|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Obama’s Goldilocks StrategyPosted on Dec 2, 2009President Obama has bought himself some time on Afghanistan and lived up to his promise to seek policies that fit into no one’s philosophical pigeonholes. He has also split his own party and diminished the enthusiasm of his natural allies, yet earned himself no lasting credit with his domestic adversaries. By these measures, Obama’s surge-and-wind-down strategy is both gutsy and politically risky. This view flies in the face of the common description of his Tuesday night address as a carefully balanced political appeal. There was calculation in the speech but it had to do with winning support for his policy, not with electoral advantage. On the matter of helping the election chances of congressional Democrats next year, the speech was a net loser. Obama was trying to identify middle ground by offering a Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right. He pointedly reassured doves that he had no interest in a “dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort,” while insisting to hawks that “our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He argued that the only way to speed our departure from Afghanistan was to speed the entry of 30,000 troops now to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum.” In the Vietnam years, many spoke of a “win-or-get-out” choice. Obama’s is a “stop-losing-to-get-out” plan. Advertisement Obama spoke longingly of ending the “rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.” In light of the reaction to his speech, one can only say: Good luck. Even Democrats once interventionist in their foreign policy views have been turned off by the overreach of the Bush years. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was revealing—and honest—when he told Politico before Obama’s speech: “I’m not as prone to jumping into wars as I used to be.” What Obama said at West Point about Afghanistan would have been uncontroversial before the long occupation of Iraq. Now, half or more of Obama’s own party wishes he would wind the Afghanistan war down. There are likely to be no congressional votes on funding the new surge until the spring because Democratic leaders, particularly in the House, know how much opposition there is in their ranks. But the GOP’s response was tepid. Many Republicans welcomed the troop commitments, but then moved quickly to the attack, especially on Obama’s insistence that we could begin to withdraw forces by July 2011. “If you tell the enemy when you’re leaving, it emboldens your enemies and dispirits your friends,” Sen. John McCain told CBS on Wednesday morning, encapsulating a common Republican critique. Others were annoyed at Obama’s criticism of Bush for neglecting Afghanistan in favor of Iraq. Note what’s going on here: Obama’s efforts to persuade enough skeptics—especially in his own party—by placing a limit on how long we will stay and by trying to separate Afghanistan from Iraq earned him only reproofs from the other party. Heads, Obama loses with the doves; tails, he loses with the hawks. There is not a large market for owls claiming the wisdom of the middle way. Yet the paradox is that by absorbing all this political pain, Obama will succeed in his short-term goal of gathering sufficient support to keep the battle in Afghanistan going and give his surge a chance. If he’s right that progress can be made quickly and that troops can begin to withdraw, political opposition will recede. If the policy fails or stalls, he will have hell to pay. It helps Obama that Democrats are split not in two but in three: 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. “God, I hope he’s right” were the words I heard from several Democrats, expressing precisely the mixture of faith, hope and doubt that characterizes this politically decisive group. These Democrats know that the politics of this are bad unless the policy turns out to be good. They are praying that Obama knows what he’s doing. For now, they will grant him his year and a half.  TAGS:
|
Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Ex-Employees Say
 . '/' . substr('9781582437842',-6,3) . '/' . '9781582437842' . '.jpg'; ?>)
 . '/' . substr('9780345804372',-6,3) . '/' . '9780345804372' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By liecatcher, December 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
Bush 3 is responsible for countless deaths &
Report thisdestruction in wars we have no right to be engaged in.
And that is no fairy tale. The only “exit” strategy is
permanent bases, control of the drugs & oil & move on
to the next target, creating more debt for Government
Sachs to get even richer on. All the while, we the
people are in a quagmire of permanent irreducible debt.
By samosamo, December 5, 2009 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
““These Democrats know that the politics of this are bad unless the policy turns
out to be good. They are praying that Obama knows what he’s doing.”“
Sad and pathetic commentary on our political fiasco, so much so that it is also a
Report thisproof of nothing less than major changes in the personnel of our elected and
appointed people will save or retain some resemblance of the democracy of our
republic.
By Mary Ann McNeely, December 4, 2009 at 1:13 am Link to this comment
Obama spoke longingly of ending the “rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.”
Obama is such a square that he probably actually believes this. In addition, it is probably one of the ways he justifies to himself escalating the crime of our involvement in Afghanistan. If I continue the war at what I feel is a minimum level, he thinks to himself, I prove I’ve got stones and my ideological and racial enemies will eventually come to love me, as will the entire nation. What a repulsive fool this boy scout turned out to be!
Report thisBy gerard, December 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
beerdoctor, I’m glad you picked out drones particularly. To me they are a most detestable weapon—not that any weapons are not detestable!
Report thisBut the blind, empty-headed cowardice of mind and soul that is required to use them is appallingly subhuman. Sit in a distant office in front of a screen and send an unmanned vehicle thousands of miles off to hit a wedding party, maybe, or a hospital, school, village, market in a broken-down poverty-stricken, unorganized, backward country—that’s really slimey!
By Anarcissie, December 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
In other words, when you’re in a hole, don’t stop digging; just say you’re going to dig for a limited time only. That’ll shut your critics up for a while. And most important, you can get that hole deeper.
“Gutsy” isn’t the word for it.
Report thisBy bozhidar balkas, vancouver, December 3, 2009 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When it comes to waging wars of aggression no prez was ever wrong. So, once again warlords wld circle the wagons and protect the prez and what US had gained this far in iraq and afgh`n.
