Obameter #134: Send two brigades to Afghanistan

Since early in the campaign, Obama has maintained that George W. Bush's focus on Iraq has distracted from and crippled the military objectives in Afganistan. In his own words, "Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

I don't believe that Iraq was a distracting or weakening influence on US endeavors in Afghanistan, but I do believe it is largely stabilized and well-in-hand. My reasoning for why to send troops to Afghanistan more closely matches McCain's, wherein he argued that counterterrorism strategies developed in Iraq would help win on the Afghani front as well. In either case, sending additional troops to Afghanistan, which has lost ground in the past two or three years, seems perfectly reasonable.

According to PolitiFact.org, Obama announced in February that he would send a Marine Expeditionary Brigade and a Army Stryker Brigade to Afghanistan. They called "promise kept" at that point, but I was interested to see if the troops actually arrived in Afghanistan. BBC reports that the Marine Expeditionary Brigade certainly did, while the AP reports that the Army Stryker Brigade has been hastily retrained for deployment in Afghanistan any day now.

I could make a big deal about the hasty retraining of an Army Stryker Brigade that has months of preparation and training for work in Iraq and how that contrasts with Obama's 2002 claim that he opposed "a rash war". Why is Bush's rush to Iraq bad, but the Strykers' rush to Afghanistan solid policy? But I trust the troops to adapt quickly and do a good job, so it's a minor quibble.

File this under "Good job, Mr. President."

---

On another note, I did the math and I need to do 5 Obamameter posts every 2 weeks to cover them all before Obama's first term ends. So I'll be stepping up the pace on these to about 3 a week. I should also explain my methodology: I've been running through the promises listed by PolitiFact, addressing promises with definitive conclusions first, and "Top Promises" first among those. After those distinctions, I've been running through them in number order. If I run out of promises with conclusive results, I'll cover "In The Works" promises, and lastly "No Action" promises (which currently constitute over 70% of the promises made). Promises covered as "In The Works" and "No Action" may be revisited later to note new progress. Now you know the plan, and knowing is half the battle.