It is good to see that Feingold can provide some guidance to Obama as he is up to his eye balls in neo-cons. Still hoping Obama isn't that stupid and is just trying to appease them till he can straighten the country out on domestic issues. Of course it is cruel to keep asking about 1% of Americans to be the last one to die in AF-Pak. ****** Feingold to Obama: Announce Withdrawal Timetable from Afghanistan August 24, 2009 2:27 PM Chalian ABC News' David Chalian Reports: The Obama administration has been keenly aware of discontent among many in its liberal base with regard to its Afghanistan policy and an expected request for additional troops following General McChrystal's upcoming assessment of the situation there. That liberal base just got a high-profile voice to lead its charge. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, called on President Obama to announce a timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. "This is a strategy that is not likely to succeed," Sen. Feingold said about the troop buildup in Afghanistan. "After eight years, I am not convinced that pouring more and more troops into Afghanistan is a well thought out policy," said Feingold. The liberal Democrat said he has expressed his reservations with President Obama, Admiral Mullen, and others inside the administration and he says he has "never been convinced they have a good answer." "I think it is time we start discussing a flexible timetable so that people around the world can see when we are going to bring our troops out," said Feingold. "Showing the people there and here that we have a sense about when it is time to leave is one of the best things we can do," he added. Sen. Feingold didn't offer up a specific timetable for when he would like to see American troops out of Afghanistan. The senator opposed the war in Iraq and eventually became a leading voice among Democrats in pushing the Bush administration to adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. In an interview with the editorial board of The Post-Crescent in Appleton, WI this afternoon, Sen. Feingold highlighted that the three top terrorist targets originally in Afghanistan – Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar – are now in Pakistan. "Aren't we helping to drive more extremists into Pakistan?," Feingold asked. He went on to call Pakistan the home of the "witch's brew of every kind of nightmare." Sen. Feingold pointed to Af-Pak Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's recent comments when asked about what success will look like in Afghanistan. "We'll know it when we see it," said Holbrooke. "That's not good enough for me," Feingold responded. Mr. Feingold said that he believes the United States needs to maintain its ability to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and continue operations there to "make sure we can do the most we can in the remaining time." The Wisconsin Democrat is starting to be a bit of a liberal thorn in the President's (left) side and has some Democrats wondering if he may be plotting a 2012 primary challenge to Mr. Obama. His call for an Afghanistan timetable withdrawal today comes on the heels of his pressuring the president to include a public option in whatever health care reform bill he signs into law. "I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it," Feingold said last week in response to some perceived wavering on the public option from Obama administration officials. Last April, Sen. Feingold issued a report card on President Obama's handling of "rule of law" issues and gave him a "D" on his administration's posture on "state secrets." http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...ce-withdrawal-timetable-from-afghanistan.html
Now is not the time to do this. 8 years of neglect by the Bush administration can't be undone in 8 months. By next summer we can take another look at it. Even then, it won't be appropriate to announce a timetable. With Iraq, the 2006 mid-term elections provided a turning point. It sent a clear message to both the Iraqi government and the Bush administration that "stay the course" was dead in the water. It forced the Iraqi Shia's (at least enough of them) and some of the Sunnis to understand they better shape up. Because of the resources spent in Iraq the last 6 years, Afghanistan has a very very long way to go. Now that more resources will become available, America has to finally give it her best shot. Obama has to push hard and make the case to the American people about Afghanistan or the issue could get away from him.
I think glynch has something going here...Get out...Stop giving money to other countries. Let's embrace isolationism. What has proactive foreign policies done? The 2 party system has millions of blood on it's hands...i.e. Every conflict after WW2 or possibly the Korean War being questionable on reasoning... Put troops on the borders, the resources can be used there... I am not sure if this can be declared in a black and white manner sans shades of gray,...I am not sure this is something I will embrace but I think it's about saving money, taking care of ourselves before others. (which we need to do)
Isolationism worked so well prior to WW2... it only led to a couple world wars that killed tens of millions of people.
