Price Tags: Costs Rise for Obama on Afghanistan
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: There are no Thanksgiving sales around here. And not every cost carries a CBO score.
There's the cost of health care reform, and of a troop escalation in Afghanistan, all amid mounting deficits that are actually starting to matter.
Plus there's the political cost of tackling those things, with a skeptical public pushing a worried Congress in the direction of delay.
It's often been said in recent years that the costs of political actions aren't evident when the actions themselves are taking place.
That's changing over this month before Christmas — and who might be thankful for that?
Next up for President Obama — explaining how getting out means getting in deeper:
"President Obama will face the central challenge of explaining why he is escalating an eight-year-old war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public, while he also outlines plans for ending it," The Washington Post's Scott Wilson reports. "Obama's decision to outline an escalation and an exit simultaneously is a result of months of deliberation over a military proposal to expand the war, with no assurance that doing so would result in a more stable Afghanistan." Owning a war means selling a war — and making sure there are buyers:
"Offering that reassuring if somewhat contradictory signal — that by adding troops he can speed the United States toward an exit — is just the first of a set of tricky messages Mr. Obama will have to deliver as he rolls out his strategy publicly," The New York Times' David E. Sanger reports. "Over the next week, he will deliver multiple messages to multiple audiences: voters at home, allies, the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the extremists who are the enemy. And as Mr. Obama's own aides concede, the messages directed at some may undercut the messages sent to others."
Shared burdens: "The president is expected to officially ask NATO to provide 5,000-10,000 more troops when NATO leaders convene next month," ABC's Jake Tapper reports. "Alluding to benchmarks requiring progress for the Afghan government and the training of Afghan security forces that aides say are part of the new strategy, the president also noted that part of the new strategy would ‘recognize that the Afghan people ultimately are going to have to provide for their own security, and so we'll be discussing that process whereby Afghan security forces are properly trained and equipped to do the job.' "
ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported on "Good Morning America" that the president's speech next Tuesday night will probably be outside of the White House, since the president wants an audience.
And the president knows he needs Republicans to back him up on spending: "He's going to lose a majority of votes among House Democrats," Stephanopoulos said.
Rumblings on the left — Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., to The Hill: "An exit strategy to be developed later is not an exit strategy."
Adding to the heat: "Let me say that there is serious unrest in our caucus about, can we afford this war?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a conference call with economists Tuesday.
"Politically, raising taxes just months before the 2010 midterm elections would be a very difficult legislative task, particularly with Republicans already criticizing individual Democrats for the mounting national debt," The Washington Post's Paul Kane reports. "But the war tax proposals from top Democrats have served as a marker for the difficulty Obama will have in securing support from Democrats for the expected troop expansion."
"The suggestion that a surtax be used to help fund the increasingly unpopular war, though unlikely to pass, illustrated the fiscal anxieties that the president will face if he asks Congress to write another big-ticket item into the budget," the Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook and Christi Parsons report.
"The escalating cost in blood and treasure of a war that has already cost America $150 billion and has no clear end in sight is the reason Obama faces a tough sales job when he finally rolls out his Afghan strategy next week after nearly three months of debate," Time's Mark Thompson writes.
Why else the sales job is daunting: "Public approval of President Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan has plummeted, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, amid rising pessimism about the course of the conflict," USA Today's Susan Page writes. "The nation is divided over what to do next: Nearly half of those surveyed endorse deploying thousands of additional U.S. troops, while four in 10 say it's time to begin withdrawing forces."
"Neither he nor his advisers has detailed an exit plan, but the strategy he is expected to describe next week would include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said," the AP's Anne Gearan writes.
Is this a strategy you want credit for? Vice President Joe Biden is on the cover of this weekend's New York Times Magazine — "After Cheney," by James Traub.
"In the debate over Afghanistan, [Biden] initially faced a near-consensus in favor of the view advanced by the generals," Traub writes. "McChrystal offered three options, which boiled down to way more troops than he could get (80,000), enough troops (40,000), and failure (10,000 trainers but no new combat troops). Obama encouraged Biden to push the advocates to defend their arguments and justify their assumptions. Biden proceeded to do just that, especially with the brass; he proposed an alternative plan that focused less on defeating the Taliban and more on eliminating Al Qaeda."
