SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)11/14/2009 6:10:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
I tend to agree with you...and I think a president McCain would have aggressively ramped up our military activities over in Afghanistan BIG TIME (and I doubt he would have bothered to carefully ask all the tough questions before doing it)...Many Viet Nam vets hope that our presidents have learned the lessons from that war. Bush and Cheney should have listened to Colin Powell BEFORE they rushed into Iraq (and they should have gone into Afghanistan the right way over 8 years ago)...Obama has inherited a mess on the foreign policy front and the key is to find a way to wind both of these wars down and protect our vital national interests at the same time. It's hard to believe that a very well known Nobel Prize winning economist has predicted that the full cost of the Iraq War will be in the TRILLIONS of U.S. tax dollars. Could Bush and Cheney look us in the eye and honestly tell us that it was absolutely necessary to fight that war and there were no other choices (did they really do everything to avoid an elective war?)...think of the blood and treasure our country has sacrificed so far - and many foreign policy experts feel we are LESS safe 8 years later.



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)11/14/2009 6:15:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
An Audience Of One
______________________________________________________________

By RICHARD REEVES

NOVEMBER 13, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Most of what you read, see and hear about Afghanistan is not meant for you. The words, optimistic and pessimistic, right and wrong, all the leaks, all the numbers of troop estimates, costs and polls are aimed at an audience of one: the president.

It is very hard to get to chat with any president. But any president has to know what is in the big three of American newspapers (or their Web sites): The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. And those papers right now are filled with shouting and whispering to President Obama. The latest shout, a big one, is the leaking to the Times of cables to the State Department from the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, who also happens to be a former military commander of American troops in the country.

That would be ambassador and former general Karl Eikenberry, who told the president that there might be no point in sending more young men and women in uniform to win an unwinnable war in a vast country largely ungoverned or governed by unfathomable corruption. Eikenberry's "classified" words were obviously meant as a countermove designed to check the "classified" request for 40,000 more American troops by the current military commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, leaked to The Washington Post last month.

That is the way the game is played and always has been in Washington. I once asked President Bill Clinton whether he got more critical information from daily Central Intelligence Agency reports and briefings or from reading the Times. "From the Times," he answered. "Although occasionally the CIA and the other intelligence agencies are ahead on timing."

For people like me, who believe we should get out of Afghanistan ASAP, the Eikenberry report surfaced in the nick of time — just as Obama appears ready to make long-term strategy decisions about our military involvement in Afghanistan. What is going on there is a civil war, a political war, and we have learned time and again that all the firepower in the world cannot stop people who want to destroy each other on their home territory. The Afghans have been in those unforgiving mountains for thousands of years, and they will be there for thousands more after we leave. So it does not really matter when we go.

Besides, our own people at home want us to get out, even if the war is being fought by a volunteer army, and to most Americans that means it is like another National Football League game. Our soldiers are professionals putting on a television show, same as the warriors of the NFL.

"All the polling I've ever seen," said William Schneider of CNN, "tells me one thing: Americans hate political wars. They want to win or get out."

Schneider and I were together at a forum called "Obama's Afghanistan: The Media and the War," sponsored by the Center on Communication Leadership at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. He went on to say: "We're talking now about persuading the population rather than destroying the enemy. That is the definition of a political war. We are taking sides in another country's civil war."

That message should have gotten through to presidents who ran the war in Vietnam, or it got through too late.

Another panelist, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, put it this way: "More troops mean more casualties, which means less public support."

Morton Abramowitz, who was director of the State Department's intelligence bureau in the 1980s when we were training and supplying the mujahedeen fighting and defeating Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan, offered more than a little insight into what is happening now in the same place and sometimes with the same people: "First, we would not be there or in Iraq if we had a draft and people were worried about their children. Second, can anyone tell me why it takes so long to train Afghan soldiers. The Taliban seems to have no trouble training them in a few weeks."

I hope the audience of one is listening to words like that and has the political courage to break his own campaign promises about saving Afghanistan. Save them from what, themselves?

