Until the financial market collapse in October, the biggest issue in the 2008 presidential election was Iraq. Bush was The Devil™ who took us in and Obama was The Coward™ who would bring our troops home without victory. Rhetoric was heated hyperbole and exaggeration. It was bad.
Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.
Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.
I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).
Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.
Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.
Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.
I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)