for the record, i've been of the opinion from day one that going into afghanistan in any serious way was a mistake.
not the going-in-and-taking-out of the terrorist camps, understand--that we should have done and should reserve the right to do in the future whenever we goddam well feel it's necessary--but going in there and actually trying to fix that country? oh, hell no--i figured if trying to take afghanistan proved too much for the soviets with all their ruthless brute force, what the hell made us think we could do any better with the kinda pc warfare we're reduced to these days?
eight years, hundreds of american lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, my opinion hasn't changed in the least.
but fuck all that now--we're in up to our eyeballs, and our glorious leader is about to have to make the first truly tough "the buck stops here" call of his life.
and it's so clear he doesn't wanna do it--he wants to vote "present" like he's always done when times got tough, only this time he can't.
last week, i watched as general stanley mcchrystal, the american commander of nato forces in afghanistan, laid out for 6o minutes a clear, cogent, unambiguous case for why the 40,000 additional troops he had requested from his commander-in-chief were essential if we wanted to have even the slightest hope of turning things around in that troubled region.
he then flew to london and in a speech to some think-tank reiterated his point, saying, among other things, that
"Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."
thus effectively and publicly reminding the president--to whom, tellingly, he'd only spoken once, and then only by videoconference--that it was time to either shit or get off the pot.
needless to say, this forthrightness did not go over well at the white house--i mean, how dare this upstart general come out and actually tell the world the truth, thus denying the president his god-given right as a politician to waffle and wiggle and obfuscate his way around the problem?
and yeah, mr. president, you're damned if you send those additional troops, and equally-and-oppositely damned if you don't.
now, what's it gonna be?
2 comments:
Generals are not supposed to have public stances on issues -- they are supposed to give their advice to the civilian commanders and then follow orders. So, General I will speak to media outlets concerning my opinions was way out of protocol.
As for Afghanistan, I do not know for the life of me why guttermorality is not focusing upon what a mess the Bushies made of it. Unquestioned support for the corrupt ruler Karzai and inadequate support and attention for 7 of the last 8 years.
So Obama inherited a mess. What should he do? Actually, there are no good options because additional troups did not save the Soviets and will not necessarily make it any easier there now.
You may not like Obama on this, but it's not his fault.
noblesavage:
two things:
1. i never said what mcchrystal did was right and proper--yeah, he bucked the chain of command--but he's been ignored by obama for months now, he's watching the situation deteriorate and his men die, and he decided that if he has to put his career on the line in order to get it done, he's willing to go there. wish more americans in power had balls like that.
2. doesn't matter how badly bush fucked it up--obama's in the big chair now, and hard decisions must be made. remember when he was campaigning for the job he kept referring to afghanistan as "the war that must be won," like he actually meant it.
he said he could take the heat. well, he's in the damn kitchen now, and it's time to put up or shut up.
Post a Comment