Languish.org

Inspired by this ridiculous Newsweek article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34213127/ns/politics-white_house/

QuoteIs Obama too much like Mr. Spock?
Deliberative pace irks some, but geeks like the president's science

By Seth Borenstein
AP Science Writer
updated 12:26 a.m. ET Dec. 1, 2009

WASHINGTON - He shows a fascination with science, an all-too deliberate decision-making demeanor, an adherence to logic and some pretty, ahem, prominent ears.

They all add up to a quite logical conclusion, at least for "Star Trek" fans: Barack Obama is Washington's Mr. Spock, the chief science officer for the ship of state.

"I guess it's somewhat unusual for a politician to be so precise, logical, in his thought process," actor Leonard Nimoy, who has portrayed Spock for more than 40 years, told The Associated Press in an e-mail interview. "The comparison to Spock is, in my opinion, a compliment to him and to the character."

Until now.

Obama's Spock-like qualities have started to cause him political problems in real world Washington. Critics see him as too technocratic, too deliberative, too lacking in emotion.

Obama's protracted decision-making on a new war strategy in Afghanistan, for example, prompted criticisms that he's too deliberate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and other conservatives faulted Obama for "dithering."

Boldly going
While it's the slow decision making that has conservatives upset, especially when it comes to national security, it's the science content of the presidential agenda that have the geeks insisting he's gone where no nerd has gone before.

Obama was a lawyer, organizer and author before he turned politician. So his interest in science wasn't as obvious until he reached the White House. Now, privately he's known to relish the ability to call smart people, especially scientists, to come to the White House to talk about their fields. The more obscure and complicated the field, the better to feed the inner science geek.

Out in public, Obama turns the Bunsen burner up a notch, playing a combination of high school science teacher and math team cheerleader.

Last week, for example, the president announced that the White House would hold an annual science fair as part of a $260 million private push to improve math and science education.

"We're going to show young people how cool science can be," Obama said. "Scientists and engineers ought to stand side by side with athletes and entertainers as role models."

Science-heavy fall
That was just the latest in a science-heavy fall semester at what sometimes seems to double as the White House Institute of Technology.

One October evening, 20 telescopes and an inflatable dome with a three-dimensional tour of the universe were set up on the White House lawn. The occasion was a star party for 150 middle-schoolers that also showcased moon rocks, a couple of astronauts, several astronomers and even two science teachers dressed as Isaac Newton and Galileo.

The president's science adviser, John Holdren, said the party showed that Obama "is genuinely and intensely interested in science and technology in a way that goes beyond their practical relevance to meeting national goals."

Also in October, Obama gave medals to a dozen scientists, toured a lab at the bastion of science-and-technology, MIT, and visited a solar energy manufacturing plant in Florida.

"This is kinda cool," Obama told reporters as he wandered through an MIT energy lab demonstration.

In his first 10 months in office, the president made more science oriented trips than military ones. The White House even turned the annual Easter egg roll into a makeshift science lesson by asking experts to set up a science of eggs exhibit, complete with microscopes.

"I keep being amazed at how much attention he's spending on science policy," said science policy and journalism blogger Chris Mooney, author of the book "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."

'Nerds are happy'
"The nerds are happy," Mooney said. "They like Spock."

While some science policy experts don't quite see the similarities between the president and the fictional Vulcan from television and movies, "Star Trek" experts do.

Nimoy said he ran into Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign in a Los Angeles hotel: "When he arrived and saw me he said, 'They told me you were here.' And gave me the split fingered Vulcan sign."

Roberto Orci, the screenwriter and producer behind the latest "Star Trek" movie, said Obama "has a Spock-like aura about him: calm in the face of great adversity and looking for a logical middle ground." Obama, himself a big "Star Trek" fan, screened the movie at the White House during its opening weekend.

'Knew he was a Trekkie'
"We knew he was a Trekkie," Orci said in a telephone interview. He said he watches the White House regularly for insight on the Spock character.

"To have a case study like that on the news every night makes my job a lot easier," he said.

