GATEMOUTH (4/14/06): In the end, I want a member of Congress who’s wrestled with, and lost sleep over the question of under which circumstances the deployment of American forces in battle is justified. “Just say no” is not an adequate answer…
GATEMOUTH (1/20/09): I am thankful to those on the left, like Katrina vanden Heuvel, who supported Obama understanding that he differed with them on the use of residual forces in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, and the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am also thankful to those on the left who supported Obama in part because they didn’t realize he held those positions, or believed Obama didn‘t really mean what he said and was really one of them. Clearly, in the crazed atmosphere of the Bush administration‘s unilateral imbecility, Obama was the right choice for such people, as well as for those holding views closer to my own.
But, those who expected a foreign policy team of “progressives” and instead had to settle for a team of rivals comprised of realists and liberal internationalists, should be thankful (as I am) that there are no neo-cons, and understand that they are on now on notice; when, at the beginning of our great nightmare in Iraq, Barack Obama told an antiwar rally. “I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances….After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again,” he really meant it.
Perhaps the vanden Heuvals will explain to their less savvy allies that they are allowed to feel anger, but not betrayal.
Unexpectedly, the first salvo I received over the internet came yesterday morning from one of Brownstone Brooklyn’s last living moderate Republicans. Tellingly, it was entitled “Michael Moore and Me.”
JOE: Obama deserves to be HAMMERED today and tomorrow by the media — this bubble has got to end.
After dawdling for 92 days (deftly 'spun' as thoughtful deliberation…) — our President sends 30,000 more troops beginning around Christmas to next June. This after sending 21,000 earlier this year (which may have triggered the need for spin, of thoughtful deliberation). That's 51,000 new troops in 12 months (70% increase) for a man that ran AGAINST war — and there's no word on OBL or even Pakistan's foibles like in '08, right?
GATE: Joe, you have the right to disagree with the policy, but not the right to declare that the country was fooled. Obama was crystal clear about Afghanistan/Pakistan to anyone who actually listened.
The deliberation that went into this decision, the fact that it will alienate his supporters, and was not done eagerly makes me more likely to believe that the President weighed his bad options and picked what was clearly the best of them, in spite of the fact his choice will prove to be wildly unpopular.
However, the benefit of my doubts has its limits. So, I’m with the President only for the time being.
The dialogue continued after the speech.
JOE: Obama made fairly direct campaign promises about changing the course of these 2 very unpopular wars. (He hasn't brought in OBL, either.) The troops have been raised over 100% in Afghanistan in his Admins. — and there's no one reporting what the per month/billions will be, across the next 1/2 year, etc. The White House cannot blame Bush, now.. I believe this is it,the Honeymoon is over tonight.
I'm against this troop build-up and the soft-toss at the UN – when this should, by now, be a near fully UN sponsored operation and that the Afghans are inept, and we have a New Team in DC that should have realized this and made the All of None decision long before now. GB and Germany have been questioning Obama's delays, which was eye-opening. Taking 3 months, should have (to me) meant the USA was changing its course.
Taking 3+ months when there's troops there throughout, if they need the new support as its argued/decided, isn't helped by that passage of wasted time, logically — especially when there's a 2-5 month delay in amassing them, there/deployed… makes it appear worse, that he's sending them (for waiting).
You should know I'm not a 'homer' for anyone or any party, etc. You should know that in 2003 and 2004 I was ALL OVER both GWB and JFKerry for their nonsense/debated over the "armor" on Humvees that are desert transport, while 80% of the DEATHs in Iraq were attributed to bombs/Humvees (and the retrofit was taking years – while they could have BUILT and shipped actual air conditioned Armored Trucks and Armed Personnel carriers, across those years). I know you couldn't have like the word "dawdling" – but there was no such hesitation the 1st time around for the 21,000 troops (which was a 40% increase, then) and now I believe that the delay was purely a PR stunt, to make it seem like he's agonizing (as much as that's possible, from his 2 weeks at Cape Cod to being in a tuxedo, 2-3x a week)… Military families watch 10x more acutely, than the rest of us, because they sleep every night in anxiety — and know that it's not shared. Not by the golfing frat-boy that left, and not across a 3 month delay and a decision to stretch tours of duty, again.
GATE: As to the delay, maybe. But act in haste, repent in leisure.
It is his war now. And it is a change in policy. The right change? Dunno, but a change nonetheless. Like anyone else in his circumstances, he had to deal with the facts on the ground as he found them. We may have went in for the right reasons, but as in “Charlie Wilson's War,” we ultimately botched the operation. I suppose we could have left, but I'm not sure what we would have left would have been in any way cutting anyone's loses–we broke it and so we bought it.
The present policy was clearly unsustainable, and I, for one don't think the American people would stand still for any further open-endedness. And, after all, we are a democratic polity, so a policy without support cannot be sustained over the long haul. As such, I'm willing to support this, with trepidations galore.
I noticed Maxine Waters last night citing the wisdom of Congresswoman Barbara Lee to justify her stance against Obama‘s policy. Barbara Lee happens to have been the one member of Congress who voted against going after Bin Laden after my city was attacked. I do not consider her opposition (based not on pragmatism, but on “just say no” pacifism) to be visionary, and I am proud to be on her opposite side.
However, Waters was really no worse than Georgia Republican Jack Brinkley complaining:
“After three months of indecision, the President now comes up short of what his hand-picked commanding general requested.”
Yeah, Jack, the ELECTED leader of our nation listened to all the advisers WHO WORK FOR HIM, and then made the choice HE felt was best.
America, what a country!