_____________

*Richard Reeves is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate and is a visiting professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. He has also taught political writing at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His weekly column has been distributed by Universal Press Syndicate since 1979 and appears in such newspapers as the Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post and Dallas Morning News. He is a former chief political correspondent of The New York Times and has written extensively for numerous magazines including The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine.



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)11/15/2009 3:52:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War
______________________________________________________________

By CHRISTOPHER DREW
The New York Times
November 15, 2009

While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.

Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.

Senior members of the House Appropriations Committee have already expressed reservations about the potential long-term costs of expanding the war in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama could find it difficult to win approval for the additional spending in Congress, where he would have to depend on Republicans to counter defections from liberal Democrats.

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the details of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president’s insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy.

“The president focused a lot on ensuring that we were asking the difficult questions about getting to an end game here,” the official said. “He knows we cannot sustain this indefinitely.”

Sending fewer troops would lower the costs but would also place limitations on the buildup strategy. Sending 30,000 more troops, for example, would cost $25 billion to $30 billion a year while limiting how widely American forces could range. Deploying 20,000 troops would cost about $21 billion annually but would expand mainly the training of Afghans, the officials said.

The estimated $1 million a year it costs per soldier is higher than the $390,000 congressional researchers estimated in 2006.

Military analysts said the increase reflects a surge in costs for mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment that would apply to troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But some costs are unique to Afghanistan, where it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to the troops through mountainous terrain.

Some administration estimates suggest it could also cost up to $50 billion over five years to more than double the size of the Afghan army and police force, to a total of 400,000. That includes recruiting, training and equipment.

At a stop at a military base in Alaska on Thursday, Mr. Obama told a gathering of soldiers that he would not risk more lives “unless it is necessary to America’s vital interests.” He added during his visit to Tokyo on Friday that he wanted to avoid taking any step that could be seen as an “open-ended commitment.”

The administration said Friday that it planned to cut up to 5 percent at domestic agencies in fiscal 2011 as part of an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit, which rose to $1.4 trillion with the economic stimulus and financial bailouts.

Several leading Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama’s willingness to spend more freely on domestic programs and urged him to provide General McChrystal with the resources he is seeking in Afghanistan.

“Keeping our country safe: Isn’t that the first job of government?” said Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “If we have just a minimalist counterterrorism strategy, the Taliban will come back over the mountains from Pakistan, and they will be followed by their co-conspirators from the Al Qaeda organization.”

Cost is far from the only concern about escalating the war. The debate intensified last week amid disclosures that the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, had sent cables to Washington expressing his reservations about deploying additional troops, citing weak Afghan leadership and widening corruption.

That kind of doubt could also make some in Congress hesitant to support an expansion of the war, especially with the midterm elections coming next year.

Representative David R. Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin who heads the House Appropriations Committee, said recently that sending more troops to Afghanistan could drain the Treasury and “devour virtually any other priorities that the president or anyone in Congress had.”

Representative John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania and chairman of a subcommittee on defense appropriations, said in an interview that because of concerns about President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, he thought a majority of the 258 Democrats in the House would vote against any bill to pay for more troops. “A month ago, I would have said 60 to 70,” he said.

“Can you pass one?” Mr. Murtha said. “It depends on the Republicans.”

Mr. Murtha said he opposed sending more troops, though he would support any decision Mr. Obama made. He said he was concerned that even without a supplemental bill, total spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would surge past $1 trillion next year, which could hamper the economy for years to come.

Others said some Republicans could find it hard to justify a yes vote on troops after criticizing Mr. Obama for his spending. Some liberal Democrats said voters who had been drawn to Mr. Obama for his early opposition to the Iraq war could become disenchanted if he approved a major expansion in Afghanistan.

“In the times we’re in right now, I just totally believe that the public that elected President Obama really wants to see something different,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was careful to say that he would not cut military spending while the nation was engaged in two wars. He also said it was important to shore up the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. And shortly after he took office, he approved sending an additional 21,000 soldiers there, bringing the total American force to 68,000.