Said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "People were thinking about certain things, but hadn't expressed them. The vice president was expressing them."
Getting serious on spending — or, at least, wanting to look serious: "The White House is considering a bipartisan commission to tackle the nation's swelling deficit, as it seeks to show resolve on a problem that threatens its broader agenda," The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman and John D. McKi nnon report. "Senior congressional officials said the idea was gaining traction. Two officials said the White House was likely to make its own proposal for a panel, which could have less power than the proposed Conrad-Gregg commission."
Getting crowded: "Raising the U.S. government's $12.2 trillion borrowing limit tops an agenda of must-pass legislation that imperils Senate Democrats' ability to pass a health-care bill this year," Bloomberg's James Rowley and Brian Faler report. "As the senators struggle to meet President Barack Obama's year-end deadline to overhaul the health system, they must also act to keep the government running and prevent a 21 percent drop in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients."
This has time to set in: "Americans could pay billions of dollars more in new taxes for a few years before they're likely to see significant change in the nation's health care system under legislation that Congress is considering," McClatchy's David Lightman reports.
No holiday break from the ad wars. From the release going out Wednesday: "Health Care for America Now (HCAN) – the nation's largest health care campaign – debuted two new television ads today – one in Arkansas and one in Nebraska. The first thanks Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) for voting to allow the Senate to begin debate on health care reform and putting their constituents' needs ahead of the health insurance industry's greed. The second spot points out that it's a Senator's job to debate important legislation, and by voting to block debate last Saturday night, Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) showed he is fighting for the health insurance industry instead of fighting for Nebraskans."
Hold your judgment — but not for long: "The real evaluation of Obama's debut must wait for the results of the two biggest problems he's tackling: his decision on Afghanistan and the congressional attempt to pass health care reform," Time's Joe Klein writes.
Maureen Dowd wants more loyalty: "Although a handful of donors were invited to the premiere state dinner Tuesday night — as well as erstwhile allies Craig and Hillary — many donors and passionate supporters are let down by Obama's detachment, puzzled at his failure to make them feel invested when he's certain to come back to tap their well soon enough," she writes in her New York Times column.
For President Obama on Wednesday — from a state dinner, to a turkey pardon.
"Obama, a former constitutional law professor, will issue a presidential pardon to Courage, a 20 week old, 45-lb turkey from Princeton, N.C.," ABC's Karen Travers writes. "Each year over 45 million turkeys end up on Thanksgiving dinner tabled across the United States, according to the National Turkey Federation. And every year since 1947, according to historians, one lucky bird has been spared that fate due to a presidential pardon. If for some reason Courage the Turkey cannot live up to his ‘official duties' (which essentially consist of sitting there and not biting President Obama), an alternate, Carolina, will step in."
The White House preview video is worth the click: "Tomorrow, one turkey gets a second chance…"
Checking in on the GOP, in Texas: "A Texas-sized brawl is under way between [Sen. Kay Bailey] Hutchison and [Gov. Rick] Perry in a GOP primary race that's pitting the public's anger at Washington against its anti-incumbent fervor," the AP's Liz Sidoti writes. "The March primary is shaping up to be a test of sorts for the 2010 midterm elections nationwide, when Senate, House and gubernatorial candidates of all political stripes will face an electorate that's sour on both current lawmakers and the federal government."
Before we get to Dobbs for president — Dobbs for Senate? "I think Lou is realistically saying, that's a long way off, but if he did run for office there'd have to be an intermediary step, such as the Menendez seat" in New Jersey, which is up in 2012, Dobbs spokesman Robert L. Dilenschneider tells The New York Times' David M. Halbfinger.
New blogger on the block: Dan Pfeiffer, incoming White House communications director. ABC's Jake Tapper finds some highlights, and welcomes him to the game: "The point of Pfeiffer's blog is to be something like the electronic version of when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs uses the daily briefing to make a point about a specific issue."
The Kicker:
"I hope he's more accurate about the bill than he is about me." — David Broder, responding to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's description of him on the Senate floor as "a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while."
