Mr. President, take your time on Afghanistan
Given the outrage from certain precincts of the conservative establishment, you’d think President Obama had signed a peace treaty with Osama bin Laden. The armchair generals are apoplectic over the president’s decision to have a series of serious and thoughtful discussions with his national security team about sending more troops to Afghanistan.
“Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine is quickly seizing on this weakness,” military affairs pundit Bill Roggio blogged at The Weekly Standard, the neo-con house organ. Ultra-conservative pundit Michelle Malkin denounced Obama’s “waffle” on Afghanistan. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor claimed that Obama’s delay “puts in jeopardy, I believe, our men and women.”
And what would a hasty and ill-conceived strategy do, Rep. Cantor? Wouldn’t that be more likely to put our fighting men and women in jeopardy?
Doesn’t Cantor remember “Mission Accomplished,” President Bush’s premature celebration of victory in Iraq? More than 4300 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, most of them killed after Bush pronounced the job done.
Of all the judgements that fall to a president, the decision to put American men and women in harm’s way should be the most difficult. It ought to be a burden that causes sleepless nights, that precipitates prayer and reflection, that fuels great humility. And it’s a decision that certainly should be made with great care.
Obama’s critics have juxtaposed his recent remarks on Afghanistan, wherein he voiced caution about a larger military build-up, with a March speech in which he pledged an unwavering commitment to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. Announcing his plan to send 4,000 more troops, Obama pledged to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” terrorist networks there.
But there has been a significant development since then: an election in which Hamid Karzai’s partisans committed blatant fraud, stuffing ballot boxes and intimidating the opposition. Though Karzai is likely to remain as president, many of his constituents will view him as illegitimate. That would make our task of nation-building, which includes shoring up his regime, even more difficult than it was already. (The disputed election also calls up memories of Vietnam, where the U.S. was allied with a weak and corrupt South Vietnamese government.)
While Gen. Stanley McChrystal has warned of “failure” without 40,000 additional troops, his assessment is based on the strategy the president outlined months ago. Obama is now reassessing that strategy, as he should. “You have to get the strategy right and then make the determinations about resources,” he said recently.
The carping about Obama’s deliberations “can’t be taken seriously,” said Andrew Bacevich, Boston University professor and author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. “Any decision about going to war or changing stragety needs to be carefully thought through. If that is what the president is attempting to do, we should commend him for that.”
“In Washington, among a certain circle, there is a false conviction . . . that war can be a controllable instrument that enables us to obtain our policy objectives neatly , cleanly and economically . That view is entirely wrongheaded,” Bacevich said.
A West Point graduate, Bacevich is among those who believe that the U.S. can fight al-Qaida without committing thousands more troops to Afghanistan. In a Sept. 27 essay in The Washington Post, he urges a “Cold War” of containment against jihadists. “The Long War is a losing proposition; it will break the bank and break the force,” he writes.
He and others have pointed to gains already made against al-Qaida through better intellegence-gathering, use of targeted air strikes to kill terrorist leaders and the recruitment of spies inside terrorist networks. On the other side of the debate, anti-terrorism experts argue that the only way to glean good intelligence is to keep a heavy contingent of boots on the ground in Afghanistan.
Whatever decision he makes, Obama is right to resist partisan bullying and political pressure. As the nation approaches a somber anniversary — on Oct. 7, 2001, President Bush launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the atrocities of 9/11 — Obama owes it to all Americans, in uniform and out, to broadly reassess this Long War.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
73 comments Add your comment
Rio 2016
October 2nd, 2009
6:29 pm
Yeah Mr. President, take your time on this important issue. Please wait until you finish up with the Olympics though, that is a little more important.
jconservative
October 2nd, 2009
6:42 pm
I could not agree more. American soldiers lives are to valuable, and to few, to spend in a shoot from the hip decision. If we want to bring back the draft, add a million or so to the troop level, then you might be OK in just sending cannon fodder to Afghanistan. So far that is all we have done.
And a big part of the decision on Afghanistan is what are we going to do with Pakistan. The reason we have wasted 8 years in Afghanistan is that no one thought about Pakistan. Then bin Laden crossed over into
Pakistan & suddenly everybody had questions on Pakistan. Unfortunately, no one had answers on Pakistan.