Still, many of his supporters assumed that his pledges to withdraw from Iraq, and to rein in the cost overruns on high-tech weapons programs, would still produce significant savings.

But even though Mr. Obama has won battles to cancel the F-22 fighter plane and other advanced programs, the immediate savings have been offset by increased spending on the surveillance drones and mine-resistant vehicles needed in the field now.

And he recently signed a $680 billion military authorization bill for fiscal 2010 that represented a 2.7 percent increase over the 2009 spending level and a 1.9 percent increase over President Bush’s peak budget in fiscal 2008.

The administration has projected that spending on Iraq would drop by $25.8 billion in fiscal 2010, to $60.8 billion, as most of the troops withdraw.

It also expected spending on the Afghanistan war to increase by $18.5 billion in fiscal 2010, to $65.4 billion, for a net savings on the two wars of $7.3 billion, if no more troops were added.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)11/16/2009 11:16:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Obama's Man in China: Ambassador Jon Huntsman

newsweek.com

Mr. Huntsman Goes to Beijing

Well before the Chinese welcomed Obama, his ambassador was showing them how an American politician works a crowd. And they love it.

By Melinda Liu
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 16, 2009

Jon Huntsman Jr. had scarcely landed in Beijing as the new U.S. ambassador before he was imperiously summoned for a tongue-lashing. Washington was getting ready to place import duties on Chinese-made tires, and the Commerce Ministry's senior brass wanted him to know they weren't happy about it. "They called me in using language in no uncertain terms," he recalls. "They asked, 'Why would you ever want to deploy an atom bomb in a trade dispute?' " But the 49-year-old ambassador kept his cool. He had sat through plenty of similar histrionics from 2001 to 2004 as deputy U.S. trade representative. "You see every different style and type of theatrics in negotiations," he says. "So you're prepared for anything."

But there were triumphs along with the trials in Huntsman's first day on the job. Later that afternoon, decked out in running shoes, khakis, and a tieless shirt with rolled-up sleeves, he welcomed a crowd of nearly 70 Chinese and foreign reporters in the garden of his new residence, greeting them in excellent Mandarin. He talked in both Chinese and English about changing Sino-U.S. relations and introduced his wife and three of their seven children. Asha, their 3-year-old adopted daughter from India, kept gleefully punching the microphone stand. To top off the event, Huntsman threw open the doors of the residence and invited the unruly gathering inside. "Take a look around and feel at home!" the beaming ambassador said. He even allowed media to interview daughter Gracie Mei, 10, who was adopted by the Huntsmans after being found abandoned in a vegetable market outside Shanghai. "I told her she was raised in America and coming back to China and is a bridge between China and the United States," Huntsman said.

His guests were bowled over. The new ambassador's openness and hospitality presented a stunning contrast to the tightly wrapped style of his predecessor, Clark T. (Sandy) Randt, an old George W. Bush frat brother from Yale who had been Washington's longest-serving ambassador in Beijing. "The picture-perfect event [was] more like a campaign stop," the Beijing-based business magazine Caijing reported on its Web site. In fact that's exactly why Huntsman is in Beijing: to rally Chinese support for the Obama agenda. His skill at drumming up enthusiasm was a big reason that President Obama crossed party lines to choose Huntsman—who not only is a registered Republican but was the national co-chairman for John McCain during the 2008 race—to run one of the most crucial U.S. diplomatic posts in the world. As the phenomenally popular governor of Utah (he was re-elected in November 2008 with 78 percent of the vote), Huntsman showed he knows how to work a crowd. And 1.3 billion people is nothing if not a crowd.

Huntsman is likely to need all the political skills he can muster. With China on the verge of unseating Japan as the world's second-largest economy, Washington and Beijing have begun a massive overhaul of their relationship. During Obama's visit to China this week, his message is that Americans welcome China's rise, and hope Beijing will join in helping solve global problems (and by the way, please keep buying those U.S. Treasury bills). Meanwhile the president has instructed his man in Beijing to keep things "positive, collaborative, and comprehensive" between the two countries. The world has changed radically since America established diplomatic ties with the isolated communist regime in Beijing three decades ago. "The days of patronizing, the days of table pounding, the days of America wins every negotiation—those days are over," says Huntsman, "Today we approach the negotiating table with mutual respect and, maybe more than ever, a defined sense of our shared interests."

Handling the rise of China may be the biggest challenge facing Washington today. To solve practically any major problem—whether it's the worsening war in Afghanistan, the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, or climate change—requires enlisting Beijing's cooperation. And that task demands extraordinary powers of persuasion, to show China's leaders that their country's interests dovetail (or at least don't clash) with those of the United States. Obama is working on it, of course, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and swarms of envoys and officials, but it's Huntsman's job to be the president's on-the-ground voice in conveying the message to Chinese officials, and his eyes and ears in assessing their responses.

His decision to accept the ambassadorship says a lot about Huntsman. This spring, Obama's 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe was quoted as saying the only Republican who made him feel "a wee bit queasy" about the 2012 race was Huntsman. Soon afterward, Obama made his offer to Huntsman, who reportedly was only a few weeks away from launching his own exploratory presidential campaign committee. Huntsman didn't hesitate—although by accepting the job he effectively took himself out of the 2012 race (2016 may be a whole different story). "I now know why they built the Oval Office," he says. "It's an impossible room in which to say 'no.' "

Political pros praised Obama's move as a masterstroke. In the name of bipartisanship, the appointment eliminated a potentially dangerous opponent—and recruited a uniquely qualified diplomat. "Keep your friends close and your enemies in China," cracked Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. But Huntsman couldn't resist the offer: China had fascinated him since childhood. One day in 1971, when he was 11 and his father (plastics magnate Jon Huntsman Sr.) was serving as special assistant to President Richard Nixon, the boy accompanied Jon Sr. to the White House. Henry Kissinger was there, preparing to embark on a hush-hush mission, and Jon Jr. was allowed to carry the national-security adviser's briefcase to a waiting car. The boy asked Kissinger where he was going, and Huntsman recalls the reply: "Please don't tell anyone. I'm going to China."

Kissinger's secret visit led to the historic Sino-U.S. rapprochement in 1972—and set the boy to dreaming of seeing China firsthand. Huntsman eventually got there, but he took a roundabout route: first he dropped out of high school in the '70s to play keyboard with a rock band, then he spent two years living as a Mormon missionary—and learning Mandarin Chinese—in Taiwan, and finally he landed a spot as a young White House aide. (He eventually earned a B.A. in international politics at Penn in 1987.)

He arrived in Beijing for the first time as part of the advance team for Ronald Reagan's April 1984 visit to China, and accompanied Reagan to Beijing's Great Hall of the People to meet Deng Xiaoping ("a simply electric character, very charismatic," the ambassador recalls). "To see these two great heads of state interact and lay out the early framework of the relationship—and to be a fly on the wall—left a very deep impression," Huntsman says. "You could just see these tectonic shifts. The plates were moving ever so subtly at that point, but you just knew this was going to change the world someday."

Huntsman has been shuttling back and forth to Asia ever since as a U.S. trade envoy, as an executive with his father's Huntsman Corp., and as U.S. ambassador to Singapore. He was back home in Utah in 2004, before becoming governor, when a Chinese delegation visited the state and met with local industry leaders. By way of introduction, Huntsman told them merely that he was "running the family business"—a term that in China often means a mom-and-pop enterprise. One of the organizers of the trip hastened to advise the visitors that the company was "not as small as you might think," adding that Jon Sr. is enshrined in the Plastics Hall of Fame as father of the styrene-foam "clamshell" food container that is nearly as ubiquitous in China as in the United States. "Light bulbs went off in the minds of the Chinese," says a source who was present but requested anonymity because he "didn't want to suggest the Chinese were slow on the uptake." In fact, the multinational Huntsman conglomerate has made the ambassador's father the richest man in Utah, and by some calculations the 47th richest man in the world.

Jon Jr.'s fascination with China continued after he was elected governor in 2004. He publicly declared Mandarin Chinese a "strategic" language, vital to America's future, and Utah became the first state to pass legislation to include it in public-school curricula. Surprisingly many Chinese officials return from visits to America saying their fondest memories are of Utah. Sharing meals with Mormon families and being serenaded by American schoolchildren in Chinese seems to make a big impression on travelers from the People's Republic. "They said, 'If a state governor can have kids singing in our own language, it's even better than traditional diplomacy,' " says Shawn Hu, a former Utah state trade representative who helped arrange numerous Utah trips for Chinese delegations.

But the love feast goes only so far. China's leaders remain wary of U.S. pressure on human rights. They were heartened back in February when Hillary Clinton, who was about to visit China for the first time as secretary of state, said human rights would not "interfere" with agreements on global issues like the financial crisis and climate change. Nevertheless, it's on the agenda for Obama's visit. "He wants to broaden the issue to include gender rights, child labor, religious and ethnic freedoms," says Brookings Institution Sinologist David Shambaugh. "Human rights are a universal issue," says Huntsman, who has promised "robust engagement" on the subject. "They transcend economics. You cannot delink rule of law and civil society and our belief in individual liberties from who we are as Americans." He says it's a U.S. priority to "systematize and regularize" the Sino-U.S. human-rights dialogue that has faltered in recent years, and he predicts progress by the end of this year. He also confirms to NEWSWEEK that he and senior embassy officers have been meeting privately with "human-rights groups and people interested in the rule of law who're interested in participating in such a dialogue."

But much of the ambassador's time is spent winning support for America. He visited the city of Guangzhou in southern Guangdong province last month to break ground for a new U.S. consulate. After hyperkinetic lion-dancers finished their welcoming gyrations, and the drumming and cymbal-clashing died down, Huntsman greeted the crowd in the local Cantonese dialect: "How are you? How is everyone?" Onlookers applauded in evident delight. Then Huntsman switched to Mandarin Chinese. "Excuse my Cantonese," he said. "I don't speak it very well. I shall learn from all of you." Deputy Guangdong governor Wan Qingliang was so charmed by the display of modesty that he postponed a scheduled trip to Beijing in order to gatecrash an evening reception and schmooze with Huntsman some more.

Does Huntsman plan to move on to the White House someday, like that other U.S. head of mission to China, George H.W. Bush? For now, the ambassador refuses to talk about 2016. A Chinese journalist in Guangzhou asked him point-blank last month: "Who would get the credit if you do a good job as ambassador and go on to run for president in 2016? You or the man who selected you, President Barack Obama?" Huntsman replied with a toothy smile—"Thank you for that last treacherous question, which I won't answer because I don't do politics here."

He may not be running for office right now, but there's no better word for what he does than politics. In his spare time he rides his Shanghai-built bicycle through the streets and alleys near his residence, sometimes with little Asha on board, and stops to talk with Chinese passersby. And he spends much of his time traveling around China, making friends with governors and grassroots citizens alike, stressing that Chinese and Americans must "learn from each other." In Guangzhou last month, he visited a neighborhood center where physically handicapped students learn English. In the recreation room, he played table tennis with a female student. "I haven't done this for 10 years. I played ping pong as a young man but only began practicing again a few days ago. I'm rusty," he told his diminutive adversary. Then he added, "I will learn from you."

Find this article at
newsweek.com

© 2009



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)11/24/2009 12:59:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Why is Obama leaving this General in a very high ranking position of power...??...fyi...

Jon Krakauer: McChrystal's Explanation For Pat Tillman Cover-up Is "Preposterous"

huffingtonpost.com



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)12/5/2009 10:53:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Neo-Cons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over "War President"

by Eli Clifton

Published on Saturday, December 5, 2009 by the Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama's plan for a 30,000-troop surge and a troop withdrawal timeline beginning in 18 months has caught criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers.

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks with army cadets after speaking about Afghanistan policy at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, December 1, 2009. Neo-con hawkish foreign policy experts - who have lobbied the White House since August to escalate U.S. involvement in Afghanistan - are christening Obama the new "War President".

The response to Obama's Tuesday night speech at the West Point Military Academy has largely been less than enthusiastic, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle finding plenty in the administration's Afghanistan plan that fails to live up to their expectations. Republicans have hammered the White House on Obama's decision to begin a drawdown of U.S. forces in 18 months, while Democrats largely expressed ambivalence or dismay over the administration's willingness to commit 30,000 more soldiers to a war seen by many as unwinnable and costly at a time when the U.S. economy is barely in recovery from the global financial crisis.

The White House's rollout of the 30,000 troop surge did little to convince an already skeptical Congress, but foreign policy hawks who have accused the president of "dithering" in making a decision on Afghanistan are praising the administration's willingness to make the "tough" commitment to escalate the U.S. commitment in the war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, their approval of the White House's decision to commit 30,000 troops is the culmination of a campaign led by the newly formed Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).

FPI held its first event in March, titled "Afghanistan: Planning for Success", and a second event in September - "Advancing and Defending Democracy" - which focused on counterinsurgency in combating the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The newly formed group is headed up by the Weekly Standard's editor Bill Kristol; foreign policy adviser to the McCain presidential campaign Robert Kagan; and former policy adviser in the George W. Bush administration Dan Senor.

Kagan and Kristol were also co-founders and directors of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a number of whose 1997 charter members, including the elder Cheney, former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and their two top aides I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, respectively, played key roles in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Bush's other first-term policies when the hawks exercised their greatest influence.

The core leadership of FPI has waged their campaign in countless editorials and columns published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.

These articles have often been highly critical, at times suggesting that Obama's unwillingness to give General Stanley McChrystal the 20,000 to 40,000 troops requested in his September report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates amounted to "dithering" and projected U.S. weakness to the Taliban, al Qaeda, and U.S. allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Senor described himself as, "pleasantly surprised" and "quite encouraged by the president's decision" in a Republican National Committee sponsored conference call.

"It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006," wrote Kagan in The Washington Post on Wednesday.

"Obama has had to make this decision with most of his presidency still ahead of him. Bush had nothing to lose. Obama could lose everything," Kagan concluded.

The theme of heralding Obama as a stoic decision-maker in the face of an administration and Congress that seek to "manage American decline" - as Kagan wrote - was also echoed by Bill Kristol in The Washington Post on Wednesday.

"By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 - after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush's, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power," wrote Kristol.

The heralding of Obama as "A War President" - which was the title of Kristol's article in The Washington Post - is a striking change of tone from some of the same pundits who were vociferously attacking the administration for every major policy initiative as recently as last week.

"Just what is Barack Obama as president making of our American destiny? The answer, increasingly obvious, is...a hash. It's worse than most of us expected. His dithering on Afghanistan is deplorable, his appeasing of Iran disgraceful, his trying to heap new burdens on a struggling economy destructive. Add to this his sending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for a circus-like court trial," wrote Kristol in the Nov. 23 edition of the Weekly Standard.

"The next three years are going to be long and difficult ones for our economy, our military and our country," he wrote.

The hawkish Wall Street Journal editorial board - which on Sept. 10 suggested that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize because he sees the U.S. "as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger", and on Sept. 18 described the administration's decision to scrap a missile defence agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic as following "Mr. Obama's trend of courting adversaries while smacking allies" - also exhibited a noticeable change in tone in praising the White House's decision to surge troop levels.

"We support Mr. Obama's decision, and this national effort, notwithstanding our concerns about the determination of the president and his party to see it through. Now that he's committed, so is the country, and one of our abiding principles is that nations should never start (much less escalate) wars they don't intend to win," said the Journal's editorial board on Wednesday.

