I want the war to be over.
I want the war to have been over.
AND:
I am willing to let Barack Obama make the decision.
I want the war to have been over.
AND:
I am willing to let Barack Obama make the decision.
I believe he is better informed than I am, has spent more time getting a wide range of skilled knowledge, careful assessments, and opposing points of view.
Which I have not.
And he has considered the options, not just narrowly about Afghanistan, or even Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in view of all the other economic and domestic problems we face.
I am willing to give him this 18 months.
Not everyone will agree. Not even all of my friends will agree.
I said something similar in the late 1960s when LBJ and McNamara were sinking us deeper in Viet Nam. I naively trusted that they knew more and had our best interests at heart. So I feel at some risk saying the same thing now.
But I have greater faith in Obama's intelligence, his moral compass, his ability to think strategically and long range -- and to not be swayed by politics or emotions -- which, I readily admit, I am.
Ralph
I like Andrew Sullvian's comment:
ReplyDelete"I see no reason after the last eight years to see how this can happen, even with these new resources. But if you rule out withdrawal right away, then this seems to me to be about the smartest strategy ahead. . ."
I suspect that Obama did consider withdrawal right away; but it was outweighed by moral, strategic, security, and political implications and consequences.
Would you be willing to give him the lives of your own children and grandchildren?
ReplyDeleteUnless you're 100% willing to let your own family members die, and the children of your friends die, then you have no right to say it's okay for him to have 18 months to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of our children in the hope that somehow trying to buttress a corrupt regime can do what for the US?
I don't think anybody has the right to decide it's okay for my child to die. Especially on some emphemeral hope that one person, against the accessible evidence, has some special insight, not clearly enunciated, on what they're doing this for, and why.
You send your own children and grandchildren over to die, then you've earned the right to say it's okay for other people's children to die.
richard
Richard -- that is exactly the dilemma, and I am one razor-sharp smidgen from being on that side of it with you.
ReplyDeleteIf it were left up to me, that is the decision I would make, I think.
But we elected Obama and, while I do not give him unquestioning allegiance no matter what he does, on this one I am willing to give him the decision -- at this point.
If George Bush were in charge and made this same decision, I would oppose it vehemently; because I would not trust his decision-making process or his priorities or his true values.
That's the difference.
Richard says Obama's decision will kill our children in "the hope that somehow trying to buttress a corrupt regime can do what for the US."
ReplyDeleteRight or wrong, Obama's rationale is that it is for our own security. He did not talk about nation building or setting up democracy or freedom for the Afghans. He used the word "security" 28 times, presenting the case that we must help stabilize both Afghanistan and Pakistan, help them gain control of the Taliban and al Qaeda -- for our own security.
He did not conclude: kill or children for nothing; he concluded that the sacrifice is less than we will have to pay if we don't.
Maybe he's wrong and we would be more secure if we ended our agitating presence. But that is the judgment call he has made. I wish that, after his assessment, his judgment had been that it would be better for us to leave now. But that was not what he concluded. And I'm willing to say maybe he made the right call.
Dan Froomkin quotes Obama's questions to Condi Rice, when she was testifying before the Iraq surge. He tried to get her to say what we would do if the plan does not work.
ReplyDeleteFroomkin points out that Obama needs to ask himself the same question now, and that he didn't answer it in his speech last night.
I agree, it would have been a stronger speech if he had. While he didn't spell out the answer that I'm sure he has in mind, at least he did say that our commitment is not open-ended. And he did specify a specific date (18 months) when the process of withdrawing will begin.
The essential question remains unanswered Ralph -
ReplyDeleteWould you be willing to let your own children and grandchildren die just to give Obama a chance to prove himself?
richard
No. I am essentially a pacifist (with a few exceptions for defense against immediate danger). So I would not therefore vote for me to be commander in chief. I would not even have gone to war in Afghanistan in the first place. I said at the time: let's drop food and medical supplies instead of bombs.
ReplyDeleteBut I did vote for Obama to be commander in chief. And I can live with his making a different decision than I would make and still support him as president.
Maybe this sounds like hypocricy to you, but I see a difference.
He does not have the luxurty to make this decision based on one principle alone or one metric alone but with consideration of the whole worldwide mess of everything.
I can be an idealist about lots of things and insist that that is what should be done -- about that particular thing. But that's not the same as governing a nation, where you have to make choices, and sometimes you have to make choices where all the options are bad.
But that doesn't mean you have to support his bad choices, just because you support him. Any more than you'd support your child's or partner's bad choices. Or your own. Sometimes loving people means you have to tell them 'No'.
ReplyDeleteWe worked for this guy. We blogged for him. We voted for him. We have a moral obligation to call him to account when he goes wrong.
Ralph, I love you as a person. But on this issue, you are embracing hypocrisy.
You can't say it's okay for other children to die, as long as your children aren't the ones called to make that sacrifice.
richard
Richard, you are missing my point.
ReplyDeleteYou are certain that your choice -- to pull troops out now -- is right. I am saying that, although that is what I want to happen, I am not certain it is the right thing to do.
Obama said this in his speech: "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So no, I do not make this decision lightly."
If George Bush said that, it would mean nothing to me. But I take Obama at his word. Because I trust him more than I trust my own uninformed wishes, I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt and support his decision -- as of now.
If decisions about war were limited to the one isolated fact of our children dying, then I would probably never vote to go to war. I'm at least as close as you are to taking that position. But we are already in a war; the question is what to do now and how to get out.
If that is embracing hypocricy in your book, so be it.
Given the impossibility of the situation, I completely agree with both of you [or neither of you]. And I can't answer the "would you send your child" question about Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Korea, or World War II; but I think I'd go myself if asked. From where I sit, leaving is an invitation to run it around yet again [maybe]; staying the same is another Saigon-in-training; surge then purge stinks but at least gives us/them a shot at getting something right before bowing out.
ReplyDeleteI think it all hinges on Pakistan and whether there really is the possibility of a solid alliance as he implied in his speech. He's on the ropes with this thing, but he is not a liar. If staying and strengthening Pakistan and our ties with them is possible, it's the rightest wrong decision in my book...
I was at a poetry meeting last night and the discussion/argument showed some of the same elements that show up here.
ReplyDeleteIt seems O's supporters are separating into 2 groups, those who want him to push the policy agenda he ran on, and those willing to move their own positions to the center to support the man.
You, Ralph, said you wouldn't support this Afghanistan policy if Bush presented it, but you trust the man Obama so you support his presentation of it. I'm in the policy group - if it's a bad plan, it doesn't matter who presents it.
Both groups have their strengths and weaknesses. The pro-policy group is willing to pass fewer pieces of legislation, if those pieces are more progressive. The pro-personality group may get more legislation passed,albeitcompromised, but run the risk of developing a cult of personality around Obama, where they will blindly support anything he does. For these people, Obama is the teflon president, just like Reagan was for the right.
Take healthcare. The pro-personality group argues 'this is the best we can do', citing conservative opposition. The pro-policy group cites to the June and August polls that showed 76% and 77% of Americans supported a public option choice in healthcare, and point to the lack of leadership that allowed this support to be eroded by right wing attacks.
Right now both groups still support Obama, but by 2012 I think a number of leftists may be willing to jump ship and support a run by someone like Wiener from NY because, in the long run, that would be better for the progressive cause.
richard
Better in the long run, even if he would certainly lose? That could change, of course, but as of now he would have no chance of winning. If I had gone strictly on policy, I would have supported Dennis Kucinich in 2008, not Barack Obama. But he couldn't win, nor did I think he would make a very effective president, even though I agreed with his policies even more than I did with Obama's.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Richard, you are misunderstanding and misconstruing my position. You said I trust the man so I support his presentation. It's clearer to say I trust the man, so I trust his process of reaching his decision, which I then (provisionally) support.
That process of reaching the decision includes far more knowledge and advice than I have access to -- and a better mind deliberating on it -- so, since I trust the man, I am willing to concede that he can make a better decision than I could.
If I lose trust in him and his process, then it will be a different story.
[to be continued if anyone wishes on a new post 12/03/09]
ReplyDelete