Obama's quandary is that he is a liberal Democrat who opposes most military engagements. But unlike Vietnam, the war appears to be winnable.
President Obama is in a difficult position deciding what to do about Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are ramping up their activity in that country, enabled by the chaos in Pakistan. Al Qaeda is rumored to be using its strengthened base in Afghanistan to expand to other parts of the world. Attacks by the Taliban are increasing. IEDs, the deadly roadside bombs, have increased by 350% since 2007, and U.S. deaths are at a record high. 55 were killed in October, 831 total since the U.S. first stationed troops there in 2001 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Obama's military general in Afghanistan in charge of NATO operations, U.S. Commander General Stanley McChrystal, has asked the administration for 40,000 additional soldiers in order to effect a new strategy that would focus more on forging alliances with key tribal leaders than combat. Without them, McChrystal warns that the war in Afghanistan will result in failure. McChrystal asked for the surge of troops in September, Obama has still not responded.
Obama's quandary is that he is a liberal Democrat who opposes most military engagements. Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and ran for President as the Democrats' antiwar candidate, pledging to take U.S. soldiers out of Iraq soon. Making things more difficult, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month to Obama in a transparent effort to put pressure on him to avoid military action in situations like this. Obama did suggest when running for President that he would transfer US troops from Iraq to Pakistan to hunt down al Qaeda, but no one took him seriously.
The war appears to be winnable. This is different than engaging militarily with North Korea or Iran which have nuclear programs. The Taliban is already outnumbered 12-1 by international troops and Afghan security forces. There are currently over 100,000 international troops stationed there, of which 68,000 are Americans and 200,000 Afghan soldiers. McChrystal's plan is to have the additional forces focus on protecting civilians and depriving the Taliban of popular support. Soldiers will work on befriending tribal leaders in each village, and then communicate through them to their friends and relatives in other villages and across enemy lines. Fighting the Taliban is different than fighting a traditional enemy because it is not easily identifiable; its allies may at any given time include tribes it was formerly fighting against, as loyalties ebb and flow and new alliances are made. It is not uncommon for brothers to be on opposing sides, but if a network is set up to take advantage of these kinds of family connections, agreements can be worked out among local tribes to stop Taliban forces from attacking them. American forces are already working with Afghan forces to bring insurgents over to their side with offers of amnesty, cash and jobs. Over 8,000 insurgents so far have taken advantage of it.
Some experts believe even more troops are necessary. Retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007-2008, thinks a total of 600,000 security personnel is necessary in Afghanistan in order to provide a ratio of one for every 50 people. Based on hindsight in Vietnam and Iraq, it might be safer to go with the higher number of soldiers.
It is true that the U.S. has a checkered history of supporting various sides in Afghanistan, but this time is different, with more compelling circumstances due to the additional heightened threat al Qaeda poses. In the late 1970's, the U.S. supported various Afghan armed opposition groups known as the Mujahideen against the communist-controlled government. The Mujahideen subscribed to radical Islamic ideologies, and recruited Muslims from other countries to assist them, including al Qaeda members. When the Soviet Union eventually pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Mujahideen took power.
The Mujahideen were unable to consolidate power, and by the mid 1990's, Afghanistan was back in chaos, with corrupt, lawless warring tribes running rampant across the country. The U.S. supported the Taliban in a takeover in 1996, hoping that a top-down militaristic government would provide some order. The Taliban is composed primarily of radical Sunni Muslims from the Pashtun tribe. By 1997 it was clear the Taliban was no better than the warlords; adopting many of their tactics, instituting Sharia law, and targeting other ethnic groups. Afghanistan remains under Taliban leadership today, through elections fraught with corruption. The Taliban's failure to control the warring tribes is providing a haven for al Qaeda to operate and expand its operations.
The left is trying to make comparisons to Vietnam, in order to demoralize the American public and turn public support against a military presence in Afghanistan. This kind of comparison belittles the thousands of American soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam. 831 deaths is not anywhere near the same league as 58,000 deaths. Criticism of the financial cost is valid, but financial cost has never been a major concern to those on the left.
It is peculiar why Obama, rated the most liberal Senator in the entire U.S. Senate in 2007 by National Journal, is hesitating on deciding whether to send over additional U.S. soldiers. Ramping up our military presence there goes against his core liberal philosophy and the wishes of his supporters in the Democrat Party. Isn't Obama a principled liberal? Perhaps Obama is hesitating because he realizes that contrary to what his left wing philosophy teaches, Afghanistan is winnable, without losing massive American lives, and he would rather be remembered as the president who won in Afghanistan rather than the president who gave up and deserted it. Especially if leaving Afghanistan results in another horrendous American tragedy from an empowered al Qaeda.
Norm, can you point me to where I employed the 'red herring' fallacy? I'll gladly correct the record if you can show me. Similarly with that 'dancing on the head of a pin' thing…
Oz
Norm, here is a definition of the 'red herring fallacy', just so we are operating in the same frame of reference:
The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Did I do something like that somewhere?
Oz
Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises within hours…
[wens-to-break-campaign-promises&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175">www.gouverneurtimes.com]
Yep. Those honest Dems. Anything for power. Yep. Greatest Nation in the World, going over the cliff.
Charday, I can't make that link work. At any rate, what does Owens have to do with the topic under discussion (which, as far as I know, it the essay above).
Looks like what Norm might call a 'red herring'…
Oz
It's been fun, guys, but I got work to do. I'll check back later.
Oz
Prior to his election his promise to fundamentally change America, stating the constitution was not a living document and that was what he thought it should be, and this was repeated numerous times. He wants compassionate judges (look out if that compassionate judge favors the other guy because he had a harder life). He also, when he was not in front of a teleprompter, told Joe the Plumber that he would be spreading the wealth. This is anathema to our fundamental character. If you have not heard these statements or are not familiar with them by now, you are woefully uninformed and I would not waste my time trying to find the exact references even though I have saved them with hundreds actually of other articles, uTube videos, and recordings.
The same goes with every speech he made to other nations, every bow he took and all the fist bumps and hugs he gave dictators. If you have the courage, you will have to start watching Fox news to know what is going on. That is if you really want to know.
This is anathema to our fundamental character. If you have not heard these statements or are not familiar with them by now, you are woefully uninformed and I would not waste my time trying to find the exact references even though I have saved them with hundreds actually of other articles, uTube videos, and recordings.
No Charday, they are anathema to the *right-wing conceptualization* of our fundamental character. That is not the same as America. America is diverse, with many competing perspectives.
Half the country voted for him even though he said those things. Half the country agrees that the Constitution should be considered, to varying extents, a living document. Half the country believes in at least some degree of redistributionist policy.
Charday, yes, I have heard of these statements. How could anyone not? The problem, that you've not yet grasped, is that the Fox New interpretation of them is not the only interpretation. You and I simply disagree about the constitution and the appropriateness of some degree of redistribution. I don't consider you a traitor because you adhere to a different political philosophy. There is truth on both sides of these questions. Neither are wholly right or wrong.
Liberalism has been around for a long, long time. Not sure why now, when we have a moderately liberal president carrying out predictable liberal policies, we suddenly are on the verge of the apocalypse. At least that's how you guys sometimes sound.
Conservatism will be back in fashion soon, probably, although the angry far-right teabag stuff is unlikely to sway the populace much. Angry, exaggerated rhetoric fires up the base, but doesn't wear well with the general population, no matter which side it comes from.
Oz
If you have the courage, you will have to start watching Fox news to know what is going on. That is if you really want to know.
Charday, at last we have reached agreement. It would indeed take a great deal of courage, more than I can muster, to sit through even five minutes of Fox News.
Oz
Unless I was in dire need of an emetic.
Oz
The same goes with every speech he made to other nations, every bow he took and all the fist bumps and hugs he gave dictators.
All of the fist bumps and hugs he gave dictators? Sounds like he's done a lot of that. Could you name them for me? (I'm being serious, not sarcastic. I might have missed something.)
Oz
(only a few of the schoolyard names that *Intellectual* Conservatives have called me here).
For the record, I used the words "stupid" and "troll" in reference to you in another discussion as adjectives to describe an observed behavior – and a pattern of such behavior at that. Just to be clear on my meaning, I even included a definition of the latter term, since "troll" in the context of internet slang may not be understood clearly by every reader. I meant those words to be taken at their defined meanings – I did not choose them carelessly. Those were not "names" that I "called" you, any more than "yellow" is a "name" that I would "call" a canary. It is hardly "schoolyard" or anti-intellectual to refuse to engage in a completely off-topic line of absurd argument intended for no legitimate purpose but button-pushing, or to use appropriately descriptive language in recognizing such nonsense for what it is. Your protestations and accusations of bias and victimization merely serve as further indications of your application of the tactic to anyone familiar with its use; in fact, their transparency betrays your lack of skill in doing so. You've already gotten enough payoff from this casting of bait, so that is all the further I will discuss it with you either here or in the original discussion, which I've linked to above.
Patrick says:
intended for no legitimate purpose but button-pushing
Perhaps. I'd feel bad about it, but as far as I can tell, a sizable proportion of the essays and responses posted in IC are arrogant, pugilistic, straw-man attacks against (mostly imaginary) Leftists. In other words, this whole site seems to be little more than a self-stimulatory, mutually-affirming exercise in button pushing. I guess I was just try to fit in.
Oz
Oz,
Since you have been so vigilant in requesting a corresponding data citation for even the most passing, anecdotal references of others involved in this discussion, can you please provide polling and/or statistical data to corroborate the following statements which you have made:
fully half the country fundamentally disagrees with you.
…the hard right is really not all that popular…Seems to be shrinking in size, both geographically and demographically.
The country is pretty evenly split. You should just accept that.
…most of America sees him (Obama) as a rather cautious and moderate politician.
When the public saw him (Obama), the saw a fluent, knowledgeable, moderate individual
Half the country agrees that the Constitution should be considered, to varying extents, a living document.
Half the country believes in at least some degree of redistributionist policy.
…massive swaths of America agrees with a public option and a variety of the other aspects of the health care plan.
I do understand, as you made clear, that your "…views are based only on reading various media accounts, with no particular depth.", but it only seems to fair to request the same burden of proof of you that you demand of others.
…a sizable proportion of the essays and responses posted in IC are arrogant, pugilistic, straw-man attacks against (mostly imaginary) Leftists. In other words, this whole site seems to be little more than a self-stimulatory, mutually-affirming exercise in button pushing. I guess I was just try to fit in.
Repeat your trite ridiculousness to your heart's content. Your inanity is not worth serious consideration, or even the unconsidered emotional outburst that you wish it to elicit. However, I am very glad that you have, at last, dispensed with any pretense that your responses are intended as anything more or less than provocation.
See, you just couldn't help responding, could you Patrick? I'm the same way. I read a lot of this inaccurate and slanted stuff that you guys post, and I just. can't. stop. myself.
Hey, maybe I should just avoid logging on at all.
Nah.
Oz
More for my benefit than for yours, permit me one final response and then I believe I will leave you to ply your craft on whoever may still have any interest in indulging you:
they are anathema to the *right-wing conceptualization* of our fundamental character. America is diverse, with many competing perspectives…You and I simply disagree about the constitution and the appropriateness of some degree of redistribution. I don't consider you a traitor because you adhere to a different political philosophy. There is truth on both sides of these questions. Neither are wholly right or wrong.
In matters of constitutionality, there actually do exist "wholly right or wrong" positions, just as there exist such absolute positions in matters of any law – be it civil, religious, or social, regardless of how arbitrary the law itself may or may not be in any one person's estimation. Rights are not subjective, and a document that secures them against government interference, despite not having perfect clarity, is not easily reducible to a subjective essay that is at the mercy of the whims of people with "different political philosophies". If your political philosophy prescribes something not found in the constitution you may try to shoe-horn your philosophy into the constitution through legal, semantic, or philosophical contortions, but it is of no matter – the constitution still sits, either conforming to your political philosophy or not. I wouldn't consider you a traitor without having some evidence to support the charge, but I am fully entitled to contend that your political philosophy fundamentally conflicts with the constitution of the United States. And I would.
Patrick, I was using polling data and America's voting patterns as a proxy, primarily. Over half the country (those that voted- 69 million people) elected Obama after hearing him say what he was going to do and what he believed.
That's pretty typical. Half the vote, with minor variations, always seems to go to the more liberal candidate, and half seems to go to the more conservative candidate. Even our 'landslides' are not that far from evenly split.
Our houses of congress are usually pretty evenly split, frequently divided, and change hands with great regularity.
Obama still has the approval of half the country – 54% or so, last I checked.
Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx
"Pretty evenly split" on Obama. Half the country.
His health-care program, though not widely understood, seems to receive approval ratings that are pretty evenly split (trending down, but the public option, the bugaboo of the right, is approved by the majority.) I said 'massive swaths' agree with the public option and other aspects. Supporting link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
"Pretty evenly split" as far as I can tell.
In the last election, it was pretty clear that the Republican 'base' shrunk.
Here's a link from Pat Buchanan:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/is_gop_still_a_national_party.html
Here's a taste:
What has been happening to the GOP? Three fatal contractions.
Demographically, the GOP is a party of white Americans, who in 1972 were perhaps 90 percent of the national vote. Nixon and Reagan rolled up almost two-thirds of that vote in 1972 and 1984. But because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population.
The minorities that are growing most rapidly, Hispanics and Asians, cast 60 to 70 percent of their presidential votes for the Democratic Party. Black Americans vote 9-1 for national Democrats. In 2008, they went 30-1.
Put succinctly, the red pool of voters is aging, shrinking and dying, while the blue pool, fed by high immigration and a high birth rate among immigrants, is steadily expanding.
Philosophically, too, the country is turning away from the GOP creed of small government and low taxes. Why?
Nearly 90 percent of immigrants, legal and illegal, are Third World poor or working-class and believe in and rely on government for help with health and housing, education and welfare. Second, tax cuts have dropped nearly 40 percent of wage earners from the tax rolls.
If one pays no federal income tax but reaps a cornucopia of benefits, it makes no sense to vote for the party of less government.
The GOP is overrepresented among the taxpaying class, while the Democratic Party is overrepresented among tax consumers. And the latter are growing at a faster rate than the former.
Lastly, Democrats are capturing a rising share of the young and college-educated, who are emerging from schools and colleges where the values of the counterculture on issues from abortion to same-sex marriage to affirmative action have become the new orthodoxy.
The Republican "lock" on the presidency, crafted by Nixon, and patented by Reagan, has been picked. The only lingering question is whether an era of inexorable Republican decline has set in.
Those red-state/blue-state maps seemed to indicate a small but decided contraction of red areas, moving somewhat southward, as opposed to the last elections. That is what I meant by geographically shrinking.
This is a typical map of the sort that was ubiquitous right after the election:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
As Buchanan said the Republicans lost the youth vote big time, as well as the Hispanic vote – these are obviously extremely important populations, figuring to be increasingly important in the future. That's why I said 'demographically shrinking'. Last I heard, Republican registration is down to 20%, which seems very low.
I know conservatism is not the same as the Republican party, but for better or worse, but conservatism is certainly well-associated with the Republican party.
With regard to redistributionist policies, and the Constitution as a living document, I'm not aware of any systematic polling done on those things. But they are both positions associated with the Democratic party, which fares very well in election after election, including the last one.
Obama told Joe the Plumber to 'share the wealth', that got played over and over, and still – HALF THE COUNTRY voted for him. Obama said he would put pro-choicers (who buy the 'right to privacy' found by some in the constitution) on the Supreme Court, and still – HALF THE COUNTRY voted for him.
Half the country (more or less) seems okay with Obama. I think my point holds pretty well.
There's just no evidence that the views described above – that the president is a traitor and taking over the government – are widely shared.
Oz
Patrick says:
In matters of constitutionality, there actually do exist "wholly right or wrong" positions, just as there exist such absolute positions in matters of any law – be it civil, religious, or social, regardless of how arbitrary the law itself may or may not be in any one person's estimation. Rights are not subjective, and a document that secures them against government interference, despite not having perfect clarity, is not easily reducible to a subjective essay that is at the mercy of the whims of people with "different political philosophies". If your political philosophy prescribes something not found in the constitution you may try to shoe-horn your philosophy into the constitution through legal, semantic, or philosophical contortions, but it is of no matter – the constitution still sits, either conforming to your political philosophy or not. I wouldn't consider you a traitor without having some evidence to support the charge, but I am fully entitled to contend that your political philosophy fundamentally conflicts with the constitution of the United States. And I would.
That's fine, Patrick. I disagree with most of it, but I'm winding down here. Look, there's a reason that we have 9 supreme court members, indirectly elected by popular will, rather than a clerk who simply looks at the constitution and says yes or no.
It's because the intent of the Framers is not always clear – particularly with regard to modern-day issues. Citizens and judges of good conscience and intention can disagree with how it should be interpreted.
I don't know much about constitutional law. I can't say much more about it, really.
I am fully entitled to contend that your political philosophy fundamentally conflicts with the constitution of the United States.
Agreed. Contend away, this is America. I contend differently.
Oz
OZ,
Very good. You can google "logical Fallacy."
Red Herring: remember bringing up Peggy Noonan? completely irrelevant. Speech writing is a far cry from war and peace.
Dancing on the head of a pin: you mentioning there are lots of people who could have an opinion as to how many combat troops should be sent… I have an opinion, you have an opinion and I be the Taliban has an opinion on that topic too!… but none of them are as well informed as the man on the ground dealing with the problem directly.
Judging by the other postings you've made today since I've been out, I think you've lost control of your faculties for the day. Perhaps you should go brush your pony tail, readjust your glasses and earring, put some "Just for Men" in your beard, and get started on dinner for you and your mom.
Signing off for now.
Perhaps you should go brush your pony tail, readjust your glasses and earring, put some "Just for Men" in your beard, and get started on dinner for you and your mom.
I think you'd be pretty surprised how far I depart from your stereotype of a liberal, Norm.
Your examples of my supposed logical fallacies don't seem very persuasive, but it doesn't seem worth pursuing. I'll let you have that one.
Think I'll sail off into the sunset. (reserving the right to return, of course, if some subsequent post misrepresents me *too* much).
Peace be wit' ya.
Oz
Oz,
I appreciate that you took the time to actually provide some data, but it doesn't fully support all of the claims you've made. In fact it doesn't even address most of them. Just by way of comparison though, I found some data that indicates that the proposed healthcare reform bill is marginally disfavored, that people who identify as "conservative" has actually increased quite substantially recently, and can't find much of anything to support your claims about how people view Barack Obama, how they feel about the constitution, and how they feel about redistribution of property (the data just doesn't seem to have ever been collected). I think the only thing you've really proved is that the public is fickle. At least we can agree on something.
This is all a fairly moot point anyway – I couldn't give a fig about public opinion since we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy (or at least we're supposed to), and consequently public opinion should have no more impact on the functional role of government as "compassion" should have on the interpretation of the law. I only asked because it seemed to be so important to you to substantiate the claims of others with well-sourced data.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx?CSTS=alert
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/18/2009-06-18_president_obamas_still_popular_but_his_policies_are_not.html
Well Patrick, I don't think that your summation in the first paragraph (I've not followed the links) really contradicts anything I said. Maybe you do, but they look pretty similar to me.
I frankly don't give a hoot about public opinion either. I just felt an impulse to question the notion that these right-wing Tea-Party views ('Radicals are taking our country away! Obama is a fascist! He's a traitor!) represent widespread and popular perceptions, as some seem to imply with all this 'sleeping giant' revolutionary commentary.
Half the country or more voted for Obama, still approve of Obama, and vote with "the Democrat party". Many millions want a significant overhaul of our health care system, (with a public option or other government involvement) and don't view it as a radical socialist revolution.
Perhaps 'half the country' was insufficiently precise, but I think the point holds up pretty well.
Oz
Thirty-one point seven million men with graying ponytails and beard, and earrings, who still live their mother, helped elect the President.
Where do all these guys hang out?
This guy is treasonous! How can so many be so completely dead, dumb and blind to this? His only goal is to shred the constitution and make us subserviant to the New World Order government, that he believes he'll be asked to lead…delusional as well as treasonous!
How can so many be so completely dead
Just wait till the death panels kick in.
Oz