That is why the decision is so critical – after 8 wasted years we need to get it right this time.
Carter is a Fool
October 2nd, 2009
7:38 pm
Appear indecisive which is actually reality for you. Our enemies have been emboldened by your lack of action. Not talking to your Generals on a regular basis is just plain foolish. I pray that it will not take an attack to find both a plan and a backbone.
Carter is a Fool
October 2nd, 2009
7:41 pm
Too bad that the Olympics are not coming to experience Chicago style politics. Looks lame to have made a big pitch for nothing. However, it did distract him from screwing up our healthcare system and our economy with legislation designed to tax us for using energy. Cap and tax amounts to screwing the coffin lid down on our economy.
Jack
October 2nd, 2009
8:09 pm
He’s reassessing she says. Nero reassessed while Rome burned.
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
8:10 pm
jconservative
October 2nd, 2009
6:42 pm
Ditto.
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
8:14 pm
Jack
October 2nd, 2009
8:09 pm
Well, America isn’t burning and Afghanistan isn’t going anywhere. And sending more troops there will result in more casualties, not fewer.
Wd are drowning in debt, tho, and he needs to address that posthaste. I’m not sure it can wait until next year and the FY 2011 budget.
Michael H. Smith
October 2nd, 2009
8:34 pm
Obama should be familiar with corruption coming from Chicago. Too bad corruption isn’t viewed as an Olympic sport, Democrat Mayor Daley’s Chicago would have been a shoo-in for the games.
Unfortunately, memories of South Vietnam cannot draw a parallel beyond the corruption in Afghanistan and al-Qaida unlike the Vietnamese will follow Americans home to our shores should the troops simply leave with “a military victory” in hand. With NATO and America gone from Afghanistan, al-Qaida will be invigorated by a psychological victory. For this reason President Obama unlike other Presidents before him cannot afford the luxury of options. Likely not even the one contemplated of outsourcing the fighting offshore from a distance. Nation building requires the up close and personal approach over a prolonged period of time.
Then too, Obama had nearly a year before taking office to think about what to do with the war he deem the good war, the smart war, which Democrats supported. It is not as if Afghanistan just appeared on the radar screen yesterday nor should he have thought conditions in Afghanistan or Pakistan would remain favorable or improve after he took office – rather to the contrary.
Now he has a decision to make, ready or not. A decision that is an American one that should be void of Democrats or Republicans. For both political parties, like time itself, is not on his side where there is only room for one person to stand, for our good or bad.
This decision will make Afghanistan Obama’s war like it or not and his top advisers, like it not. If any other parallel from Vietnam can be seen at this time, then it is as Rahm Emanuel sees the foreshadows of LBJ. No doubt the haunting words echo to this day of LBJ commenting on his remorse of losing his first love The Great Society to that b*tch of a war, Vietnam. In the end he lost both, even though our military was never defeated in battle.
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
8:39 pm
Michael H. Smith
October 2nd, 2009
8:34 pm
It’s already his war. Conditions have changed from when he was campaigning and even since he took office.
Michael H. Smith
October 2nd, 2009
8:44 pm
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
8:39 pm
That is your opinion and one I might agree with as it also applies to everything else that now belongs to Obama as well, though it is one that it is doubtful many Democrats share, yet.
Michael H. Smith
October 2nd, 2009
8:45 pm
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
8:39 pm
Not according to the Democrats.
Jack
October 2nd, 2009
8:46 pm
Some lights don’t burn too bright.
Tom Middleton
October 2nd, 2009
9:06 pm
Cynthia Tucker: “Obama owes it to all Americans, in uniform and out, to broadly reassess this Long War.”
You’ve nailed it again, Cynthia, and once again I have nothing to say in response, except this: Those advocating a limited presence in Afghanistan should be extremely wary of repeating our recent past.
In Iraq, we turned America into a recruiting commercial for Al Qaeda by occupying a Moslem nation and killing thousands of innocents on world TV. We also destroyed homes, buildings, infrastructure, and generational livelihoods, but at least in Iraq, we’re making some effort to repair the damage.
