G.O.P. May Be Vital to Obama on Afghan War

[laststeamtrain]

Source: NYT

September 3, 2009
G.O.P. May Be Vital to Obama on Afghan War
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — As President Obama prepares to decide whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan, the political climate appears increasingly challenging for him, leaving him in the awkward position of relying on the Republican Party, and not his own, for support.

The simple political narrative of the Afghanistan war — that this was the good war, in which the United States would hunt down the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks — has faded over time, with popular support ebbing, American casualties rising and confidence in the Afghan government declining. In addition, Afghanistan’s disputed election, and the attendant fraud charges that have been lodged against President Hamid Karzai, are contributing further to the erosion of public support.

<snip>

At the moment, Mr. Obama appears to still have the support of Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, including Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California. Representative Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, indicated on Wednesday that he was not ready to jump ship. But he was not sounding a ringing endorsement, either.

<snip>

“We agree with President Obama that ‘we have to win’ in Afghanistan and make sure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and resources they need,” the committee chairman, Michael Steele, said in the statement. He urged Mr. Obama to “stand strong and speak out for why we are fighting there,” adding that Mr. Obama has said too little so far “about why the voices of defeat are wrong.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/world/asia/03policy.html?_r=1&hp

[msongs]

1. Obama's vietnam needs some bipartisanship asap nt

[harun]

2. "we have to win" ??? What is winning Afghanistan?

[razorman]

7. Even if we do "win", what the hell have we won?

Afghanistan doesn't have a damn thing I need.

[harun]

8. That's the point, there is no "winning". So we say we have military control

over a bunch of rocks and hills. Big whoop, there is no point to it.

Now if they were selling reconstruction, a healthy society and aid/protection for the weakest amongst them, that would at least be stating real goals to work towards.

No one in the Corporate Press or at the WH could even tell you if we are fighting drug lords, al qaeda, war lords or the taleban. They can't state any of that because they do not have the authority to stay in a country and just keep launching missiles at anyone they want. They don't have the authority for that.

Obama would be better off to state reconstruction goals, then meet them and leave.

[Old Codger]

3. Maybe

If he sends the rethug congress critters over there they can scare them by threatening them with death squads and tea parties

[stuball111]

4. When are people going to figure this one out?

It was NEVER about 911 "perps" that was the other big lie that went along with "weapons of mass destruction" There are Al Quaida types all over the world, some probably right here in the US.If that was the reason for being there, there would be a orld war going on looking for the bastards! And most of the "Perps" died in the planes that hit the towers! Let's get this right once and for all, The Afghan war is about a proposed oil pipeline through that country to bring middle east oil to the US, and it is for no other reason! The plan was to "stabilize" the region for that purpose and that purpose only. The 911 conspirator thing is just a load of crap, and yet people are still chasing some boogyman around to justify this "war". Sure, there are terrorists hanginf out in the hills, they have always been there, and always will be. But the reason they want them out is so that Haliburton can start putting pipe in the ground!

[billyclem]

9. Bingo stubal111

But not ME oil; Siberian resources. And to do an end run around China for said resources.

[defendandprotect]

5. We need to end these IMMORAL wars -- which by the way are bankrupting us -- !!

[Bragi]

6. This sure oughta make the White House nervous

When your lynchpin foreign policy initiative isn't supported by your own supporters, it's definitely time for a re-think.

If the President doesn't find a way to back off this pointless war, I believe it WILL do him in next election.

Please Mr. Obama, declare victory or whatever you want, but please end this war before it undermines your Presidency.

[No Elephants]

10. Who even needs Diebold? The Democrats just give Republicans the key to the country no matter who

wins elections.

I think Obama is out of luck, though. All the Republican pundits have been saying it's time to leave Afghanistan. Pat Buchanan, George Will, Joe Scarborough--all the usual suspects. Apparently, "surging" is good only when a Republican does it.

The country did not give Democrats a mandate, only to find Republicans still in charge. We look so weak, it's sad.

[damntexdem]

11. If Obama goes that route, we must turn on him.

We don't need another betrayal like that of the Great Society by Lyndon Johnson.

We don't need it; but if we get such a betrayal, we must not cooperate with it.

[Joanne98]

12. God dammit!

[saigon68]

13. Gen McCrazy, "We need 14,000 trigger pullers to obtain Afghan Democracy"

No shit this POS maintains this needs to be done.

Our reply will be in the streets soon.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-afghan-troops2-2009sep02,0,6263790,full.story

U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with "trigger-pullers," Defense officials say.

[bemildred]

14. Then again, they could be completely irrelevant.

The Democrats do control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

[New Dawn]

15. This war will be known as Obama's 'Nam