The Note morning analysis won't publish again until Monday, Nov. 30. Have a happy Thanksgiving!
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note's blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
“It is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest, to make sure that Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively in those areas,” he continued……………………………
Also We’re going to downsize government – cut costs – create new jobs – and balance our budget that won’t budge. Now Foolks with all the Good News Black Friday is coming up. Go out and Buy, Buy, Buy, and Spend, Borrow, and Charge Up all that you haul. You will make Your President, Congress, Geitner & China so very happy to know that our Bail-Outs & Tax cut Schemes for the Corporations, Banks, Wall Street, & Auto was the Right Thing to Do. We got bigger & better things planned JUST FOR YOU Next Year. HEALTHCARE for example! TRUST Me! Would I Lie?
Posted by: kiotikid | November 25, 2009, 8:44 am 8:44 am
Maybe Chris Dodd can get a VIP loan to fund the war. Charlie Rangel can co-sign
Posted by: jamescbuilder | November 25, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am
The republicans have been criticizing Obama for not sending troops. Now that he plans to do this, let’s see how many support him. Probably none and they are phonies. They will find something negative to say as they have from the beginning of his administration. I want to see of Lindsay Graham keeps his promise to build a shelf for Obama’s Peace Prize as he said now that Obama is sending troops.
Posted by: talmag | November 25, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
There has never been a war the GOP didn’t like- That’s what you get when you own stock in munitions and defense contractors. So – it will be easy to get the GOP on board to spend money for the wars. The sad part however, is the fact that after 8 long years of the Bush/Cheney lack of strategy, lack of a clearly defined mission, inadequate troops and armour- We are left with their failure to win in Afghanistan!!! Although winning for people who own defense corporations (like Cheney — ie Halliburton) is getting paid for more services and ordinance. Endless War for profit- now that’s a GOP 21st century concept. How else can we explain away 8 years of war without winning — Is it incompetence on the part of Bush/Cheney or something far more nefarious like Billion dollar no bid contracts for administration held Corporations. In any regard Obama is left to finish the Republicants waste!!! To mock Obama for taking a few months to reevaluate our purpose and objectives( After he sent 23,000 more reinforcements to the afghan theatre) Is prudent.After all the Previous administration let Bin Ladin escape while they played a shell game (bait and switch) with Iraq.
Posted by: brian | November 25, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
What’s different about spending in Afghanistan, than the faux-war spending during the years 2000-2008?
Why would the war loving GOP have any issue with defense spending? It’s out of character.
Maybe the Afghan conflict spending is on the up & up, unlike the GOP- corporate-friends profit making in Iraq.
Posted by: gus amaral | November 25, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
GOP should be on-board. They like war.
Posted by: Jim Bob | November 25, 2009, 10:12 am 10:12 am
Yeah, JimBob…and there were plenty of Democrats on-board with dealing with the WMD threat of Saddam back in 2003 as well…until it became politically expedient to get a sudden case of amnesia going into the 2004 elections.
Posted by: Bill | November 25, 2009, 10:24 am 10:24 am
Its time Americans paid their way. For thirty years we have not paid our way, running up a severe national debt. Our shortfall during the Bush administration was $5 trillion, which my congressman (R-OK) attributes to ‘a couple of wars’. The cost of the wars during the Bush years is claimed to be $1.3 trillion total, no one talks about the phantom remainder of $3.7 trillion. If we are unwilling to pay for war, bring the troops home now.
Posted by: Independent1959 | November 25, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
Why do have to wait for his “address”? Just send in the troops already. I guess it is politically important not to make this announcement until after Thanksgiving. The Commanders and troops have waited long enough. Cut the orders today and make your announcement on Tuesday, but cut the orders.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 25, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
They started it they should help fund it. There are more private security personnel over there than actual troops. I’m sure somewhere there is a republican owner of these security firms wringing their hands with excitement that they will still be making their millions from the American taxpayers for a long, long time. Do the republicans want this war to end? Never, and don’t let them tell you any different. It is not part of their idealogy.
Posted by: Chuck | November 25, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
I get a kick out of all the Dems saying how the GOP doesn’t want the wars to end. As a veteran of Iraq 1 & 2 and Kosovo, I can tell you the military wants them to end and I do not believe anyone wants war, Dem or GOP. I am an Independent because of Bush, but i don’t believe for one minute ANYONE wants war. It is a necessary evil sometimes.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 25, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am
I am sure the republicans will want to fund the war. They are the party more concerned dabout our national defense.
Obama already knows he has a problem with many democrats who don’t care about defending the country.
Posted by: jonny | November 25, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
Let’s start at the very beginning, we march into Afghanistan under the Bush doctrine in 2001. The idea was to remove Al Queda from power and to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. Just like the Soviet Union we moved into Afghanistan in one day. What happen over the two terms under,”The Bush Doctrine” turned into a lack of focus and eight year were wasted. Then 9/11 happens Osama Bin Laden is in direct contact with the highjackers who in turn destroy the World Trade Center. The Bush/Cheney administration found a way to blame 9/11 on Iraq. When actually eight of the twelve highjacker were from Saudi Arabia. So lies are told to push us into a war on two fronts, our armed forces are stretch thin and we are now spending money on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense estimates America has spent 87.1 Billion Dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan but this is a loose estimate. If America really knew how much as been spent we would be out of there tomorrow. We have failed to understand history, so we have repeated getting into another civil war ( remember Vietnam) and inevitably it will lead to failure. Right now we won’t pull out only because we can’t save face.
Posted by: jbmotogp | November 25, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
brian — Haliburton only had one direct defence contract in Iraq. They provided the manpower for the civilian contracted service organizations associated with non combat support. In other words, they supplied the latrine facilities, bottled water shipment and stocked and funded the mess facilities in the larger units and deployment areas.. Many defense contracts that included weaponry and technology were involved in the war, not just Haliburton. In fact, Pelosci’s husband’s company received 3 very lucrative defence appropriations contracts while she sat on the defense appropriations committee in congress.. but that never gets mentioned in the same breath as the evil Mr Cheney.
Bush and cheney did not have a lack of strategy – the strategy of winning the initial conflict in Irag and then increasing manpower to stabilize teh country seems to have worked pretty well, and need I remind you that the total number of conbat deaths in Iraq for its seven years of conflict is about 5,000. Compare that to the 69,000 lost in the same amount of time in Viet Nam – and thanks to congress we did not win that conflict (much like they tried to do with this one.) As far as inadiquate troops and armour are concerned, you can thank Clinton for that not Bush, on the way to balancing 2 annual budgets, the Clinton administration made deep cuts to manpower and equipment in our military. You don’t actually think our troops had their flak jackets taken way from them when Bush took office do you… no, they were gone long before that. A casuality of Clinton’s defense spending cuts.
The dig on Obama is not the amount of time he took to consider the issue, but rather that he did not set aside time to consider the issue until now. Obama has known since before he took office what the situation in Afganistan is. At the very least, it should have been an important consideration for him from the beginning. A general HE appointed tell him three months ago what is needed and still it takes 8 more meetings and 3 months to decide. An almost 8 year war, and he does not have a game plan until NOW?? What was he planning to do, declare victory and leave like Nixon did.. did his own appointment complicate the issue by saying “We can be successful IF we do this’? OR as many contend, was it simply a mater of trying to get the healthcare debacle passed before alienating his far left supporters..
Posted by: arkievet | November 25, 2009, 11:12 am 11:12 am
I happen to believe in Colin Powells approach-you have to have an exit strategy that is sound-outherwise get out…muddling along is not the answer…I am happy with the time they have taken to “force” all those involved in the decision making process to focus-and when its not good enough -go back and rework it..no more half baked ideas, if you have a solid end game-you can rework the middle as you run into problems.
Posted by: cowgirl | November 25, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Above all else, we need to this country a safe place to live. Without safety nothing else matters.
Posted by: Jeff | November 25, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
Cut the orders today and make your announcement on Tuesday, but cut the orders.
Posted by: lfrichar | Nov 25, 2009 10:33:37 AM
***********
If he cut the orders today, he wouldn’t have as many people watching him Tuesday. He hasn’t been in prime time for a while. He needs a fix.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | November 25, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
America as we all well know is in a recession. In order to recover from a recession we need to cut spending on a war we cannot win.