Orci said James T. Kirk, the "Star Trek" captain, was "based on a young new president, John F. Kennedy, and that the Obama administration is part of a 1960s-type revival. Except this time, Kirk isn't in charge. Spock is.

In the movie, however, Spock was in charge of the USS Enterprise before he decided to hand over command to the more gut-driven Kirk. Spock's reasoning that Kirk was better suited to command seems to echo some Obama critics who contend he lacks the emotional connection people want in their president.

Obama's science emphasis often is contrasted with his predecessor's perceived treatment of science, especially when it came to global warming.

Obama vs. Bush
"The current administration seems to be more science-friendly than the immediate past," said Alan Leshner, director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest science society in the country. "That's not a statement about Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have been very good to science over time."

That's not fair, said former President Bush science adviser Jack Marburger, arguing that Bush did much of what Obama is doing.

The trouble is the media "simply didn't see Bush as the kind of president who did these things, and his many science and tech related activities were not covered and not well-known," said Marburger, a Democrat.

"The Obama campaign played the science card superbly and the Obama administration continues to do so," Marburger said. "I don't see anything wrong with that. ... It may encourage greater public appreciation for the importance of science, and that is good."

Rep. Vern Ehlers, a Michigan Republican who's also a physicist, said he's noticed the special science and technology affinity from the president. Obama, he said, needs just one more thing: "A sort of science club in the White House."

Note: This is an occasional look by the Associated Press at the Obama effect in the capital and beyond.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Former Lehendakari (Basque country governor) Juan José Ibarretxe is way more Spock-like than Obama will ever be.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parecidosrazonables.com%2Fparecidos_razonables%2F18.jpg&hash=bad7d2d1405db5b209800d901b85899017ec5d43)

Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 03:49:46 AM
Former Lehendakari (Basque country governor) Juan José Ibarretxe is way more Spock-like than Obama will ever be.

Well damn, that's just freakish.

After 8 years of Dubya and those damned Alpha Betas in the White House, preceded by 8 years of Clinton running it like Delta Tau Chi, it was time to give Lambda Lambda Lambda a shot.

By the way, I voted Q'apla!

Not really. voted live long & prosper because I felt compelled to do so for some reason.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 01, 2009, 05:45:47 AM
After 8 years of Dubya and those damned Alpha Betas in the White House, preceded by 8 years of Clinton running it like Delta Tau Chi, it was time to give Lambda Lambda Lambda a shot.

:lol:

There are two different points here:

1) Obama is pro science in a way the last administration wasn't.

2) Obama is no longer really passionate in the way he was on the campaign trail.

Thanks for conflating them, Newsweek.

Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 01:28:18 PM
2) Obama is no longer really passionate in the way he was on the cmpaaign trail.

There were loads of articles during the campaign about Obama being too cool and dispassionate.

I always thought they were just trying to fill blank space to be honest.

Man I love the fact the dude is slow and deliberate in his decisions...that is probably the best thing I can say to him.

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 01:40:40 PM
Man I love the fact the dude is slow and deliberate in his decisions...that is probably the best thing I can say to him.

He's made a decision?

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 01:40:40 PM
Man I love the fact the dude is slow and deliberate in his decisions...that is probably the best thing I can say to him.

Really? You can't think of anything better?

Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2009, 01:53:44 PM
Really? You can't think of anything better?

He's an excellent driver.

That Basque dude is a total trip.  I didn't know people could grow eyebrows like that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 01:56:20 PM
That Basque dude is a total trip.  I didn't know people could grow eyebrows like that.

Actually they look photoshopped to me. -_-

Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 01:47:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 01:40:40 PM
Man I love the fact the dude is slow and deliberate in his decisions...that is probably the best thing I can say to him.

He's made a decision?

:contract:

But I suppose in most cases I shouldn't complain about Obama being indecisive & therefore not doing anything.

Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2009, 01:53:44 PM
Really? You can't think of anything better?

Um...snappy dresser?

Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 02:09:13 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on December 01, 2009, 01:47:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 01:40:40 PM
Man I love the fact the dude is slow and deliberate in his decisions...that is probably the best thing I can say to him.

He's made a decision?

:contract:

But I suppose in most cases I shouldn't complain about Obama being indecisive & therefore not doing anything.

He is ready to announce his plan on Afghanistan and is sending more troops over there. :mellow:

Hilarious after all we have been through there are still idiots demanding we make more reckless poorly thought out decisions.  But anyway we went around and around about this in another thread.

Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2009, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 01:56:20 PM
That Basque dude is a total trip.  I didn't know people could grow eyebrows like that.

Actually they look photoshopped to me. -_-

They're fo' real, man.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciudadanos-cs.org%2Fstatic%2Fcomunicados%2F385_15_06_2008%2Fibarretxe.jpg&hash=0e581bb7b3fa511388914b450d178c1501ec1491)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.actibvapredicciones.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F02%2Fjuan-jose-ibarretxe-moncloan-2007101614405112hg2.jpg&hash=5d18f77933d96dc21fecd55ba09382cd0f95cfb1)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flluevencroquetas.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F05%2Fibarretxe_2_1.jpg&hash=50036a32612a981c871c9debb9e40cda934075b6)

 :lol:  I love the second picture.

You callin' THESE photoshopped?!?

Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2009, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 01:56:20 PM
That Basque dude is a total trip.  I didn't know people could grow eyebrows like that.

Actually they look photoshopped to me. -_-

It's probably Sharpie

Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:21:51 PM
They're fo' real, man.

It does sort of look like the ears and eye brows got tightened up a little in the original pic.

In the last pic he looks alot like the dad from Malcolm in the Middle.

Cool, deliberate, logical. Such terrible qualities for a leader.

He even joked about it:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.elcorreodigital.com%2Fblogfiles%2Feleccionesvascas%2FIbarretxeSpock.jpg&hash=5e03a6d4091e654e608bb0516c57364be7fa928d)

Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 03:49:46 AM
Former Lehendakari (Basque country governor) Juan José Ibarretxe is way more Spock-like than Obama will ever be.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parecidosrazonables.com%2Fp%3Dos_razonables%2F18.jpg&hash=45824a3cd2366c3db9226e0e3ba949b90ab794a7)

Wow, he's not Spock but he's certainly got some vulcan in him.

Quote from: Maximus on December 01, 2009, 03:17:02 PM
Cool, deliberate, logical. Such terrible qualities for a leader.

yes they are.

Nuke first, ask questions later.

I don't see much Spock-like about Obama.  Al Gore?  Now there's Spock!

I guess Clinton was Kirk.  Dubya was, hmm, uh, Reginald Barclay, maybe?  Don't know who Obama would be.  Possibly Janeway--smug, self-righteous, and usually incompetant.

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 02:13:49 PM
Hilarious after all we have been through there are still idiots demanding we make more reckless poorly thought out decisions.  But anyway we went around and around about this in another thread.

I would agree that judgment is definitely a key principle of leadership.  But decisiveness is as well.  I would say that Obama has been somewhat below average in the former, and horrible in the latter.

Obama is the worst thing to happen to America since the Emancipation Proclamation. What's next? We gonna let all the animals out of the zoo?

Quote from: Jaron on December 01, 2009, 08:15:13 PM
Obama is the worst thing to happen to America since the Emancipation Proclamation. What's next? We gonna let all the animals out of the zoo?

Letting the negro male go free is one thing, but giving women the right to vote was infinitely worse in terms of destroying our culture, society, and freedom.

Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 05:53:35 PM
I would agree that judgment is definitely a key principle of leadership.  But decisiveness is as well.  I would say that Obama has been somewhat below average in the former, and horrible in the latter.

Things certainly have not gone well so far...but I am patient and hopeful Obama will work out.  Sometimes these Presidents need to be broken in a bit.  Even Bush II was pretty decent in his last couple years in office.  Though Obama doesn't have too much time, alot can change in politics but I would be suprised if he wins another term.