The board's qualified endorsement of the White House's war plan seems to reflect both the Republican concerns that Obama may use the 18-month deadline as an excuse to withdraw from Afghanistan before the Taliban and al Qaeda are defeated and foreign policy hawks - such as those at FPI - who are pleased with the administration's decision to commit more fully to the war in Afghanistan.

Hawks, such as Kagan and Kristol, may have to argue in 18 months for an extension of the withdrawal deadline but in similarly worded statements they both expressed confidence that this would not be a problem.

"If we and our Afghan allied partners are succeeding [by July 2011], the timing [of the withdrawal] may make sense. If we aren't it won't. It will not be any easier for Obama to embrace defeat in 18 months than it is today," wrote Kagan in the Washington Post in response to concerns about the timeline for withdrawal.

"[T]he July 2011 date also buys Obama time. It enables him to push off pressure to begin withdrawing, or to rethink the basic strategy, for 18 months. We've come pretty far from all the talk about off ramps at three or six-month intervals in 2010 that we were hearing just a little while ago," Kristol wrote on the Weekly Standard's blog on Tuesday.

For hawks like Kristol, Kagan and Senor who have been calling for a surge in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan since August, Obama's announcement on Tuesday night was a high-point in their campaign of op-ed's, column's and conference's to push the Obama White House in the direction of an escalation in Afghanistan.

Kristol concluded his blog post on a confident note.

"In a way, Obama is now saying: We're surging and fighting for the next 18 months; see you in July 2011. That's about as good as we're going to get."

© 2009 Inter Press Service



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)12/6/2009 7:34:11 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
The Song Remains the Same
_______________________________________________________________

Bush-Style Military Spending Not Over Yet

By MIRIAM PEMBERTON

December 1, 2009 - Thought the Bush years were over? Not so fast.

The main "accomplishment" of those years, apart from getting our country handed over to the big banks and corporations, was of course launching two wars. The cost of those wars so far is staggering, but these amounts are dwarfed by the so-called "regular" defense budget.

Most of what we spend on the military—including hundreds of high-tech planes that are churned out every year and then sit idle—isn't spent on the wars we're actually fighting. And under cover of war, these "regular" budgets have risen right along with the war funding bills.

Enter the Obama administration. It's having trouble fulfilling its promises to end those wars. But it's also having trouble bringing "regular" military spending under control.

Every year a group I lead, the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, looks at overall U.S. security spending. We analyze the balance between spending on what we call "offense" (military force), "defense" (homeland security measures such as screening baggage and cargo), and "prevention" (preventing wars through diplomacy, peacekeeping troops, and economic development).

In the Bush administration's last year, it devoted 87% of our security dollars to the military. In the first Obama budget that figure is: 87%. The needle hasn't moved. At all.

Why not? In his first speech to Congress, President Obama promised to "reform our defense budget so we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use." To their credit, his administration did manage to knock off a few this year. Though short, it was a longer list than at any time since the period of defense cuts following the end of the Cold War.

The biggest prize was the F-22 fighter jet. F-22s, which cost $350 million each, were designed to fight planes the Soviet Union planned to build and never did. The F-22 is too exotic and costly ever to have been used in the wars we are actually fighting. It deserved to die.

It took a furious battle to keep this plane from coming back from the dead: The F-22's contractor has craftily placed jobs building the plane in 44 states. The Obama administration had to threaten to veto the entire defense spending bill if Congress reversed its plans for the F-22's demise.

But while the Obama administration successfully cut about $10 billion in spending on such turkeys, it then added about $20 billion in additional military spending. He got a lot of deserved credit for increasing spending on the tools of prevention-diplomacy, peacekeeping, and economic development among them. But the end result was the same wildly out-of-balance security budget the Bush team handed off.

Obama also took a stab at reforming the weapons-contracting "system" that hides billions every year in padded contracts and outright fraud. It won't fix the problem-truck-sized loopholes remain-but it's a start.

To his credit, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been lamenting that "America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long, relative to what we spend on the military." The Obama administration's good intentions to fix this are still mostly unrealized.
_________________

*Miriam Pemberton is a research fellow with the Foreign Policy In Focus project at the Institute for Policy Studies. She leads the task force that just published A Unified Security Budget for the United States, FY 2010.



