!!
Posted by: Sunnyr | October 1, 2009, 3:38 am 3:38 am
Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for a reason. I liked the effect of our first effort in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 – special forces leading indigenous Northern Alliance and other local forces. This and use of our air force and fleet of drones is the answer. Unlike Iraq, I don’t believe more troops are the answer. Afghanistan has been the Vietnam for many armies, we should not get sucked into this. We go after Al-Qaeda, while the local forces with our help go after the Taliban.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | October 1, 2009, 3:58 am 3:58 am
There’s an interesting account on the Afghan war by John Bernard on a blog called interestingly, ”Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home.”
Before making a comment, you should read this account from someone with actual experience on the ground.
Posted by: Terry | October 1, 2009, 4:48 am 4:48 am
Where is the “Can we afford to expand the war?” or “Should we shut down shop and try to salvage our economy, especially given the fact that they aren’t going to be able to atttack us with any efficiency?” question?
Posted by: jan | October 1, 2009, 6:32 am 6:32 am
Obama had made a campaign promise to get us out of IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN the people don’t want these wars we made a vote to end these wars!!!! THE PEOPLES VOTES ARE GOING TO START TO MEAN SOMETHING SOON THE PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH LIARS!!!!!
Posted by: mike | October 1, 2009, 6:58 am 6:58 am
Mike
Obama promised to win Afghanistan, not desert it. We shall see.
This from CNS:
43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements
Posted by: drjohn | October 1, 2009, 7:10 am 7:10 am
“There have been 43 deaths among our Troops in just the last 47 days since Gen. McCrystal asked for reinforcements. Time is of the essence, Mr. Obama! Get it in gear!!!”
The general just got the last of his 21,000 reinforcements that Obama has already sent. Even if Obama had immediately decided to send more it wouldn’t have changed the fates of those 43 soldiers we lost. It’s another bogus statistical association the Right wants to use to assert that Obama needs to rush his decisions. Careful deliberation is clearly warranted.
Posted by: Skip | October 1, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Careful deliberation is clearly warranted.
Posted by: Skip | Oct 1, 2009 9:21:06 AM
The war is lost.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 1, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Where is the “Can we afford to expand the war?” or “Should we shut down shop and try to salvage our economy, especially given the fact that they aren’t going to be able to atttack us with any efficiency?” question?
Posted by: jan | Oct 1, 2009 6:32:21 AM
“The stimulus has done its job.” However, another half a million jobs lost. I would say we can’t afford much.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 1, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
“”The stimulus has done its job.” However, another half a million jobs lost. I would say we can’t afford much.”
____________________________________
Regrettably the last President chose to plunge the country further and further into debt and bankrupt the United States to China during economic ‘good times’ – instead of providing for the future during those good times.
That same President then passed along that immense national debt, a large deficit and an economy in free fall to the current President.
You’re lucky we’re not in a full-out depression – and the stimulus plans of ALL of the industrial nations have planned a key role in that.
Posted by: tierra | October 1, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
We can never “win” because fighters from all over the world are continually entering Afghanistan via Pakistan – and training their children to fight.
But never ending wars sure make defen$e contractors happy! – and Congress critters that gladly accept their campaign donations to build more bombs and military equipment in their states and districts.
Posted by: joseyj | October 1, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
If Dems hadn’t won Congress in 2006 – Rummy would have remained and continued MISmanaging both wars.
Gates is better than Rummy – specifically on Iraq – but he also forgot Afghanistan.
Posted by: joseyj | October 1, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
An issue thats been sitting on the presidents desk since august american lives at stake and hes more concerned with pushing his health care lies and the olympics. does anybody remember the word impeachment.
Posted by: jim bradford | October 1, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
“That same President then passed along that immense national debt…”
So Obama’s solution has been to increase that debt catastrophically in his first eight months in office. His first year’s deficit is more than three times as large as Bush’s largest.
The CBO told us in January that the recession would end in the third quarter without a stimulus. The stimulus has been an utter waste, and has added $787 billion to the national debt. (Bush’s largest deficit in any year was $456 billion. The entire Iraq war cost less than the “stimulus.”)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 1, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
Throughout his campaign Obama told us that Afghanistan was the “good war.” In March of this year he proclaimed it a “war of necessity,” one that we had to win and would win. That same month he announced his strategy for victory. Less than seven months later he has no idea what to do.
Worse than Carter.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 1, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm