This is a continuation of the discussion mainly between Richard and me from Dec. 1 in response to Obama's speech, his new strategy in Afghanistan, and his overall governing position.
Richard, the main difference I see between us is that you are certain of your position, while I am ambivalent and, within limits, can often take either side in an argument because a part of me leans toward each. Therefore, I'm more willing to make compromises, more likely to see the glass half-full. You emphasize sticking to the goal and the ideal; I emphasize the necessity for compromise to get some progress. I am more likely to say "something is better than nothing;" you are more likely to say, "let's stick to our demands for what we believe in." I am so close to your position that at times it is difficult for me to sustain the other argument in the face of your pursuasiveness. Nevertheless, I continue to trust Obama to make the decisions more than I would either you or me. That is not blind allegiance to authority; I would not have said the same thing about George Bush as president.
The difference in this case is my admiration for Barack Obama and my willingness to concede to him superior knowledge and judgment, and to trust his process of deliberation and therefore his decisions. But that doesn't change the fact that I really want the same results that you want, Richard. I just don't think we're going to get them in this go-round.
Should we stand pat and try to elect a more progressive congress in 2012 and another president in 2014? Or, as you suggest, pass fewer but more progressive bills now? What's the guarantee that Congress would pass even one progressive bill, if we conceded the others?
And, by the way, you trivialize the assessment of the man and my support of him when you refer to the pro-Obama group as a "cult of personality." That implies being dazzled by superficial appeal and hero-worship, when in fact my support of Obama is based on a deep understanding of the way he thinks, his values, the kind of process he goes through in making decisions, and the people he has chosen (with some notable exceptions) to advise him. It's also based on reading his books and especially David Plouffe's book about the campaign -- which tells you a lot about Obama, the man, as well.
That's far different from the pejorative connotation of "personality cult."
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteYou misstate my position.
What I said, in talking in general about what I see as the two groups developing, is that one might "run the risk of developing a cult of personality". That is not trivializing your personal position. I understand you have researched the man. I was simply pointing out a potential danger when you have a group of people supporting positions they don't actually share because they believe in the man who is establishing those positions.
That is a potentially dangerous precedent. I've heard a lot of people justify not standing up for what they believe in(from healthcare to Afghanistan to the stimulus plan) because they trust Obama, or his process, or his decision-making, etc. The more personal beliefs people compromise to support him, the more the support begins to take on aspects of a cult of personality. I'm not saying we're there, but at some point, if people keep compromising their own beliefs, we will reach a tipping point.
Reagan's support took on the form of a 'cult of personality'. You could make a case that some of Clinton's support fell into this category, too.
Let me amend, or rather interpret, my comments. I'm not sure I am necessarily 'certain' of my position. I am certain I don't want people to die for no good reason. I am 'certain' that, for me, Obama has not justified his position to the point where I am comfortable letting people die.
Whenever people support Obama's Afghanistan position they skirt around this issue. It is about children dying. Making a decision to let children die. Not to mention the innocent women and children in Afghanistan who will certainly be 'collateral damage'.
On sept. 11, 2001, 3,497 people died in the US. That was a horrible tragedy.
Since the Iraq war began, 4,672 US and coaltion soldiers died, 11,520 Iraqi military died,151,000 civilians died(WHO - with a UN estimate at close to 600,000), 2,255,000 Iraqis were displaced, with 2.1 million refugees in Syria and Jordan.
And at a US cost of $800 billion(enough to cover healthcare reform for 10 years).
My position is that given the uncertainty, you err on the side of caution. Yes, I know Obama talked about a withdrawal date - and then immediately came back from it being a hard, fast cut-off. But we are still supporting a corrupt President, whose brother runs the opium trade, in a country where support for the presence of US troops is minimal, close to non-existent, to fight an enemy, the Taliban, who we are already paying $200 million to so they won't attack our supply lines.
Watch the Jon Stewart video. It is chilling. All the exact Bush phrases and rationalisations that he used to justify Iraq now being voice by Obama to justify Afghanistan.
richard
Richard and I have agreed in private emails that we have both presented our positions, and it's time to let this debate rest.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the goals we both want to reach are hardly different.
Shucks. I was kind of enjoying it.
ReplyDeleteAs there's nothing right to do, it's a debate that can continue until the end of time. I personally kind of like what Obama chose to do for the reasons most people are criticizing. He makes it clear that we are coming home at some defined point in time. That's important. He's not just throwing up his hands and leaving them to their own chaos like the Russians did. He's sending enough strength to stabilize things for a time and insure that the Taliban doesn't get to just over-run the country again. He's offering to train Afghan soldiers if they're there to train. And he's trying to partner with Pakistan against a shared enemy, if possible.
Surging, then purging seems strange at face value, but given the quagmire, it's what we should've done in the first place. Knock down the Taliban, stop their having free rein in Pakistan, come home. Chronic American presence in the Middle East is not a good idea. It's what created al Qaeda in the first place.
We're not ruling out more discussion on Afghanistan, Mickey. Just backing off from the who's right, tit for tat, between Richard and me, which kind of boils down to which one of is more revolutionary-idealist and which is more pragmatist-idealist. And behind that probably lies psychological differences as much as policy difference.
ReplyDeleteYour words are welcome. I think it's important to see how what Obama is proposing is different from what Bush did or what we did in Viet Nam. You help clarify that.
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteI know I was goign to skip this discussion, but I would like you to read Frank Rich in this Sunday's NY Times, "Obama's Logic is No Match For Afghanistan", and then explain to me why you think Rich is wrong.
While conceding Obama's initegrity and serriousness of effort, Rich argues Obama failed to make the point for escalating our involvment, designed a "too clever by half pushmepullyu holding action that lacks both a credible exit strategy and the commitment of it's two most essential partners, a legitimate Afghan government and the American people", avoided the fact that even Obama's advisors put the number of Qaeda in Afghanistan at roughly 100, and asks if they really pose the same existential threat to America as they did on 9/11 "why is the president settling for half-measures"?
Rich points out that Obama's logic, regarding the threat posed to us, means we'd really need to field a force of 568,000 to eliminate it. "We should be all in, according to Obama's logic. So why aren't we?"
"(The claim) We are still fighting in Afghanistan because the 9/11 attacks originated there is based on the fallacy that our terrorist enemies are so stupid they've remained frozen in place since 2001. Most Americans know they are no more static than we are. Obama acknowledge as much..."
Rich points out that the Afghan Army is "Small, primitive...ravaged by opium, illiteracy, incompetence and a 25 percent attrition rate."
(Meanwhile, NPR cited how the Taliban is having no trouble recruiting young men because they give them walkie-walkies, great weapons, 4 by 4s to tool around in and "pay them $300 a month, and PAY ON TIME").
Rich says,"We want to believe Obama's marvelous powers of reason can check a ruthless enemy and reverse decades of tragic history in one of the world's most treacherous backwaters."
There's the crux of the problem right there.
richard
Richard -- you and Frank Rich, both of whom I respect, are cherry-picking your arguments. That's not to say that you are wrong; these are facts that really cannot be refuted.
ReplyDeleteBut Obama's decision has to be looked at in context of what his options were. Sending 568,000 troops to definitively win this thing was not a viable option.
Neither is the opposite -- sudden withdrawal of all our troops. Although it could literally be done and it would delight many progressives (including me), it would be considered morally wrong for us to simply walk away and leave the mess that bush's failed policy created; Obama would be politically damned by everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton; he would be blamed as endangering our security and, if there ever were another attack, he would be crucified for "giving up" and appeasing an enemy and leaving us vulnerable.
Besides, there's Pakistan. How can we deal with the threat inside Pakistan, where al Qaeda really is, if we leave Afghanistan? We can't simply send our troops into Pakistan.
But to say there are only 100 of them in Afghanistan now isn't the point. If we leave without helping them develop their own defense, al Qaeda will simply move back into Afghanistan and take over. I think this may be the most salient question.
So -- I don't pretend to have the answers. But I also think it's a much more difficult decision than what we progressives would like -- to bring everyone home and get out of the war business.
As I've said before, I trust Obama's decision-making process, based on access to knowledge and advice that I don't have, more than I would my, or your, relatively uninformed opinions and desires. There may come a time when I lose that trust in his ability and his values, but I'm not there yet.
You apparently are. But, with all due respect to you, I'm glad Obama is president and not you, or me, or anyone else I know.
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense to keep this open for continued debate on Afghanistan. And I'm sure you're reading things like Tom Friendman's arguments against the surge, or Feingold's cogent questions on "This Week". So no need to go over that.
One thing I don't understand is your reference about 'cherry picking'. I don't think I'm overlooking any of the realities on the ground in that country. Cherry picking would imply I'm ignoring positive information related to Afghani people, their government, as it relates to the US military presence. Right now, thos in country claim the majority of Afghanis see the Taliban as the lesser of 2 evils, and the US and other western countries as trying to "impose" a system of government, and corrupt president, on them by military force. Even Obama hasn't explained how that situation will enable us to 'build the Afghan military', which is a mess. It's in far worse shape than Iraq's, and the Taliban are way better fighters than the Iraqi opposition. So simply 'sending in trainers' doesn't bode well.
And you don't really mean "Al Queda will move back into Afghanistan and take over". They were never in control in that country. They ahd training bases there. Are you saying the Taliban, always a separate group, have morphed into Al Qaeda?
richard
Richard -- I'm really not interested in repeating my position again and again. If you re-read my 12/03 post above, that is my position. Nothing Tom Friedman, Russ Feingold, Frank Rich, or you can say is going to change that, as long as I still have my trust in Obama and his decision making process.
ReplyDeleteNow, lest that be misinterpreted as my saying I have naive blind faith in Obama or that I am a faux-patriot saying "my country right or wrong" -- I've already addressed that. It's based on Obama's intelligence, his values, and knowing about his decision making process.
That process has been described by insiders as: intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest -- a virtual seminar in the culture, politics, and military situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It included not only his military advisers but those with other opinions like Biden and Eikenberry. Obama insists on hearing opposing opinions, and he listens -- and then decides after weighing all he has heard and all he believes.
That is what I want in a president. The final decision is not the one I wanted it to be, but then I don't know all that he knows and haven't weighed all the facts and considered the multiple collateral effects that he has -- and neither have you.
I didn't say that you were cherry-picking facts but cherry-picking arguments. I was talking about a decision in context with all its consequences, not an isolated decision.
And, yes, I know that it was the Taliban, not al Qaeda that controlled Afghanistan before. By 'take over,' I didn't mean run the government but take over territories for their safe havens and training camps.
You continue to want to prove to me that Obama has made the wrong decision. For all I know, you may be right. But, as I have said, I choose to put my trust in him.
I tend to be a trusting person -- sometimes to a fault. You tend to be a person who challenges authority. Those dissimilar traits come from our dissimilar developmental experiences, and they explain as much about our differences as do the facts of the issue. And those traits aren't going to change.
That's all I care to say on this subject. You're welcome to continue posting on here if you want to, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Ralph
I think on the core level Ralph I bascially want you to somehow convince me I'm wrong. This is not a position I want to be right on. And although it does sound like I'm trying to convince you to my side, I think I'm really hoping you can qualm my concerns and show me why I should share your position. That's why I offer up specific aspects of the situation. In hopes that you, or anyone, can address and dismiss my concerns.
ReplyDeleteI certainly value Obama's intelligence. But Clinton was perhaps even more intelligent, and his decision-making process thorough, yet that didn't always result in good policy. I'm looking for reassurances beyond that, because I really don't enjoy sitting here saying, What is this guy doing in Afghanistan, What is this guy doing with healthcare, etc?
So, again, it's not really that I'm trying to convince you. I've been hoping you could convine me.
richard
And I can't convince you because my position doesn't depend on a different reading of the facts, but on trust in a man and his process of getting advice and making decisions -- based on things that I do not know.
ReplyDeleteS0, it comes down to a difference in level of basic trust. And I gotta say, I have it but I am sometimes wrong.
That's what we have to live with.