Posted by: jbmotogp | November 25, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
jbmotogp– Your timeline is pretty skewed.. First, we did to inot Afganistan in late 2001, but not until AFTER the towers were hit on 9/11. We had not been in Iraq for 8 years prior to 9/11 and it was not caused by a lack of focus by the Bush administration “who were concentraing on Iraq” as you stated.
Bush and Cheney did not blame 9/11 on Iraq. There were 20 separate pieces of intelligence from 17 different countries (including ours) that indicated that Iraq still had WMDs. This intelligence was taken to congress on the theory that if we engaged heavily in Afganistan, and there were WMDs in Iraq, it could prove very costly to us to not first engage Iraq as well. Congress voted overwhelmingly under The War Powers act in early 2003 to allow Bush to engage in a conflict with Iraq.
What would have been said by people like you, if Bush had simply engaged our troops in Afganistan and ignored Iraq. Had the WMDs been there as the intelligence indicated, and had they been used to kill and maim 10s of thousands of our troops in Afganistan, would you have been forgiving of Bush, or would this blog now be about how Bush did not take action in Iraq and was responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of US troops?
Posted by: arkievet | November 25, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am
arkievet,
Don’t confuse these guys with facts. Their brains will explode.
Posted by: jonny | November 25, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am
O’Babble has already spent more tax payer dollars than any other U.S. President. Even so, he has made us more at risk from terrorist attack by his appointment to CIA and Homeland Security of incompetents and his dithering in the war against terrorism.
Posted by: Ron | November 25, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
What I have seen from speechs and comments from the President and members of congress my mind is drawn to a passage in a book by Michael Chriton(R.I.P). “Wars are won in the will , defeat the will and win the war…”
Many of the politicians in power now haven’t the will to fight terrorism, regardless of what name the groups opperate in, and that is very dangerous for those who serve in our military.
We(Democrats, Replublicans, Independents and the much castigated Bush and Cheney) decided to start a war in Afganistan but didn’t have the will to move into the tibal areas of Pakistan to root out insurgents there. Because of that choice we have put our forces, and the forces of our allies in danger.
For some time now this conflict has devolved from a war against terrorism to a war to save face for American politians. Bush’s actions in the tail end of his administration and Obama’s current actions prove that, in my opinion.
Just bring the troops home. Their orginal reason for fighting this war no longer applies because those who they are fighting for no longer have the will to fulling support them.
Posted by: bobtherepublican | November 25, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am
America as we all well know is in a recession. In order to recover from a recession we need to cut spending on a war we cannot win.
Posted by: jbmotogp | Nov 25, 2009 11:22:07 AM
…………………………………
Or pork filled stimulus, or 1.2 trillion in Health Kill bill. Sorry ladies I hope you self test well because no mammograms until it is to late. And the rationing begins!
Posted by: batesba74 | November 25, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am
Just let the General’s run the war and quit arm chair quarterbacking from DC. Obama didn’t like any of the scenarios offered because he doesn’t even have the basic idea of how a war is run. The General’s and JCS have to explain the basics all the way up to the tactics because Obama is lucky to have ANY experience with even GiJoe when he was young. We pay General’s alot of money to do their jobs, quit tying their hands and let them go.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 25, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Ron, Obama has not spent more than any other president. Saying so discredits your comments. You need to go back and start adding up annual budgets, then add the related budget deficits. The Bush administration years spent approx $24 trillion. Now compare that number to 2009 budget plus expected deficit and you get around $5 trillion. Your math doesn’t hold up. Also, the CBO attributes only 10% of our current deficit problem to new policies enacted by Obama, Bush is attributed to 33%.
Posted by: Independent1959 | November 25, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
Ifrichar, I agree with some of your coments. However, I beleive just letting the generals run the war was proven a poor strategy as far back as 11/11/1918. Westmoreland proved we cannot let generals make the top level decisions.
Posted by: Independent1959 | November 25, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
to arkievet
I never said we were in Iraq for eight years. I am saying that we have wasted timely resources because we decided to invade Iraq. Why did we invade Iraq? so far three excuses were made.