But if we cut back our troop and support involvement in Afghanistan, relying instead on drones, special forces, intelligence (We still don’t know where Bin Laden is), and an almost non-existent Afghan army, we’re running the risk of playing straight into Al Qaeda yet again. I think our commanding generals are correct that more troops are needed, but why do they always have to be American troops? We still have allies, don’t we?
Smart bombs might be fairly accurate in finding specific targets, but they cannot tell the difference between Al Qaeda and their Taliban, and innocent Afghaners and those ready to change to our side. And while special forces are to be greatly admired for their bravery and dedication, they can make mistakes as well, and the wrong people die. (Have we destroyed any wedding parties this week?)
So once again, we’ll be occupying yet another Moslem nation and killing innocents in full view of the world, and once again, we’ll become yet another Al Qaeda recruiting commercial to make us wish we’d stayed home. Superpower, my A$$!
Rant
October 2nd, 2009
10:02 pm
“Take your time” has not been the position of the PresBO or Congress to date, why should he or they change now??? He seems to function best when there is not the opportunity for any critical evaluation of information for decision-making.
EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP
October 2nd, 2009
10:53 pm
LOOK HERE MRS CYNTHIA TUCKER, MR OBAMA BETTER NOT TAKE HIS TIME WITH AFGANISTAN,HE BETTER START BOMBING THE HELL OUT OF THEM NOW,THIS IS WHAT THEY (GOP) MEANS BY THE DEMOCRAP BEING SOFT!
ThePlainTruth
October 3rd, 2009
4:54 am
Yes, take your time while Americans are dying. 2 men from the Georgia National Guard have died this week in Afghanistan. One was a very good friend of my daughter’s fiance. Its criminal for Obama to be flitting over to Denmark trying to get the Olympics and ignoring the troops in Afghanistan. He spent all of 25 minutes with the General and over 70 minutes with the Olympic committee.
dmac
October 3rd, 2009
7:04 am
In the short-run President Obama is in a no-win situation politically. If his change in strategy ends up reducing troop levels, the carping conservatives will flood the media with their BS about how Obama is weakening America. If he keeps the troop levels the same or increases them, he’s going to catch grief from his left.
None of that matters, though. What does matter is that an honest assessment be derived. Is it reasonable for us to believe that our continued presence will improve our security? Or, as it appears in Iraq, will our continued presence create more enemies?
Tucker is absolutely correct that reflection and humility must play an important role in determining our nation’s next move in Afghanistan. This is Obama’s big moment. He’ll do the right thing, I hope.
mike
October 3rd, 2009
7:36 am
Tucker and Bookman are pathetic. They have nothing to talk about conservatives.
How bout this for an idea? Maybe some day Tucker and Bookman can just tell us what they think and not bother to include their sneering at their peers on the right.
Glenn Beck is a clown, but at least he does not spend his life obsessing over liberal pundits.
mike
October 3rd, 2009
7:38 am
“Whatever decision he makes, Obama is right to resist partisan bullying and political pressure.”
Tucker is such a hypocrite. Does she not understand that she is the textbook example of partisan pundit?
Road Scholar
October 3rd, 2009
7:42 am
Regardless of whether to increase our troop levels in Afganastan, where do we get the money to support both the existing level of involvement and any expansion of troop levels? The Repubs didn’t count the costs in Bush’s budgets, and now they have found a new sense of fiscal conservatism. As with the healthcare debate, no increase in revenue should be applied.
To remedy that situation, why don’t we send all the folks railing about the need to rush in without a coherent strategy to Agganastan. Not exactly reinstalling the draft, but a sure fire (pardon the pun) way of addressing two problems at one time. Increased war effort and reduced unemployment! Make that three problems: the constant whining of the right.
TnGelding
October 3rd, 2009
8:26 am
ThePlainTruth
October 3rd, 2009
4:54 am
Ever heard of the chain of command? Obama talks to Gates, not commanding officers. If he sends more troops even more will be dying.
SouthernGal
October 3rd, 2009
9:06 am
It is time to bring our boys and girls home. The ME is NOT going to change….if we leave them alone they will eventually kill each other off.
ck hall
October 3rd, 2009
9:20 am
It must be Racism that caused the Obama’s to lose Olympics bid!!!!!!!!!!
