Afghanistan: Should Obama wait?
Hamid Karzai agrees to a run-off, removing an obstacle to Obama's decision on sending more troops
Members of the U.S. Army, 3-509 infantry scout Airborne division in Afghanistan
(Corbis/Chad Hunt)
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has agreed to a run-off election on Nov. 7 with his top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. Karzai faced international pressure to accept election monitors' conclusion that he hadn't won a majority in the first round. The White House said President Obama wouldn't decide whether to send more troops until it was clear the Afghan government was a "credible" partner. Should Obama wait to see what happens in the runoff?
Obama should wait: Afghanistan's election crisis isn't over yet, said The Boston Globe in an editorial. There has to be an honest government in Kabul "to have any hope of saving Afghanistan from another Taliban takeover." So it's wise for President Obama to hold off on deciding to send another 40,000 soldiers until it's "clear what kind of government will emerge" from the "fraud-skewered presidential election."
End Afghan election crisis first
Delay could be dangerous: Many in the military are already worried "the president is moving too slowly," said Elisabeth Bumiller in The New York Times. Frustration is rising because many active duty and retired officers say extremists have been emboldened by the delay, and if Afghanistan blows up it could be too late. The administration seems determined to hold back, though, on the logic that it would be "reckless to rush a decision" without a clear partner in Kabul.
As the Commander in Chief deliberates, frustration builds within the ranks
The time for a surge is now: Obama knows everything he needs to know, said Stephen Biddle in The New Republic. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's integrated counterinsurgency, or COIN, calls for more American troops and a doubling of the Afghan military and police force to 400,000. It's a big commitment, but there is no "middle way" that offers the same chance of success without much greater cost.
Is there a middle way?
Show: Oldest | Newest
7 Comments
Posted by Paradox?, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 1:32 pm Emanual and Gibbs' argument that America's LONG TERM policy in Afghanistan depends on who happens to be the sitting president is so nonsensical it is not worth considering. So, Obama has two options. Listen to Pelosi and Reid who are concerned about keeping the DNC in power in 2010 or listen to McChrystal and Gates who are concerned about American soldiers dying on foreign soil.
Posted by Vet, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 1:59 pm Or, he can continue on his usual path, doing NOTHING. This man will not take a stand, except for weekly parties and basketball with the guys. Our long term does NOT depend on the current president over there. get some backbone, guys. if you don't want to be there, bring our military home, and out of harms way. what a do nothing administration.
Posted by Brett, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 2:41 pm How is Obama's 'usual path' doing nothing?!? Care to qualify that baseless remark? Isn't he getting huge amounts of mindless opposition here based on the assumption he is doing too much? You can't have it both ways. So many have forgotten the lessons of Viet Nam as well. The generals kept asking for more and more troops, and they got them, yet that didn't change the fact that we weren't going to win there without committing genocide. Obama has taken out more Taliban leadership in under a year than Bush did in 8. Stop the mindless trash talk.
Posted by Capt Michele, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 4:49 pm So, you have served? you know what you're talking about? Doubt it. Highly unlikely. BHObama has a short history of passing on tough decisions for someone else to make. He talked a big story during the campaign, but has done nothing but sit, wait and wait. He wasn't aware that Afghanistan was corrupt before taking the oath? Doubt that, too. Much tougher to be president than to campaign for the job. He lacks leadership, and any military person is aware of that. Get our military home, and out of flying bullets and bombs. THEN, he can take his time
Posted by Carol, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 10:28 pm Elisabeth Bumiller's article is misleading or she's making things up because she quotes no active duty military in her article that are complaining about Obama going too slowly. Her headline states it, but she doesn't back it up. Is she lying?Why would she do that?
Posted by Carol, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 10:28 pm Elisabeth Bumiller's article is misleading or she's making things up because she quotes no active duty military in her article that are complaining about Obama going too slowly. Her headline states it, but she doesn't back it up. Is she lying?Why would she do that?
Posted by duh, Thursday, October 22, 2009, 6:06 pm Obama's only constitutional job is to be the commander in chief. In that respect, he has done nothing but take down America's defenses and apologize for America's former glory. No way around that fact. Obama has pushed a social agenda while letting the partisan sellouts in congress screw taxpayers in the details. No one denies that. As for servicemen not being quoted, they can only speak out against their CIC with anonymity otherwise they face dishonorable discharge. Don't want to be on the enemy list with the chamber of commerce do you?
Post a Comment