1. somehow there was a claim made that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and people like you wanted blood. Without questioning intelligence information, congrats we made our way there.
2. Collin Powell put his reputation on the line by going to the United Nations and claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
3. Condilezza Rice claim we were there to bring democracy to the Iragi people.
Choose which ever one you want. The truth is Iraq has the second largest oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia. So take the blinders of your eyes and look at the total picture. American troops are not just fighting The Thaliban they are fighting tribes that simply do not want foreigners in their territory. We are also fighting a drug war. Afghanistan produces 90% percent of the heroin that is distributed through out the world. Of course these drugs are used to finance and re-arm the Thaliban fighters. Some of these weapons have been traced back to Iran. Iran has more people per capitol addicted to heroin than any country in the world. Then you have some people from Pakistan who are sympathetic to the Thaliban and have become fresh recuits for them. We have decided to back an Afghanistan government that had a rigged election, as long as the people of Afghanistan see there government as a puppet for America we will make no head way.
Posted by: jbmotogp | November 25, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
Independent1959 — I am not saying to ONLY listen to field General’s, but for Obama to come back to his war cabinet and not like any of the options only proves his inexperience. It is hard to accept that his Generals did not give him an acceptable plan after all this time. Waaaaay too much politics and not enough decisions. I really don’t like that he waits until Tuesday to “address the nation”. Enough speeches, trips and promises, time to get something done. I am supportive of an all in strategy or a complete pullout, but I will not support indecisiveness.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 25, 2009, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
In the end what destroyed the Roman Empire? An over extended Empire and Military!!! Its time for America to relinquish the self appointed world cop mantle. If were going to continue Nation Building, and Democracy imposition, we will continue to flounder economically.Iraq, and Afghanistan, were never strategic threats to the USA. For the Future —fighting a Guerrilla style adversary, without Country, or standing army, would be better served by infiltration, and clandestine attack, through special force Ops. Sending a visible, conventional army, against an entrenched indistinguishable foe is like the Colonists fighting the Redcoats. Its just not a smart way to dislodge terrorists, and serves only to give the disenfranchised jihadists a visible enemy for their undefinable hate.
Posted by: brian | November 25, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
brian your comment is right on time. If there is to be real change in Afghanistan it must come from within. Afghanistan must take the lead if America is to stay in Afghanistan, then we should as only a supporting role training Afghan troops.
Posted by: jbmotogp | November 25, 2009, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
just letting the generals run the war was proven a poor strategy as far back as 11/11/1918. Westmoreland proved we cannot let generals make the top level decisions.
Posted by: Independent1959 | Nov 25, 2009 12:20:54 PM
___
Thank you. The “just cuz McCrystal said” mantra and”all in or all out” sound bytes with ideas that would involve us being in Afghanistan forever and a day are getting old and sound more partisan hack than high-level military vet (see Colin Powell or James Jones)
Tuesday will be interesting.
Posted by: @Octavia | November 25, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
@Octavia — For your non-believing record:
1983- Torrejon Spain 614 TFS
1987- Eglin FL 3246 Test Wing
1989- Torrejon Spain 401st EMS
1994- Ramstein GE 512th FS
1995- Aviano Italy 555th FS
2000- Moron Spain 496th ABG
2003 retired.
Kosovo, Iraq 1 & 2 and all major “operations” in the ME and Balkans. I use all in instead of having to write a post that would take up 3 pages. You fight to win a war or do not fight it.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 25, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
The main concern here should be taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda, period. All the other talking points are a bunch of crap.
“We’re going to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell”, is the one that bugs me the most. IF he’s even alive, and IF we do capture him, what does it mean? Will all the terrorists just suddenly lay down their weapons and decide to play nice because “the Boss” is done? That’s NOT going to happen, folks. Next, when (or if) he is captured, what’s going to be done with him? Another civil court trial giving him the platform to rip the USA and our “evilness”?