Donovan
October 3rd, 2009
9:33 am
Everybody stop and listen. Our AJC commie-in-editor chief is lecturing us on military science. She preaches the patience game in warfare and the small numbers tactics of fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda to a successful conclusion. However, it was her liberal associates who demanded the Iraq war fought with more troops and scorned Sec. Rumsfeld for not using enough troops. Now that it is her dreamboat’s war, she is praising the foot dragging and inept handling of the Afghanistan war. So now we have “Mr. President, take your time on Afghanistan, darling”.
jconservative
October 3rd, 2009
10:28 am
Tom Middleton – “but why do they always have to be American troops? We still have allies, don’t we?”
Correct. And there are troops there from over 20 countries. Which is part of the “reassessment”. How can we get more help?
What is taking so long is not the military strength in Afghanistan.
The areas under discussion are Pakistan, India, NATO troops, & Iran.
All are a big part of the Afghanistan equation.
Pakistan has nuclear arms. India, Pakistan’s # 1 enemy, has nuclear arms. A big part of the Pakistan military & secret service are Taliban sympathizers or outright members of the Pakistan version of the Taliban. Do we want the Pakistani Taliban to get control of the Pakistani nuclear weapons? How will having troops in Afghanistan prevent that? How do we prevent that from happening? Do we want a
ground invasion of a nuclear armed Pakistan? How do we stop the Taliban from carrying a nuclear bomb from Pakistan, across Afghanistan to Iran?
General McChrystal is asking for the extra 45,000 troops not to defeat the Taliban but to assist in nation building in Afghanistan. The extra troops will provide security while training the yet to be formed Afghanistan general army. Training will be their primary long term goal. Once you create a government & military in Afghanistan that is supported by the populace, then you will go a long way toward defeating the Taliban & al Qaeda. Please read McChrystal’s report to Gates if you have any interest in what is happening there. It’s on line.
Whether you like or don’t like it, whether you believe it or don’t believe it, this is what the discussion is about. It is not about how many troops in Afghanistan. It never has been.
Obama met with McChrystal yesterday one on one. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall with really good ears.
booger
October 3rd, 2009
10:39 am
Perhaps if Obama had talked to his commanding officer more than once he would be in a better position to make a decision. Since he has no real interest in this vital issue, he should leave the decisions to those who actually know what they are talking about. And having a meeting with a bunch of academics and politicians doesn’t really count.In the end unfortunately, politics will determine his decision. Obama is clearly out of his depth in national security issues.
TnGelding
October 3rd, 2009
11:26 am
booger
October 3rd, 2009
10:39 am
Maybe we should get you to replace him. Are you available?
The president meets with Gates, the Joint Chiefs and the NSC. McChristal reports to Petraeus, who was at the WH this week.
jconservative
October 3rd, 2009
10:28 am
Good analysis.
GW
October 3rd, 2009
3:30 pm
Stay the course….
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
4:28 pm
jconservative: Whether you like or don’t like it, whether you believe it or don’t believe it, this is what the discussion is about. It is not about how many troops in Afghanistan. It never has been.
Nice try at missing the point, J, but of course there’s more to it than what you thought I said. It’s not just about troop levels but winning the hearts and minds of Afghaners.
If we’re seen by the Afghan people as a nation trying to help – and so far we are – we can’t help but win. But as General McChrystal said, the moment they see us as occupiers, we’ve lost.
In this context, our current stalemate with the Taliban is NOT a good thing, and more troops are needed. And more troops will be needed tomorrow, the day after that, and for however long it takes to finally get them in there. Troops, J, troops!
Without a stable, sovereign Afghanistan, there’s no sense talking about the rest of it, for we won’t even be players in the game. (You know, we had Afghanistan once, but that was before Bush and Cheney pulled the plug. J, did you support them in this? Please tell us why.)
And if we and our allies (with their increasing involvement) can win in Afghanistan and allow one more addition to the Free World, we’ll be stronger and more capable of taking on other world hot spots with increasing skill and ease.
In fact, with increasing allies involvement as we go, we’ll have more options available – yes, even non-violent ones – for dealing with troubled nations and regions, and won’t that be something – a growing Free World, instead of one cowering, shrinking, and running away home?
When we finally catch Bin Laden, I’m thinking we’ll find him at a Wal-Mart somewhere, buying truckloads of extra underwear. He’ll be so undone and scared from our new and effective common-sense strategy, that he’ll be soiling a pair or two a minute, and won’t that be nice? As gross as it might sound, I think we all would like to see this happening.
But you’re right, J, it’s not just about troops. But right now, we need more of them – a lot more of them – and the quicker we can get them in there, the better. Yea, McChrystal!
TnGelding
October 3rd, 2009
5:46 pm
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
4:28 pm
…and the quicker more will die. We need a smarter approach, not more troops on the ground. Air power has to be used to strike fear into the hearts and minds of the evil-doers.
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
6:23 pm
TNGelding: Air power has to be used to strike fear into the hearts and minds of the evil-doers.
But we’re doing that now, TN, and that’s WITH troops on the ground to provide good intelligence. Please explain how you think such an approach will work without them. We need more troops to be “smarter,” not less!
DebbieDoRight
October 3rd, 2009
6:27 pm
Tom M: Without a stable, sovereign Afghanistan, there’s no sense talking about the rest of it, for we won’t even be players in the game
That’s the number one problem. HOw can the US sanction defending Afghanistan when their elections are corrupt and invalid? The repubos were screaming bloody murder about the Iran elections and how they were corrupt and America shouldn’t recognize Iran as a sovereign nation; now they’re doing a complete about face when it comes to Afghanistan and their blatant voting rights. How could we, in good conscience, support a government that is flawed politically? How can they become a “beacon of democracy” in the Middle East when they can’t even have honest elections?
And if we and our allies (with their increasing involvement) can win in Afghanistan and allow one more addition to the Free World, we’ll be stronger and more capable of taking on other world hot spots with increasing skill and ease.
Let’s try a novel unique approach this time — let’s take care of our people HERE before we send more people to other countries to die. What do you think?
DebbieDoRight
October 3rd, 2009
6:30 pm
Tom M: But we’re doing that now, TN, and that’s WITH troops on the ground to provide good intelligence. Please explain how you think such an approach will work without them. We need more troops to be “smarter,” not less!
Where are we to get these “new troops” from? Do you support the draft? Other nations, our allies, are reading to leave the region, then it’ll just be the US there by themselves, then what? Google Afghanistan and Russia and see what you get. Probably a much needed history lesson.
TnGelding
October 3rd, 2009
8:07 pm
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
6:23 pm
But not nearly as robustly as needed. I’ve got a comment awaiting moderation. If it isn’t released soon I’ll resubmit it.
DebbieDoRight
October 3rd, 2009
6:30 pm
We have the troops in Iraq, and with proper leadership NATO can supply at least twice as many as it has there now. Not that I recommend that. It’s a very tough decision, and I’m willing to support the president whatever he decides. I’d like to get his decision this week, tho.
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
8:09 pm
DebbieDoRight, we need to remember that while democracy is better than anything else ever devised in viable forms of government, it’s not perfect, and we need only look at our own elections to know this is true, even recent ones.
We would not have had a “Dubya” leading us astray for eight years if the majority popular vote had decided the winner in 92 and if the Republican-weighted Supreme Court hadn’t gotten involved to decide a disputed Florida count.
Did we decide to quit trying when these things happened? No, and thank God we didn’t, for democracy is a great way to fly, the ONLY way for me. There are some things the Afghan people will have to do for themselves in their very fragile beginning, and this is one of them. As we are continuing to do ourselves, they will have to learn as well.
However, we can always help – the only way we’ll ever befriend other countries and peoples to strengthen our cause of freedom for all. Going it alone, as you suggest, and serving only ourselves and our financial interests would be suicidal for a nation believing in freedom, democracy, and all the “truths we hold to be self evident.”
If you want to try defending America by turning inward and pretending the rest don’t exist, then you might want to think about shopping the “Rosetta Stone” web page and learning the languages of our enemies. As only one of the five percent of the world’s population (we’re 300 million in 6 billion), you’re going to need one or more of them to simply survive.
When we as the greatest nation in history have nothing to offer anyone else but FU, then we’re goners, and all the self-serving arguments known to humankind (many of which appear regularly on this blog) will change not a thing!
