I generally agree with this analysis by E.J. Dionne, that Obama's "surge-and-wind-down strategy is both gutsy and politically risky, a view that defies depictions of Tuesday's address as a contrived effort to please everyone." I also agree that Obama has basically settled on a "Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right." As far as which of three Democratic "camps" I'm in - "a small number of hawks who agree with his decision; a large number of doves who oppose it; and a sizable group uneasy with Obama's choice but respectful of how and why he made it" - I'm mostly in the third (uneasy but respectful), but I can see the hawks' and doves' perspectives as well. As In many ways, my position on President Obama's Afghanistan policy is, as E.J. Dionne writes, "God, I hope he's right." But it's more than that. Basically, I am in strong agreement with Elaine in Roanoke, who writes that "Afghanistan and September 11 are as connected as Japan and December 7, 1941's attack on Pearl Harbor are." I also strongly agree with Elaine in Roanoke's closing paragraphs:
Let's all look at what we would be creating if we simply packed up and said, "We're going home."That's basically all I was looking for too (although I'd also like to clarify how we're going to pay for all this). What about you?
Bin Laden and al Qaeda would claim that they has "defeated" both superpowers who emerged after World War II, first the Soviet Union and now the United States. They would then embolden the absolute worst among Islamic extremists. It would be obvious to them that no one can stop whatever they wanted to stir up, not just in the United States but also in Europe and in moderate Islamic nations.
Pakistan - with its nuclear arsenal - would likely be next on the list for these terrorists. Try to imagine a world in which al Qaeda joins the "nuclear club" by taking control of Pakistan. That prospect would make the Cold War look like a cakewalk.
Pakistan created the Taliban monster at one time to provide fighters for their conflict with India. Now, they and the rest of the world have to live with this Frankenstein's monster and its cohorts in al Qaeda.
I, for one, am willing to trust this president to lead the nation as commander in chief. He's not intellectually challenged like his predecessor. He's very unlikely to get his ego wrapped up in this war, unlike the super egos in the last administration. He certainly knows more about what needs to be done in Afghanistan than I.
This time I have to break with the Democratic left. These madmen need to be stopped. President Obama has given us a strategy that has definite goals, clear ways to judge how successful the conflict is going, and an exit strategy. That's all I was looking for.