Obama has the opportunity to put up or shut up right now. It’s his time. It’s his war of necessity. How he decides to do things is something that no one can override. But how he has decided to announce these decisions is disgusting at best. He has effectively taken what is a deadly serious situation and turned it into a media frenzy as they all hung on day after day after day, waiting for his “big decision”. Now that the decision has been made (we think), we have to be subjected to the “big announcement” at yet ANOTHER press conference. Once again, the focus is on OBAMA. This man has got to put his time and energy on something besides himself, what makes him look good, and how he can turn a situation around to his best interest. In other words…just shut up and do it.
Posted by: Shoe | November 25, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
Are you people stupid??? The last war funding bill a couple weeks ago had numerous Democrat Earmarks atttached to it that the earmarks’ cost exceeded the actual war funding bill. Do your homework ABC news aand expose this….stop having us real Americans do your work……
Posted by: Peter King | November 25, 2009, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
Shoe — Not only is his “address to the nation” going to be televised, it will be televised from “West Point”. Just sign the freekin’ orders and start the deployment. Whatever and however he chooses to release information is on him. What a media joke this is.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 25, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
We need to stop going overseas and fighting wars for people who do not respect us….Why don’t they just bring our troops home? The best way to defend terrorism is to secure our borders. We can’t do that if we’re sending all our troops overseas. Not to mention we can’t afford another war. We do not need to continue Bush’s war. Stop the madness. Congress has no common sense. I’m sure the Republican party would love to spend another trillion dollars on a war which is money we do not have. That’s what they do. Republicans like debt.
Posted by: justayreal | November 25, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
You fight to win a war or do not fight it.
Posted by: lfrichar | Nov 25, 2009 12:55:15 PM
___
I apologize for questioning, and thank you for your courageous service to our country. In my defense, it seems to me many folks think skepticism is healthy, and then balk when that skepticism is directed at bios of blog commenters when in fact that’s exactly when healthy skepticism ought to come in play when you think about it. No true offense intended.
Moving on…
IMO “winning” depends on the end goal, and there are different ways of framing what it means to win. Personally, I think that President Obama would have undercut some of the impatience and crticism, if, like President Bush, he’d undertaken his strategic reassessment BEFORE selecting a general to implement it. I get that much. He sent McChrystal to Afghanistan in June and then his admin undertook its own high level assessment after McChrystal’s became public– and there were leaks. If not for that, which likely is because he’s new in this role and he didn’t realize how it would be spun, I don’t see why this would be that big of an issue. And I still don’t think it should be, or that he should just do what McCrystal says. People like to say we shouldn’t follow blindly– and then they’re ready to follow McCrystal blindly, and throw other veterans under the bus because they don’t agree with the GOP’s memes and mantras. I find it annoying. Bush took six month to come up with the surge strategy, didn’t he?
In any event, Tuesday will be interesting. We all will likely have plenty to debate for real after that. I’m agnostic about all this, though I do think the President is getting a bit of a bum rap, and I don’t like war– and can’t see how to frame this so it’s “winnable.”
Posted by: @Octavia | November 25, 2009, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
The U.S.’s ambassador to Iraq visited all of Sadaam’s palaces, underground bunkers, etc. in Iraq from 1989-2003 and found NO WMDs, just as the correct intelligence justified from other countries’ probing, as well. Bush was relayed the news, he asserts it must be false and he wanted to finish what his Daddy started, so he puts the wife of our Ambassador to Iraq in mortal danger, forcing the Ambassador to quit, and allowing Bush to spew the lies he wants(really, Cheney was behind it all, though, because he who acted as President during that administration and told Bush what to do).
Posted by: truthmayprevail | November 25, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
What constitutes “winning” this war in Afghanistan?
Al Qaeda is expanding to countries like Yemen while we fight them in Afghanistan. Let’s not forget about Pakistan either.
So we’re talking a hundred billion dollars a year and countless American and civilian lives to ensure what? We can’t police the world, and we’re not about to “win” anything in Afghanistan – not unless we stay there 10 or 20 years too. This is Vietnam over and over again.
Now this man is going next month to accept the Nobel Peace prize? It seems to me that he would have best turned it down given what he has obviously been inclined to do in Afghanistan.
Posted by: JonF | November 25, 2009, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm