I didn't vote for more war
I was never a starry-eyed Obama supporter who believed he was some kind of transformational progressive who was going to change everything. I didn't think he had the best domestic policies. But I voted for him in the primary because I believed he was our best hope for a foreign policy centered more on diplomacy than military interventions. I believed he would work towards taking our soldiers out of combat and bringing them home. Sadly, I was wrong.
The new plan for Afghanistan is a bitter disappointment. I didn't vote for civilian deaths delivered by unmanned drones dropping bombs. I didn't vote for escalating troops, with no established time line or discernable benchmarks, against an ill-defined enemy. I didn't vote for decades long, "nation building" occupations. That's we had for 8 years going into the elections. That's what I voted against.
When President Obama kept on the Bush regime team, I was willing to believe it was for reasons of continuity while he developed a new, more sane and humane strategy. Unfortunately it appears that the neocon cabal is instead holding our president hostage to same stale tactics that failed in Iraq. That's not what I voted for and if you didn't either, join us GetAfghanistanRight.com to ask for better policy.
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
The new plan for Afghanistan is a bitter disappointment. I didn't vote for civilian deaths delivered by unmanned drones dropping bombs. I didn't vote for escalating troops, with no established time line or discernable benchmarks, against an ill-defined enemy. I didn't vote for decades long, "nation building" occupations. That's we had for 8 years going into the elections. That's what I voted against.
When President Obama kept on the Bush regime team, I was willing to believe it was for reasons of continuity while he developed a new, more sane and humane strategy. Unfortunately it appears that the neocon cabal is instead holding our president hostage to same stale tactics that failed in Iraq. That's not what I voted for and if you didn't either, join us GetAfghanistanRight.com to ask for better policy.
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
Labels: Afghanistan, military, Obama administration, policy
posted by Libby Spencer at 7:10 PM
9 Comments:
The honeymoon is over, isn't it?
There's no question Obama talks a great line (when the teleprompter is working correctly) but his actions are strictly Bush's third term. There isn't a day that goes by that the disappointment doesn't increase for cripes sake.
I don't think he would have come this far if he hadn't made deals. Deals to keep the status quo continuing at all costs and absolve the war criminals from what they did the last eight years.
I think we're in far more trouble than we realize.
Thanks for that link, Libby.
But one of Obama's major campaign issues was refocusing on Afghanistan.
We knew this was coming. I didn't vote for this part of Obama either, but it's part of the package.
Welcome to the clear headed side Libby. It took you a little while, but I figured you'd eventually come around. I always felt that Obama was just Bush-lite, and I'm sad but not surprised that it's looking more and more like I was right. Now if we can just get you to realize that with as much power as the govt will always have it will always attract/create corruption and that's why more govt control over anything will almost always make it into a bigger mess than it was before and we'll be set.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no having buyer's remorse. He's still doing more towards moving towards a progressive agenda than I expected. And he's still far better than the alternatives. And I'm aware that by the time we got to the general, he had indicated that he was going to focus on Af/Pak and would probably increase troop levels. I had expected him to insist on new strategies going forward and I'm not seeing that so far.
I also think the DOJ stuff and his refusal to support investigations of the Bush era crimes is more disturbing. But his diplomatic efforts with the world leaders aren't unappreciated. I think he struck a good tone on this tour and did wonders to erase much of the bad will that Bush left behind. And his stance on nuclear disarmanent is stellar.
And I keep reminding myself that he hasn't even been in office for 90 days yet and has a lot of problems to deal with so it's not entirely unexpected that he would allow the old Bush cabal another chance to try to get it right.
Nonetheless, I think it's important to speak out and try to shift his position towards better solutions. It's part of the process.
Despite some of my past comments, I too am very worried about getting stuck in another quagmire. Still, I'm pleased with the new focus on civilian intervention. This new round of troops won't be used for combat, which is good. I guess I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for now, but if this drags on, I'm going to get really frustrated. Juan Cole doesn't like any of this, which worries me more about what might happen.
I also think the DOJ stuff and his refusal to support investigations of the Bush era crimes is more disturbing.
I agree completely with this. They just dismissed that lawsuit against the NSA over wiretapping - why?! Plus, investigating wouldn't be that hard. I understand Obama wants to look forward - that's good. But our federal government is huge. Someone should be able to investigate the Bush admin.
First off, sorry to hear about your old boss.
But the problems I have with Obama aren't what he hasn't managed to do yet - as you said he's only been in office 90 days. My problems are what he has managed to do in that short amount of time.
Confirm a near identical Iraq policy to Bush's old one? Check. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220241&title=Mess-O'Potamia---The-Iraq-War-Is-Over What about that link of Glenn Greenwald discussing Tim Geithner and the massive fraud that he is allowing to go on? That doesn't do anything for you? Did you see Greenwald's latest? It's titled "New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ". Great. How about his continuing to support hold suspected terrorists without, you know, actually having to go through the trouble of charging them with anything? What about his laughing at people who want to at least have a discussion about legalizing pot? Already mentioned is his unwillingness to go after the Bush administration for their use of torture. Or the wiretapping he supports? How about his administration trying to pin the blame on Dodd for legislation they pushed for? How about how we heard so much about his vetting process, only to see several people have to back out or should have backed out? How about his no lobbyist claim which he gave himself a nice out on? His lying about planning to filibuster and FISA bill that includes retro-active immunity? His forcing AWU to change their contract before giving them money, but then giving banks money and then the fake outrage after the fact with the "We can't do anything, they have a contract" bs?
I'm not asking for a perfect president, I know I won't agree on everything with anyone. But I'm not asking for a lot for someone who ran as the anti-Bush. I'm just curious Libby, what line must Obama cross before you start wondering if he's part of the problem and not the solution? What hasn't he done yet?
Another way to look at it:
Obama got into office. He saw the intelligence reports. The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan because we took our focus off it and we went to Iraq instead. He's pulling out the troops in Iraq. He's looking at those intelligence reports and maybe he's realizing that Afghanistan needs to be finished. Otherwise the Taliban will overthrow the current government. It's already well on its way.
Brian I don't see we have much of a choice but to hope for the best.
Sandbun, I do think he's part of the problem, but I also think he's the best president we've had in terms of being approachable. By that I mean, he listens, even if he ignores us. And it's still early. He's done all this bad stuff and it pisses me off, but he's also taken some big steps on protecting the environment. The nuke disarming is important. The budget priorities are better. The Pentagon budget it still too big, but better focused. I don't want to overdefend him by any means. Neither do I want to overdemonize him.
James, I have no argument that we have to do something to "finish" in Afghanistan. I think the strategy going forward is wrong. IMO, building roads would do a lot more to defuse the influence of the Taliban than dropping bombs.
Post a Comment
<< Home