To force warlords to abandon one or two of these `missions`, at least 70 mn amers wld have to engage in massive passive resistance against them.
Nevertheless, wars being a constitutional command-demand,going under the name ``defending US interests``, defence of US interests wld prevail unless even more than 70mn resist the will of US warlords.
Remember that US constitution is an interpretative writ. And we all konw who interprets! tnx
Report thisBy Carl, December 3, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
It is now clear that Obama is not a leader. He lacks the confidence and conviction to battle special interests for the national good. He has the Generals and their Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex supported by their corporate media spokesmen (disguised as newsmen) wanting to boost troop levels by some 80,000 troops to keep the military budget soaring ever higher.
On the other hand, he has the American people, real experts, and common sense telling him this is a horrible idea. So Obama chose a compromise. He is just a referee.
Report thisBy voice of truth, December 3, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
What a joke. Have to agree with dihey.
Gutsy? Are you kidding? It is typical Obama, I don’t know what the hell to do so let’s try to please everyone or just look like we are doing something.
This guy hasn’t done one “gutsy” thing in his whole life. He’s a complete pretender and WAY over his head as President. He’s like a kid in a candy shop, he thinks its “neat” to be President, to have friends over all the time, to jet off to NY with his wife, to read about himself in GQ, play golf whenever he wants, etc.
When it comes time to actually make a decision, he chooses to (mark all that apply):
a) farm it out to Pelosi
b) wait 3 months and hope it goes away
c) take some kind of middle of the road position which alienates everyone
d) go play golf
e) go to NY with wife
f) leave the country and hope it goes away
g) get allies and media to crush anyone who dares to dissent against his final “decision”.
What a friggin joke this guy is
Report thisBy bozhidar balkas, vancouver, December 3, 2009 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How valid is the assumption that by announcing to withdraw from afgh’n in 2011 this wld enbolden talibans in their armed resistance against US occupation?
Well, pashtuns have said they wld increase their armed struggle against the invaders. Seems, then, Pashtuns are guessing that US announcement means the opposite is true.
And it seems that mccain had fallen for the ruse or is a bit cagier than that and just feigns his naivette.
Recently azeri chess team had beaten mighty russians. Azeris are cousins of the pashtuns; so, i don’t think pashtuns can’t think.tnx
Report thisBy melpol, December 3, 2009 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
Violent extremism with a Marxist base has been defeated in South America. But
Report thisthe violence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with sharing the wealth. It is about
following an orthodox interpretation of the Koran. Infidels are given a choice of
conversion or death. There is no middle ground. Keeping the proper distance
from a violent extremist is a safe solution.
By dihey, December 3, 2009 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
“By these measures, Obama’s surge-and-wind-down strategy is both gutsy…”
Gutsy? To me that is a new definition of this word. There is nothing gutsy about expanding a war with a so-called ‘exit strategy’ that is full of holes.
It would have been gutsy to say “enough is enough, I have ordered to bring all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan home a.s.a.p”
As usual E.J. is a brown-nosing apologist of Obama.
Report thisBy starfish, December 3, 2009 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
E.J. writes: “Obama spoke longingly of ending the ‘rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.’”
Is E.J. kidding?
Is E.J. serious?
Is E.J. senile?
Does E.J. have ANY memory of the slurs and insults he allowed his staff and his supporters to hurl at Hillary Clinton?
Obama strives to get along only with people who (1) agree with him, or (2) can help him financially to achieve his personal political goals.
I cannot recall a more divisive president than Obama has been.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, December 3, 2009 at 4:26 am Link to this comment
The so-called news industry is really just talking to itself. The reality of war is truly ghastly, not the glamorized facade put forward by our government instructed news organizations. The more abstract the policy seems, the better. The CIA predator drone program is a blatant example, described as a technologically advanced weapon, it is in fact a 24/7 assassination program being deployed in Pakistan and other places. This is what Edmund Wilson called “Patriotic Gore”.
Report thisDiversions are vitally needed. Whether it is White House gate crashers, or Tiger Woods johnson problems, there will always be something to divert attention away from the hideousness created in the name of military-corporate security.The very last thing you want to do is to think about it.
By Steve E, December 3, 2009 at 3:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This article leaves out any consideration of imperialistic motives. A little too black
Report thisand white for me. The Water Boy Barrack made a lot of devious individuals more
than happy. The American People keep getting hammered from all directions and
all they get is unemployment, foreclosures, no decent healthcare, a diminished
constitution, wiretapping, continued rendition- torture, little or no re-regulation
of the banksters. The man of “hope” is truly the man of deceit.
By Outraged, December 3, 2009 at 2:48 am Link to this comment
Quote: “But in our current political moment, those who seek middle ground are typically crushed. This is especially true in foreign policy,”
Although it is obvious Mr. Dionne you’ve given a maybe, maybe not analysis. That said, regarding the portion I’ve engaged, I disagree. I sense the THE MIDDLE is the mainstream disposition of most Americans. We are enduring difficult times to be sure, previous lies and the ensuing realization of deceit has left most with a measure of apprehension. On the flip side however, it has also reawakened their consiousness.
This reawakened consiousness will not be side-lined easily. Furthermore, this is ESPECIALLY, the case regarding in foreign policy, not the lesser.
Report this