Is Obama too much like Spock?

[Fate]

The speech was sooo dissapointing. He does the right thing in regards to commitment to Afghanistan and winning, but then follows up his two steps forwards with a giant leap back by setting a deadline for US withdrawal that has nothing to do with what is actually happening on the ground.

He says the exact opposite.

"... Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

[Berkut]

The speech was sooo dissapointing. He does the right thing in regards to commitment to Afghanistan and winning, but then follows up his two steps forwards with a giant leap back by setting a deadline for US withdrawal that has nothing to do with what is actually happening on the ground.

He says the exact opposite.

"... Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

Setting a deadline for the transition to happen is not doing so responsibly, or taking into account conditions on the ground, by definition.

[Fate]

The speech was sooo dissapointing. He does the right thing in regards to commitment to Afghanistan and winning, but then follows up his two steps forwards with a giant leap back by setting a deadline for US withdrawal that has nothing to do with what is actually happening on the ground.

He says the exact opposite.

"... Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

Setting a deadline for the transition to happen is not doing so responsibly, or taking into account conditions on the ground, by definition.

No, setting a defined limit on the military's desire to always demand a few thousand more troops and yet more time is responsible, by definition.

[Berkut]

No, setting a defined limit on the military's desire to always demand a few thousand more troops and yet more time is responsible, by definition.

Placing domestic political constraints on war fighting to assuage the left at the expense of military operations is not responsible by any definition of the word.

Turning around and then publicizing those constraints so your enemies know exactly what they need to to do to defeat you is even more irresponsible.

[Admiral Yi]

Placing domestic political constraints on war fighting to assuage the left at the expense of military operations is not responsible by any definition of the word.

Domestic politics *always* constrains war fighting.  You are of the opinion that we gain more than we lose by staying indefinitely in Afghanistan.  The majority of Americans think otherwise.  Why should Obama heed your wishes and not theirs?

[Valmy]

Placing domestic political constraints on war fighting to assuage the left at the expense of military operations is not responsible by any definition of the word.

Turning around and then publicizing those constraints so your enemies know exactly what they need to to do to defeat you is even more irresponsible.

I understand but it might be politically necessary to get the funding and support necessary.

[Sheilbh]

Those aren't the allies I am talking about. I am talking about afghanis who live in the areas effected. I am talking about Pakistan, who has to deal with the insurgents and Taliban in their own country.

Well I don't think the US will be withdrawing its long-term commitment to Pakistan (indeed Obama's letter to Zardari was about how to strengthen it) that existed prior to the Afghan war and will post-date it too.

I still think Pakistan's very difficult in a whole range of ways.  We have seen them push back against the Taliban because of their atrocities and attacks in Pakistan though I heard from some guy in the Brookings Institute that they're basically attacking the Pakistani Taliban while elements within Pakistan's security services are still supporting and aiding the Taliban.  Musharaf got masses of aid to help build up Pakistan's military to help with Afghanistan and the vast majority of it was spent on the Indian border.  I've no idea how to change that.

The message this send to them is that they need to be thinking about what deals they need to make with these guys, since the US just told them that our previous claims about being in this for the long haul and asking them to stick their neck out to help fight extremism were all lies, and we will be bailing on them in a year or two.

I'm not convinced by the speech I think it's one of his weakest.  And I've no real full opinion on the policy yet, I could do with some more details.

I thought about this a lot and changed my mind about 20 times over it all.  But I wanted three things to be at the centre of a new policy: more troops, a shift of strategy as MacC (can't remember how to spell his name) suggests so we move towards a strategy that is about protecting Afghan civilians though this will cost us soldiers' lives in the short term, and a sense of political strategy.  I'm very worried that Karzai is becoming a new Musharaf, a man we need, who is essential to fighting terrorism but who actually fights it very little and is ultimately not significantly better than the alternative.

My impression is that I got the troops, I don't know if I got the shift in strategy and that I hope that the 2011 outline of a timeline is a sign of political strategy.  But I'm not sure at this point. 

[Berkut]

Placing domestic political constraints on war fighting to assuage the left at the expense of military operations is not responsible by any definition of the word.

Domestic politics *always* constrains war fighting.  You are of the opinion that we gain more than we lose by staying indefinitely in Afghanistan.  The majority of Americans think otherwise.  Why should Obama heed your wishes and not theirs?

They do in general, but that doesn't mean that it is a good thing, or that effective leadership is simply bowing to those constraints, rather than trying to mitigate or re-shape them.