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
8:27 pm
DebbieDoRight: Where are we to get these “new troops” from?
Deb, you need to start reading the posts from the beginning. But in general, if you think the defense of the Free World is America’s responsibility alone, you’re still fighting a losing strategy.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but from Vietnam on, we’ve been outnumbered, so I’m strongly suggesting that the rest of the Free World needs to get more heavily involved and help.
And alliance of such nations would not only provide the troops we never have enough of, but it would give us options, especially non-violent ones, we don’t currently have.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I like non-violence, and the sooner we’re able to confront our enemies this way, the better it will be for us all!
DebbieDoRight
October 3rd, 2009
8:56 pm
T Gelding: We have the troops in Iraq, and with proper leadership NATO can supply at least twice as many as it has there now. Not that I recommend that. It’s a very tough decision, and I’m willing to support the president whatever he decides. I’d like to get his decision this week, tho.
Ten, we’re going to be in Iraq forever–it’s going to turn into our 5th(?) territory before long along with Puerto Rico and Samoa. At this point, with AlQ running rampant as well as the Sunnis wanting to split off into a separate state, we’re never leaving Iraq and we can’t afford to shift the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Tom M: However, we can always help – the only way we’ll ever befriend other countries and peoples to strengthen our cause of freedom for all.
Tom what you advocating is “nation building” and a “Manifest Destiny” approach. Helping the contras, Saddam Hussein rise to power, the ruling mullah in Iran and various uprising in South America has gotten us NOWHERE. We’ve become known not as friends but as deadly foes to be eliminated at any cost. When are we EVER going to learn to leave other countries alone? No one is bombing or attacking Switzerland, and they’re not considered a military “super power” like we are.
Tom M: If you want to try defending America by turning inward and pretending the rest don’t exist, then you might want to think about shopping the “Rosetta Stone” web page and learning the languages of our enemies.
In order to have a strong exterior you must also have a strong interior and foundation. By letting your interior/foundation get weak and fragile and get attacked by various forces weakens your whole structure. For instance, you may have a beautiful, stately colonial house that’s the show piece of your neighborhood. But if you have termites, and you fail to treat the termites, then your home won’t be beautiful and stately for long.
Tom M: , so I’m strongly suggesting that the rest of the Free World needs to get more heavily involved and help.
The other countries are pulling out, one by one. They’re tired of an expensive never ending war with no end in sight.
I Mac
October 3rd, 2009
9:45 pm
You’d think this problem’s solution was straightforward given the reaction of those on the right and, to only a slightly lessor extent, on the left. It isn’t. It’s a problem that has no good answers.
To stay requires justifying the effort at extremely considerable expense AND without the support of most of NATO AND it most likely requires propping up an illigitimate government AND an effective response requires the Afghans to support an effective standing army of ~200 thousand with a per capita GDP of around $35 Billion (Canada’s, with an equivilent population, is $1.266 trillion) AND it goes against the will of a clear majority of Americans – really hard to do without a clear idea of what a feasible endgame looks like. To leave may potentially create a political vacuum in Afghanistan where outlaws are free to operate.
Personally, I’m inclined to leave as there IS no end in sight AND the US is $13 trillion in debt AND leaving doesn’t mean the problem can’t be contained (which is probably the only realistic outcome). But, it’s not like I’m absolutely sure I’m right.
TnGelding
October 3rd, 2009
10:11 pm
Was awaiting moderation. I took out an e-mail address.
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
4:28 pm
Stalemate?
End the madness
Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:26 PM
To: ajc
A communiqué by the Abu Hafs Brigades claiming responsibility for the
recent blackout in the U.S. and Canada stated the following:
“One of the benefits of this strike is that the U.S. will not live in
peace until our conditions are met, such as releasing all the detainees
including Sheikh Omar Abdulrahman, and getting out of the land of the
Muslims, including Jerusalem and Kashmir.”
If that’s all they want, at this point it seems reasonable. There were
potentially millions of them on 09/11. Since President Bush ordered the
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that number could be billions. His
war on terrorism is one we can’t win. The best we can hope for is
stalemate.
Someday, somebody, somewhere is going to have to sit down and work out
an agreement with the Islam extremists. It might as well be now.