I don't think people understand the magnitude of trying to "fix" Afghanistan, which is a country in name only and is absolutely humongous. Going forward, it would cost several times the total for the entire war in Iraq. I don't think we have that money to spend. And if we don't have the money, trying to fix it and quitting half way through would be worse than doing nothing.
I fear that a lot of people think we are already "half way through," when everyone involved really says we're just starting. Isolationism? We don't have to embrace that to decide we can't afford this particular long haul at this particular time. Man, but it is scary to think what the place would become... or maybe it has nowhere to go but up.
We have punished the Taliban enough for harboring Bin Laden. 40 million Pastuns who pride themselves on never being pacified for like 2000 years will be a tough nut to crack. Of course we can kill a couple of million and subdue them for awhile, but what will that really accomplish. They live there and will just become resurgent when we eventually leave. I guess we could send send 10 million soldiers to forcibly "intermarry" with them and in a generation or two we could make them more moderate. I can only hope Obama is just trying to pacify the neo-con crazies and hasn't fallen for the whole White Man's burden to civilize the savages --the imperialistic trip.
Well, recall I also stated that I don't feel sure this can be declared in a black and white manner...there are exceptions towards foreign involvement...The point is to do so absolutely sparringly and exponentially less than we do now... I am pro-defense, but it seems there is a school of thought which glynch supports which makes more sense than a strategy to appear strong militarily selectively when the effect is more harm than good (In all likelihood).
Can you chickenhawks who don't see the sky falling, at least put a support the troops bumpersticker on your cars? It gets lonely for the 1% of Americans and their families who have to suffer the head injuries, the ptsd, the divorces, alcholism and drug abuse etc, involved in carrying out neo-con schemes. I have seen hardly any new ones around Houston.
As if putting up a yellow ribbon or bumper sticker actually makes a difference. Send a care package or something.
A care package is small consolation for a life of traumatic brain injury, ptsd etc. I do see frequent nice stories on TV about how they ae given counseling sessions on how to spot fellow soldiers who are about to kill themselves etc. I guess this is supposed to show how much we care about our troops. Sadly it could be just sort of like preventive maintenance for office machinery or a vehicle that is useful. Of course we could get into the effects millions of folks displaced in the Iraq-Af-Pak region and the many thousands of others killed and maimed, but this is of little concern to most Americans.
One of the things that Obama said during the campaign was that we needed out of Iraq and to focus on Afghanistan as that is where the 9/11 attackers got their training. Why would he reverse course on that now?
glynch, I'm hardly "a neo-con," and it is very true that George W. Bush and his mad buddies made a cockup of Afghanistan, leaving the new adminsitration and Congress with that mess to add to all the other messes they left the US and the world, yet it doesn't change the fact that the Taliban are still actively trying to aid and abet a mad terrorist group that are trying to kill us and our allies, unlike pre-invasion Iraq. Had he not decided to invade Iraq, regardless of how many lies he and his administration had to churn out in an attempt to "justify" it, and had all our resources been put into the Afghan campaign, including billions and billions in promised aid that somehow never made it there (wonder why?), my opinion is that we'd be looking at a much better result. A result that, by now, might have allowed us to go our merry way. That ain't the case. This isn't your great-grandfather's Afghanistan, a "country" that made a living hell for occupiers, but remained largely within their borders and the immediate region around it. Those crazy people who are still the Taliban's buddies remain actively trying to blow us up (and those allies of ours) where we live. We can't just walk away and think we will remain safe. Not in my opinion.
Robert McNamara realized in 1965 that the Vietnam War wasn't going to be won, but refused to "reverse course". I expect more from Obama.
I don't think the military can do all out bombing runs on Cambodia this time. Specially if it owns nukes.
You shouldn't. He is a politician. To expect him, this early on, to reverse course on his campaign ideas is folly. I agree with Obama (and Deckard) that Afghanistan will not get better on its own. We much refocus and get the real work done in Afghanistan.