And I do not think we should "stay indefinitely". I think we should fight to win, or leave now. Fighting to win, with the caveat that we will be leaving in a year and a half regardless, makes no sense at all, since it means we are not actually trying to win at all, since we just gave the people we are fighting against a neatly summarized plan for how to make sure we don't win.

This is typical "I will be all things to all people" politics. I will send in more troops, then at the same time weaken that very effort by telling people that the troops will be leaving shortly. He is trying to make everyone happy, rather than trying to lead.

[Admiral Yi]

They do in general, but that doesn't mean that it is a good thing, or that effective leadership is simply bowing to those constraints, rather than trying to mitigate or re-shape them.

And I do not think we should "stay indefinitely". I think we should fight to win, or leave now. Fighting to win, with the caveat that we will be leaving in a year and a half regardless, makes no sense at all, since it means we are not actually trying to win at all, since we just gave the people we are fighting against a neatly summarized plan for how to make sure we don't win.

This is typical "I will be all things to all people" politics. I will send in more troops, then at the same time weaken that very effort by telling people that the troops will be leaving shortly. He is trying to make everyone happy, rather than trying to lead.

I agree that it's a split the difference approach, but you're overlooking the fact that political capital is a finite commodity.  If he spends it on Afghanistan he will have less to spend elsewhere. 

[Sheilbh]

And I do not think we should "stay indefinitely". I think we should fight to win, or leave now. Fighting to win, with the caveat that we will be leaving in a year and a half regardless, makes no sense at all, since it means we are not actually trying to win at all, since we just gave the people we are fighting against a neatly summarized plan for how to make sure we don't win.

But I think whether you 'win' at all largely depends on the political situation in Afghanistan. 

Although I suppose it depends what you mean by 'win'.

As I say I saw that statement as being as much to do with serving Karzai notice as with appeasing the left.

Edit:  Really weird thread for this all to be happening in.  I think from photoshoppe Basque eyebrows to Afghan policy is one of the odder jumps I've seen on languish.

[Berkut]

And I do not think we should "stay indefinitely". I think we should fight to win, or leave now. Fighting to win, with the caveat that we will be leaving in a year and a half regardless, makes no sense at all, since it means we are not actually trying to win at all, since we just gave the people we are fighting against a neatly summarized plan for how to make sure we don't win.

But I think whether you 'win' at all largely depends on the political situation in Afghanistan. 

Although I suppose it depends what you mean by 'win'.

As I say I saw that statement as being as much to do with serving Karzai notice as with appeasing the left.

If you want to serve Karzai notice, you do so in private. You don't loudly tell your enemy how to win. There are plenty of ways to get a message to Karzai about what is expected from him other than announcing it on network television.

This had nothing to do with Karzai, and everything to do with the Fates that dominate his own party.

[Berkut]

But I think whether you 'win' at all largely depends on the political situation in Afghanistan. 

Well, duh. Of course it does. And announcing to everyone that your need to keep the loony left happy after they decided that the "right war" is no longer the "right war" since it became "their war" is going to trump any political situation in Afghanistan is going to rather decidedly effect the political situation in Afghanistan, isn't it?

[Fate]

Thankfully the batshit warmongers like Berkut are in the distinct minority. Neither party will stomach a war in Afghanistan until 2019.

[Sheilbh]

If you want to serve Karzai notice, you do so in private. You don't loudly tell your enemy how to win. There are plenty of ways to get a message to Karzai about what is expected from him other than announcing it on network television.

How many times do you Karzai's been told that US support won't go on forever?  How many times did Bush say that Musharaf really needed to go after the Taliban?  Every time, so far as I can tell, they've nodded and continued as before either presiding over a monumentally corrupt government (some of the stories from the Minister of National Resources, especially, are gobsmacking - he accepts his bribes of $25 million+ in cash only) or spending all the aid defending against India.

This, combined with Obama's push for a very strong political representative in Kabul will hopefully bounce Karzai.

I don't buy the idea that the Taliban can just sit it out.  If they sit it out for 18 months then we should be able to train Afghan forces to a far higher level and we should have been able to provide the civilian population with enough security for a long enough period that the Taliban would find it difficult to rebuild their strength.  I don't think an insurgency can sit it out without losing the population they depend upon.

Plus of course the 18 months is based on the Iraq withdrawal, will pay attention to the situation on the ground, could be of a percentage of troops and so on.  If in 18 months there's been political progress and security then I hope that we will be willing to keep troop levels high, if however there's been no political progress then I don't know that that is ever going to change.

[Admiral Yi]

Thankfully the batshit warmongers like Berkut are in the distinct minority. Neither party will stomach a war in Afghanistan until 2019.

Who is the intended audience for a post like this?