Tom Middleton
October 3rd, 2009
10:19 pm
Debbie, if all you want to see is what you think is wrong, you’re never going to grasp what’s right. You remind me of an explorer who tries to move forward and do great things by only looking backward, and that approach will always get you nothing but trouble.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but most everyone, everywhere wants to be American-like. They want the freedom to be who they want to be and go where they want to go as a matter of personal taste and decision. And where’s my proof of this? They keep trying to come here, only to be met by people like you telling them to go home. No wonder the have-nots of the world are so angry at us.
I hate to tell you, Deb, but those people you’re rejecting every time you go to the polls and mark your anti-world candidates are the very ones who are going to bring America to it’s knees from the OUTSIDE, not the inside. We can be as strong as we want at home, but being outnumbered 20 to 1 by everyone else will not keep us free until we learn how to make them free as well – right where they are.
Some of those are our friends, of course, so they can help, but it’s in our patriotic, economic, security, and every other interest there is, to help the world’s have-nots become like us in their own lands, and of course this will work.
There’s strength in numbers and a Free World working in voluntary (democratic) cooperation can do what’s never been done before, and of course it’s possible. Anything is possible that we put our minds to, and since you’re an American, you must believe this is so. You are American, aren’t you?
I never said it would be easy. But continuing to lose war after war and going nowhere but down economically, militaritly and all the others is no option at all. And since there’s only one reasonable way to find our way out of this box you’re determined to keep us in – and it’s not turning inward and becoming more self-serving – I strongly suggest we get started as quickly as possible – but looking forward, Debbie, not backward! Let’s do it the right way for a change, DebbieDoRight!
The Tackman
October 4th, 2009
11:10 am
Cynthia,
Obama cannot make a speedy decision because he needs to weigh out what his communist friends(Chavez, Castro and Putin) want and what is best for the country. Which is two different things. He is destroying the US one poor decision at a time and you will compliment him on those decisions until 2010 when Obama will be a lame duck. Then you will call all of us that disagreed with him “RACISTS” and blame us because your savior is not permitted to do more damage. On second thought you have called us racists already.
Tom Middleton
October 4th, 2009
12:59 pm
Tack, why is it that every time we get a president who works for ALL the people with careful, responsible, long-term decisions, some right-winger has to call him a communist? Do you even know what communism is? I doubt it.
For your information, President Obama is a devout Christian, doing exactly what a devout Christian should be doing. Add to this that Karl Marx, the ideological basis for communism, belittled religion as “an opiate of the masses,” and we can see that our president is NOT a communist.
Are you religious, Tack? Are you Christian? And if you are, why haven’t you recognized the heart-felt spirituality of President Obama? Maybe you really are racist!
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
October 4th, 2009
1:05 pm
Cyntia, no one, least of all conservatives, is concerned that a president would have, “…have a series of serious and thoughtful discussions” concerning Afghanistan. Rather, we are concerned that it took our knuckle-dragger in the White House the better part of a year to begin. One would think that a bright, serious leader (which the Soros talking point spouting Obama certainly isn’t) would have addressed that problem before date night on broadway, a trip to land the Olympics for Chicago, or any of Obama’s other booddoggles.
booger
October 4th, 2009
1:16 pm
Cynthia, it’s Sunday morning, and the news just broke of one of the most brazen, and deadly attacks on our troups in years has just taken place. It seems that while you are interpreting Obama’s footdragging as profound and thoughtful, the Taliban and Al Queada have chosen their own interpretation.
Michael H. Smith
October 4th, 2009
1:39 pm
Obama is more concentrated on his second economic “Splurge” (porkulous package) than on a second military “Surge” strategy.
Moral of the story Chilins and Comrades, is that the Bush “Surge” worked in Iraq, the Obama “Splurge” in the former USA hasn’t. Ooooooooouch!
Tom Middleton
October 4th, 2009
4:17 pm
Michael H. Smith: Moral of the story Chilins and Comrades, is that the Bush “Surge” worked in Iraq.
Michael,the surge only did half of what is was intended to do. Yes, it quelled the violence to some degree, but Saddam’s Sunnis remain a large group quite separate and distinct from the Shiite government and on the payroll of the US taxpayers. Do you pay taxes yet, Michael?