To: Dale Baker who wrote (65033)12/6/2009 12:22:32 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
America's 'Surge' May Only Expand, Intensify and Prolong the Afghan Conflict

by Eric Margolis

Published on Sunday, December 6, 2009 by the Toronto Sun

NEW YORK -- There were no surprises in President Barack Obama's historic speech at West Point last Tuesday.

Obama faced the choice between guns (Afghanistan) or butter (his national health plan). The Nobel Peace Prize winner chose guns.

As expected, Obama will rush 30,000 new troops into the Afghan quagmire and arm-twist reluctant allies to contribute more token forces. Confusingly, Obama promised some of the 100,000 U.S. garrison will begin withdrawing in 2011.

The president insisted his objective remains destroying al-Qaida. But al-Qaida barely exists in Afghanistan. Only a handful remain in Pakistan. His real target may be Pakistan.

Obama's plan mirrors the Bush administration's Iraq "surge" that candidate Obama sharply criticized. The Soviets also tried the same surge tactic during their Afghan occupation.

Tragically, the "anti-war president" missed another major opportunity to end the Afghan War through negotiations.

Anyone who understands Afghanistan's deep complexities knows that Obama's surge won't win the eight-year war. Afghanistan's Pashtun tribal majority will continue to resist western occupation.

The additional U.S. troops will be used to protect the main cities and roads connecting them -- again, mirroring Soviet strategy in the 1980s. U.S. Marines will crush rebellious Kandahar the way Iraq's Fallujah was laid waste.

At best, it will be an exercise in managing failure.

Americans are turning against the war. Congress is fretting over its mounting costs: $300 billion US for 2009 in a $1.4-trillion deficit year. This war is being waged on borrowed money. Democrats are rightly calling for a special war tax on all Americans rather than continuing to hide the war's huge expenses on the national credit card. Canada should do the same.

It costs $1 million US to keep each American soldier in Afghanistan. Renting Pakistan's assistance will cost $3 billion per year. Thousands of U.S. troops will remain stuck in Iraq. Obama vowed to fight al-Qaida in Africa and Asia. No wonder many angry Democrats are calling him "George Bush's third term."

The most positive interpretation of Obama's "surge" is that it is a face-saving exercise to cover America's retreat from the Afghan morass. An Afghan army will be cobbled together (the Soviets did the same), the Karzai government will be somehow sanitized and victory will be declared in 2011. This will hopefully allow substantial U.S. troop reductions before the next mid-term and presidential elections - if all goes well.

But things are not going well in Pakistan, without whose co-operation, bases and supply routes the U.S. cannot wage war in Afghanistan. The U.S.-backed Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari is awash with corruption charges, condemned as a puppet regime and may soon be ousted by Pakistan's military.

Most Pakistanis support the Taliban, see the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan as driven by lust for oil and increasingly fear the U.S. intends to tear their unstable nation apart in order to seize its nuclear arsenal.

Obama's advisers have convinced him an early U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will provoke chaos in Pakistan. They don't understand that it is the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan that is destabilizing Pakistan and creating ever more anti-western extremism.

What Obama should really have been concerned about was Osama bin Laden's vow to break America's domination of the Muslim world by luring it into a final battle in Pakistan, a nation of 175 million.

The longer U.S. forces wage war in Afghanistan, the more the conflict will spread into Pakistan, where 15% of its people and 25% of its military are Pashtuns who sympathize with their beleaguered fellow Taliban Pashtuns in Afghanistan.

A grimmer view is that Obama has become a captive of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street and Washington's rabid neocons who seek permanent war against the Muslim world. Obama's "surge" may only expand, intensify and prolong the Afghan conflict.

In the end, there will be a negotiated peace that includes Taliban. But how many Americans, allies and Afghans must die before it comes?
__________

*Eric Margolis is a columnist for The Toronto Sun. A veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World

© 2009 Toronto Sun