Even though I wish Obama had shut up about the 2011 date thing (I know he had to say something like that to keep his own party from rebelling but I know the Taliban will be celebrating as if they only need to hold on until then and they will have won) but I will be interested to see how his new strategy will turn out in Afghanistan.  Sending more troops and focussing on building up Afghan security forces sounds good to me.

If he doesn't put a date on withdrawal, how long do you think we should stay? A counter insurgency strategy will take another decade to implement and succeed. I don't support eighteen years of war.

Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 09:35:06 AM
Even though I wish Obama had shut up about the 2011 date thing (I know he had to say something like that to keep his own party from rebelling but I know the Taliban will be celebrating as if they only need to hold on until then and they will have won) but I will be interested to see how his new strategy will turn out in Afghanistan.  Sending more troops and focussing on building up Afghan security forces sounds good to me.

I think 2011 is a bit of bullshit to be honest.  He hedged it with using Iraq as a model of withdrawal and said it would depend on the situation on the ground.

The New Republic had this from before the speech:

QuoteIn a conference call, the White House clarifies what those reports about a three year time line were about. Although the phrase three years doesn't appear anywhere in Obama's speech, he will set July 2011 as the date when NATO forces will start handing over the lead of combat operations to Afghan force, and apparently begin to bring U.S. forces back home.

It's not at all clear, however, whether that is a fixed date--or whether it will be tied to unpredictable conditions on the ground.

Update: I'm told that July 2011 is not condition-based, but that all decisions afterwards will be.

And along those same lines, a senior White House official speaking on background says: "This is the beginning of a process which is not yet defined in terms of the length of the process, or the endpoint." Sounds fairly open-ended to me--as it realistically has to be, given the uncertainties involved and Obama's apparent belief in the necessity of winning.

"If the Taliban thinks they can wait us out, then they are misjudging the president's approach," adds the official.

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
If he doesn't put a date on withdrawal, how long do you think we should stay?

As long as we want.  We just should be careful about announcing the date publicly.  Signs of weakness will only make our job tougher.

I mean he could still start withdrawing in 2011 (which might mean simply bringing down forcelevels to 2009 levels for all I know) just don't announce it to the world.

Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
If he doesn't put a date on withdrawal, how long do you think we should stay?

As long as we want.  We just should be careful about announcing the date publicly.  Signs of weakness will only make our job tougher.

I mean he could still start withdrawing in 2011 (which might mean simply bringing down forcelevels to 2009 levels for all I know) just don't announce it to the world.

Indeed. The only reason to make such an announcement is to appease his political allies who for some reason have suddenly decided that the "good" and "necessary" war isn't so good or necessary after all.

All it does otherwise is announce to our enemies that there is a finite time they need to hold out, and announce to our allies that they should probably start considering what accommodations they should be laying the groundwork for with our enemies in preparation for our bailing on them in 18 months.

I reserve my oprobrium for the idiots who whooped and hollared during the campaign during Obama's lines about the real fight against terrorism blah blah blah. 

Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
If he doesn't put a date on withdrawal, how long do you think we should stay?

As long as we want.  We just should be careful about announcing the date publicly.  Signs of weakness will only make our job tougher.

I mean he could still start withdrawing in 2011 (which might mean simply bringing down forcelevels to 2009 levels for all I know) just don't announce it to the world.

Signs of leaving before 2019 signal we aren't serious about winning a counter insurgency campaign against the Taliban. We are weak, so what?

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:03:58 AM
All it does otherwise is announce to our enemies that there is a finite time they need to hold out, and announce to our allies that they should probably start considering what accommodations they should be laying the groundwork for with our enemies in preparation for our bailing on them in 18 months.

I don't know that it wasn't caused by your allies.  I believe that every nation in NATO with the exception of the UK has set a withdrawal date and the UK government asked for the US to set one which Britain would then match.

As I say I actually think he's been very careful to leave wiggle room and I'm not clear if it means withdrawing the extra 30 000, the 17 000 ordered in in March or the entire lot of them.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:03:58 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2009, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
If he doesn't put a date on withdrawal, how long do you think we should stay?