And if and when the two groups get back to their civil war, which seems inevitable at this point, Iraq will disintegrate and probably wind up in close alliance with Iran. That, of course, will make Iran a much bigger problem to the region and the United States than it is now.
“For every complicated problem, there’s a simple solution and it’s always wrong,” someone recently said of George “Dubya” Bush. We should never have left Afghanistan in such numbers to invade Iraq. If we hadn’t, we wouldn’t be in the sad shape we’re in, in Afghanistan now.
Michael, why don’t you try helping, instead of criticizing so much. You could always join the Army, and just think, you could then pay taxes and support your goofy strategy in Iraq! Oooooooooooouch!
DebbieDoRight
October 4th, 2009
4:51 pm
Tom M: When you’re traveling on an airplane getting ready to take a trip, before the flight takes off the stewardess goes through the security drill. At one point they tell you if you’re a parent traveling with a small child, if the air masks fall down put the masks over your face first THEN put the mask over your child’s face. Why? Because if the parent passes out he can’t help the child and they’re both dead. If we can’t get our own house in order, how can we fix someone else’s?
Michael H. Smith
October 4th, 2009
5:44 pm
Yeah, Tom Middleton, I do pay taxes, do you? Oh and Tom why don’t you use some of your own advice not that it is of any certain good? For the record the army doesn’t take people my age. Not to mention I did submit a comment earlier, several times in fact, which the AJC didn’t allow that would have helped; not that anyone here including you seem to be aware of as an indication from all the armchair comments. And Obumer’s Splurge still has failed, Ooouch Tom!
Zibby
October 4th, 2009
6:26 pm
SNL nailed PBO last night and you could even throw in Stevie Wonder’s “You Haven’t Done Nuthin” too and that pretty much sums up this excuse for an administration.
Perhaps the batteries in PBO’s clue phone have run down on him and he doesn’t get it that the rest of the world doesn’t really care Jack Squat about him and his vanity… and here’s a newsflash for him as well – Islamic extremists are willing to die for what they believe in… we used to be that way too, but apparently holding hands and singing “We Are The World” is supposed to fix all of this now…
Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden long before 9/11 but he was too caught up in the Monica moment to do his job…. PBO obviously though the Chicago pitch to IOC was/is more important than making the tough military decisions… typical Demoncrat….
Tom Middleton
October 4th, 2009
6:44 pm
DebbieDoRight, most of our problems stem directly from the fact that we’re not being true to who we are, that is, who we say we are. If we say we believe in freedom, then we must reflect that belief in everything we do, think, and say.
If we say “all men are created equal,” then we must reflect that belief as well. And, Deb, “men” means all of us, regardless of gender, race, creed, etc. Do you see where I’m going with this?
Your saying we should pull back and have no dealings with the rest of the world sends the very clear message that we’re not who we say we are and are unwilling to treat others as we would be treated or as we treat ourselves. (That’s if you’re Christian.) It also sends the message that we think we’re better than everyone else, and don’t care what they think. (And that’s if you’re not.)
The United States of America has a very clear responsibility in this modern, troubled world and that’s to get involved and stay involved on the side of life-saving freedom for everyone, not just our own kids sitting beside us on the plane.
And since our current president walked into dire straits at home AND abroad, handed him by his Republican predecessor, he must succeed where his predecessor failed, and there is no reasonable choice.
We’re under global threat from an organized, well-funded enemy, and the only way to win against him is to completely stop being who he says we are – the enemy of the world – and start being who we know we should be and who we say we are already – one of its dedicated saviors.
There’s never been and will never be a self-contained United States. We have always been a part of the world and will continue to be ad infinitum, and any attempt to deny this in favor of retreat from our responsibilites to our Constitution, ourselves, and those everywhere we need to exist and grow stronger is foolish thinking indeed.
Pull back now and we grow weaker and lose. Continue the struggle by transforming ourselves on the run into the democratic shining light for all people we’re supposed to be, and we cannot fail.
In short, Deb, it’s not where we physically are at the moment that really matters, it’s who we are in our attitudes, beliefs, and actions. You see, like our enemies, freedom has no borders either, not if we’re busy becoming who we say we are already!