In an interview from Kabul this week, Senator Obama officially named Afghanistan, "the central front in the battle against terrorism."
Can I hear an Amen?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
In Case You Missed It
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 11:23 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I like that Obama's campaign is starting to really hammer away on the point that the surge was implemented in Iraq at the expense of troop levels in Afghanistan. So as the Baghdad area becomes relatively quiet (and US West is right to point out the Iranian's role in that - even if US and Iraqi forces have fought and badly beaten up Sadr's forces a couple of times), things are deteriorating badly in Afghanistan.
And the Dems are making the point that increasing troop levels from 130K to 150K - about 12% - wasn't a magic touch to end violence. Indeed, if it had been so simple, not to do so for five years would be criminal. But wait, we had 150K troops in the beginning. No, the reason for the change in violence is that the Sunni tribesmen who were fighting against us largely changed sides in return for the Shiite government leaving them alone.
And Iraq is still massively and unacceptably violent. The decrease from near-civil-war to merely appalling isn't as marvelous as McCain pretends.
They all pretend that there is "victory" in Iraq. It's part of the delusion. And it gets mouthed over and over by the media and they all claim it is due to the surge. If Sadar's forces decided to come back at the Iraqi Army and the US troops tomorrow, we'd be back where we started.
They only reason we are suddenly having signs of "detent" with Iran is because the real "precondition" (what is a pre-condition? A condition is a condition. Stupid media.) for our presence at the table was calm in Iraq. We got that. So now we sit and negotiate, or appear to.
Um ... Pakistan?
Isn't essentially all of Al Qaeda in Pakistan? But we can't go in there because they have nukes?
Isn't this the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about?
Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of the same problem. The Pakistani government (which is getting more agressive against Al Qaeda since their recent elections) can't deal with their Taleban gangs because they keep running over to Afghanistan when the army shows up. Same problem on the other side of the border. A coordinated offensive on both sides of the border at the same time is required and has never happened.
By the way, did you hear that the Pentagon has said that sending more troops to Afghanistan will be a decision for the next President???
Yes, Bell Curve, but is that the elephant with the big ears or the small ears. I forget.
It looks like many issues are being left up to "the next president". I am loving Obama's International Tour, although I cringe every time I hear his trip to Berlin being compared to that of Kennedy. Nowhere near the same situation and it is wrong to make that comparasion.
That said, it seems the theme from Europe to the Middle East is "We are waiting for US elections.We hope Obama wins."
Jon Stewart said of the Obama visit to Berlin..."I think their American flags are broken, they aren't on fire."
I think, USWest, that theme is pretty much universal. I suspect that only the true radicals like Al Qaeda are hoping that Obama loses. Hope is the enemy of extremism.
USWest: I know he's not gotten down here yet, but that's the theme in Oz too.
His tour seems fantastic to me - it's like he's getting a six month head start on the job, and looks like everyone he's meeting is supportive. Much hope here!
Oh, and LTG: I believe it's one of the ones with two humps.
I don't object to the tour. I object to the Kennedy analogy. Terrorism is not communism. Global warming is not communism. The threats facing the world now are nothing like the past. And by focusing on Kennedy, a president BTW that wasn't around long enough to really do much one way or the other, I think they are hiding the real issue. Respect for the US has fallen dramatically and that people around the world want the US to get better. They want us to pick a real leader. America still represents hope to a lot of people around the world and thus we have an obligation to be better and act better in the world. That should be the real story, not this "gee, isn't like Kennedy!"
I also don't like it because it indicates a desire on the part of Americans to look backward and to earn for the Camelot era of 1960s. That doesn't help us solve the problems today. We need to stay focused on today and tomorrow. I also don't like the analogy because I remind people that Kennedy was, um, shot dead! Need I say more?
One additional idea: I am worried about the commercialization of Obama's name and image. This divorces the real person from his own name and identity. I was in Target the other day and I saw a birthday card that was zoomed in on a woman's ample chest. She was wearing a white tee shirt with cleavage. On the Tee-Shirt was "OBAMA" in red-white-blue. On the inside was the note, "Now that I have your attention . . ."
I've seen stickers on cars of a black sketch of Obama's face transposed on a tri-color flag of either America or the colors of Africa (Black, yellow, green)like you see with Bob Marley. They are nice stickers. But they elevating Obama to revolutionary status. And these stickers say nothing about Obama as a candidate. It's right back to my grip about "save Tibet" stickers all over the place. It's hallow, meaningless, and misses the point.
Post a Comment