As long as we want.  We just should be careful about announcing the date publicly.  Signs of weakness will only make our job tougher.

I mean he could still start withdrawing in 2011 (which might mean simply bringing down forcelevels to 2009 levels for all I know) just don't announce it to the world.

Indeed. The only reason to make such an announcement is to appease his political allies who for some reason have suddenly decided that the "good" and "necessary" war isn't so good or necessary after all.

All it does otherwise is announce to our enemies that there is a finite time they need to hold out, and announce to our allies that they should probably start considering what accommodations they should be laying the groundwork for with our enemies in preparation for our bailing on them in 18 months.

Indeed. The intelligent strategy would be to recommit to an indefinite deployment which we already know America will not support and keep on with the bravado in the mean time. :yes:

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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 10:11:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:03:58 AM
All it does otherwise is announce to our enemies that there is a finite time they need to hold out, and announce to our allies that they should probably start considering what accommodations they should be laying the groundwork for with our enemies in preparation for our bailing on them in 18 months.

I don't know that it wasn't caused by your allies.  I believe that every nation in NATO with the exception of the UK has set a withdrawal date and the UK government asked for the US to set one which Britain would then match.

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.

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.

The fact that "NATO", for what it is worth anymore, are similarly weak and unwilling to commit is unfortunate, of course, but I don't see how trying to match them in the "look how impotent we are" department is the way to go.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:19:13 AM
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.

I know why he had to say that politically but it was dissappointing.

Still it could have been far worse.

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 10:11:35 AM

Indeed. The intelligent strategy would be to recommit to an indefinite deployment which we already know America will not support and keep on with the bravado in the mean time. :yes:

False dichotomy.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:19:13 AM
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. :mellow:

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

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:19:13 AM
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. :mellow:

"... 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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:25:27 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:19:13 AM
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. :mellow:

"... 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.

:lol:

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.

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 10:28:37 AM
:lol:

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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:34:38 AM
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?

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:34:38 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:23:22 AM
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.

QuoteThe 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. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 10:41:53 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:34:38 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
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. 

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 10:54:45 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 10:54:45 AM

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?

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

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 10:58:09 AMIf 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.

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 11:07:51 AM
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?

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 11:07:51 AM
Thankfully the batshit warmongers like Berkut are in the distinct minority. Neither party will stomach a war in Afghanistan until 2019.

The goal is that there won't be a war in even 2011.  Let's not forget that Afghanistan, as a war, barely rated for the first 3 years.  If we go back to you know 10 combat deaths a year I think we could stay in Afghanistan till 2109.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2009, 11:09:38 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 11:07:51 AM
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?

1- Fate.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 11:10:39 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 02, 2009, 11:07:51 AM
Thankfully the batshit warmongers like Berkut are in the distinct minority. Neither party will stomach a war in Afghanistan until 2019.

The goal is that there won't be a war in even 2011.  Let's not forget that Afghanistan, as a war, barely rated for the first 3 years.  If we go back to you know 10 combat deaths a year I think we could stay in Afghanistan till 2109.

Of course that is the goal, but the odds of achieving that goal are rather considerably lower if we tell the people we are fighting that we will be leaving if they can just hold out for a year or two.

You never tell the other guy what it will take to beat you. That is simply stupid, even if it is true that you lack the will to fight longer than another year or two, and even if your allies in NATO are unwilling to support you. There is no upside to it.

Yeah, Karzais government is corrupt - do you really think calling him out on national TV is going to change that? Is they key a threat to leave in 18 months whether he shapes up or not? That would tell me (if I were a corrupt official) that I have 18 months to get as much as a I can out of the deal, and get my ass out of town, or make my arrangement with the new corrupt government that will be taking over, or even that my gravy train has a finite length.

It isn't going to make me go "Golly, they are leaving in 18 months, I better stop being so damn corrupt!!!" It is utterly empty pressure.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2009, 11:31:10 AM
You never tell the other guy what it will take to beat you.

Did they teach you that gem at armchair school?