Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (126229)	12/3/2009 3:24:45 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542192

Wharf, I may be engaging in wishful thinking but I disagree with those who believe that the new "surge" policy reflects the Obama administration's commitment to "success" in the Afghan conflict; I think it could just as easily signal a commitment to disengage from the conflict. I don't think that conflict is going to turn around in the next two or three years. Assuming that he sees it the same way then whether he has a commitment to disengage or to continue this increasingly bloody and expensive action turns on whether he uses the coming events to argue that we cannot leave because things are not going well or whether he uses the coming events to argue that we must leave because things are not going well. If it was his intent to get out of Afghanistan then it was a brilliant move to open that door wide and step through it in the next two years. Had he chosen to disengage now it would have taken years to get out anyway and it would have ignited a political firestorm that would have left the country incapable of moving forward on any domestic legislation, would have embroiled his administration in a firestorm of criticism from the conservatives, including Democratic and Independent conservatives, and would probably have left him and many of those he's counting on in Congress as lame ducks. By "increasing" our presence in Afghanistan while, at the same time, announcing a withdrawal date, however, he may well be able to disengage on nearly the same time schedule without taking a hatchet and dividing the country and without killing the reelection chances of himself and his allies. And while the economic costs of the surge will be enormous they may be able to keep our casualties lower than many would expect depending upon the manner of deployment and how smart they are in keeping people out of harm's way AND THEY MAY BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY ATTACK AND KILL THE REAL TERRORISTS ON THE BORDER AND INSIDE PAKISTAN. So he's given the military a narrow window to achieve what they can claim as a victory, he's nominally given the war hawk's what they want so that they can't later complain as convincingly that he closed the door on the war without a fight, he's given the Afghans a fairly clear time line to make changes or take the blame for our leaving and he's begun the process of withdrawal, disguising it as an escalation so that he can make a political argument that he went the extra mile but that the (you choose) Afghans, military, allies, or American people (depending on polling then) were not up to the task and that the costs, therefor, outweighed the benefits. Or maybe he just can't see it clearly enough or doesn't have the moral and political courage to bite the bullet? I hope not. I hope he knows what he's doing and that there's a method to this madness. Ed