Spokane7
68°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
It’s another wonderful day in the frigid Northwest this morning and cartoonist David Horsey is painting a picture of the obvious after President Barak Obama’s Tuesday night speech on the War in Afghanistan. Until that speech it could easily be said that Obama inherited the Afghan war from his predecessor which, although a thin line of rationale, is a line nonetheless. However, now that President Obama has tentatively agreed to send more troops to that Stygian wasteland called Afghanistan, he has put his fingerprints all over the war he inherited/David Laird, Community Comment. More here.
Question: Do you agree with David Laird that the Afghanistan war belongs to President Obama with his decision to add more than 30,000 troops to the fray?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 10:06 a.m.
Yes. Afghanistan is Obama’s war. He claimed it during the campaign and by adding more troops, it becomes even more so. But, by giving a timetable for withdrawl, he may have made it more difficult. He needs to learn that making promises as President is not a good thing. Particularly if they aren’t achieved. We may very well be able to withdraw troops with the 18 month timetable Obama mentioned. But, if not, he will be criticized and most likely by his own party. He should have learned something from his Gitmo committment that couldn’t be achieved. His lack of experience is quite evident.
nic on December 04 at 10:08 a.m.
“We may very well be able to withdraw troops with the 18 month timetable Obama mentioned. But, if not, he will be criticized …”
He’ll be criticized even if we do (and most likely, you’ll be one of those doing the critique) so what’s the point?
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 10:13 a.m.
The point is, nic, that he shouldn’t give dates, timetables and promises. That is something you do when you are a community organizer. Not President.
nic on December 04 at 10:18 a.m.
I’m not saying it was a good decision… but look at it this way. If he doesn’t set a date, he’ll be criticised. If he sets a date and is not able to meet it, he’ll be criticised. If he sets a date and is able to meet it, he’ll be criticized.
So let me rephrase my earlier question… What does it matter? Damned if you don’t, damned if you do, and damned if you doodoo.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 10:22 a.m.
nic. Then DON’T set a date. Its as simple as that. You made my point, thank you.
nic on December 04 at 10:29 a.m.
I think you missed the point, he’ll be criticised no matter if he sets a date or not. So, what does it matter?
nic on December 04 at 10:33 a.m.
Oh, wait… I get the point… my bad. You’re criticising him for setting a date because he has no way of knowing if that timeline is possible. So, you’d rather him NOT set a date so that you could criticize him for sending more troops in with out a plan for withdrawl. I sorry I misunderstood your previous remarks.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 10:38 a.m.
nic. >>”So, you’d rather him NOT set a date so that you could criticize him for sending more troops in with out a plan for withdrawl”
Wrong again. I think he needed to send more troops but didn’t need to set a time for withdrawl. He did that to satisfy the libs. He loves to make everybody happy and doesn’t want to made the ‘hard’ decisions.
OrangeTV on December 04 at 10:39 a.m.
hmo, I’m curious to know exactly what the president might have done in this scenario that would have made you say “Bravo! What a great plan of action!”
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 10:44 a.m.
Otv. I think he should have accepted his generals recommendations and sent the troops they had requested. I happen to think they are closest to the situation and best know their requirements. And, not give any timetables.
nic on December 04 at 10:44 a.m.
Then let’s put it this way, hom… no matter what you do, your actions will get criticized. Whould you rather:
a) get criticized by your supporters or…
b) get criticized by your opponents
nic on December 04 at 10:45 a.m.
hom = hmo… silly spell check.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 10:48 a.m.
Nic. You seem to think like Obama. But, its not a popularity contest when running the job of President. You do what YOU think is best, not thinking about your critics.
nic on December 04 at 11:00 a.m.
How about you try answering the question.
Phaedrus on December 04 at 11:02 a.m.
I think he should have accepted his generals recommendations and sent the troops they had requested. I happen to think they are closest to the situation and best know their requirements.
If all that was required was to blow stuff up and kill people then yes, the generals would be the people to listen to, after all they do that for a living. But, here’s where it gets complicated: it’s not that one-dimensional. There are political (Karzai and Pakistan) elements, economic (Afghani and American) elements and historical elements to consider. I realize that conservatives prefer the cowboy bravado of a Bush, but as he proved, that is not always effective.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 11:07 a.m.
nic >>”How about you try answering the question.”
I did, but I will make it real easy for you. I would send the troops the generals wanted and likely be criticized by my supporters, in this case. How did I do? Simple enough for you?
Phaedrus on December 04 at 11:14 a.m.
Hmosuite, Why didn’t Bush listen to his generals before and during his decision to strat wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? *
*(yeah, yeah, I know Obama is the President now and the wars are his responsibility, but I’m still curious what those up in arms over this issue thought about the former POTUS making decisions that did not follow fully the recommendations of his generals.)
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 11:14 a.m.
Phaedrus. I would prefer to see us not have any troops in Afghanistan or anywhere else. I would like to see the money being spent on wars going to health care or elsewhere. No doubt about it. Yesterday, I asked you a question that you failed to answer. If you were calling the shots right now, given the circumstances of Afghanistan and all else, what would you do? Given the CURRENT circustances, regardless of how we got there. You condemn our presence there and the money being spent, but how would YOU handle the situation, given what it is. Its easy to be critical but somewhat more difficult to be constructive. Are you concerned about what happens in Afghanistan? The region? Pakistan?
Sisyphus on December 04 at 11:48 a.m.
” He did that to satisfy the libs.”—actually he did that to satisfy most of America who are war weary. This dissatisfaction transcends your partisan dichotomy. Obama ran on finishing the job in Afghanistan. Most won’t fault him for keeping this promise. But Obama is keenly aware that that we don’t have the stomach for endless war. Hence the timetable.
Your partisan armchairing of this again belies the facts. General Patreus this morning defended the timetable for withdraw which is not what Republicans have portrayed. And your hypocrisy is too blatant to ignore, given that Bush had to reach deep into his generals until he could find one that would lead on the plan the very CIVILIAN war architects had come up with. Its laughable that you blame Obama for politicizing his decisions given McCain’s squawking on the timetable, something he didn’t do when Bush set up a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Moreover every Taliban operative is painfully aware that time is on their side. I saw a recent account of an interrogation of a captured Taliban operative who laughed when one of his captors looked at his watch and told him time is on his side. Announcing the date that withdrawal will begin compromises little militarily, given the outline of the plan, but it certainly addresses the political component of the analysis which is very real.
I’m in favor of the plan but reticent that the goals can be accomplished given the historical precedent. But from all appearances it addresses the problems with a multi faceted approach, not just a military one. The single worst aspect of continuing the job is the implicit support for the Karzai government. But supporting the central government doesn’t seem to be the way the military will grapple with their problems in Afghanistan opting instead to go where power lies, with the warlords.. I’m quite hopeful for it but am grateful that if our best plan doesn’t pan out, we won’t be throwing ourselves in the face of history, like the billions we spent in Iraq for that massive embassy or the fourteen “permanent” military bases which appears to be money mis-spent after those CIVILIAN Iraq war architects demonstrated the depth of their folly.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 11:59 a.m.
Sis >> “Your partisan armchairing of this again belies the facts. General Patreus this morning defended the timetable for withdraw”
Of course he defended the timetable. What else could he do? Lets wait until we get out of the region before we suggest that Obama won’t have a legacy there. Then, we will know if he is “throwing himself in the face of history” Using all options beyond the military is prudent. And, I hope the Obama plan works. I really do.