Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's paralysis on Afghanistan

Afghanistan is a problem that won’t wait. But that is what the Obama administration seems to want the Afghan war to do -- that is, until the president comes up with a new war strategy.

As the White House studies -- and restudies -- the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for at least 40,000 more troops, October has become the deadliest month in the eight-year-old war.
This week, President Obama told a military audience in Florida that he wouldn’t risk their lives unless it is absolutely necessary.

Well, troops in Afghanistan are risking their lives today.

Meanwhile, the White House is in the grips of “analysis paralysis.”

What’s that? As marketing consultant Chris Garrett put it, “analysis paralysis is where you can’t make any forward progress because you bog yourself down in details, tweaking, brainstorming, research and…anything but just getting on with it.”

It may well be that Obama is an idea-gatherer who likes to engage in creative speculation -- tackling the “what-ifs” from all angles. Maybe he just likes meetings and the revisiting and revisiting of past assumptions and conclusions. Or maybe it’s fear of getting it wrong that is causing what could be procrastination in the Oval Office.

Risk avoidance is not an option. Troops, as we speak, are in harm's way. Afghanistan won’t wait. Neither can the Obama administration.

By Colbert King  | October 28, 2009; 2:30 PM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Harry Reid: crazy like a fox
Next: Flu flack

Comments

For a rethink on this, suggest you read the story in today's nytimes about the link between Karzai''s brother, the CIA and a whole lot more. Just how deep do we want to get into this snake pit?

All this info, new to us, has been available to the Obama team for months. It is a whole lot more coomplicated than McCrystal would have us believe.

After reading this, I think taking a little time to decide what to do is probably a good idea.

Posted by: pgr31 | October 28, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The President and his people know a whole lot more about why there is a delay in deciding what to do in Afghanistan than any pundit. Last week it turned out that the military had a secret wargame to see what kinds of alternatives they had regarding troop postings in the warzone. Amazingly enough it was actually secret! As a Soldier myself, I would prefer that my superiors in Washington take their time sending more troops over - or let's have the Hawks, who want a large influx of American men and women over there, make the "Ma'am, I'm sorry to tell you that...." notifications.

Posted by: susanwhiteaker | October 28, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The President is slowly realizing the fact the war in Afghanistan can not be won and is trying to find a way of leaving, without costing the lives of Americans. Coming to terms with the enemy is never easy. Many other foreign government have try to conquer the region and have failed. The President's decision here, must be to try to end the war and not escalate the war. History has proven the course that the US is traveling is fruitless.

Posted by: jk330 | October 28, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

King, It looks like you are the one who cannot wait. A president who cares about the well being of citizens of his country will take the time make correct calls.

Only a war mongering thoughless president, or a puppet president of his vice-president would jump when McCrystall or whoever says jump.

Posted by: Dave27 | October 28, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Instead of blowing up people and property, what we need to do is help the people of Afghanistan stand on their own feet.

Help them build a bright future for themselves instead of working in the shadows of extremists. If they have something to live for, something to be proud of (other than what the mullas tell them), then they will fight the extremists on their own.

How can you blame the people of Afghanistan when they cannot trust even their own government? Most of them dont trust their government. We cannot trust most of our own senators as they are pets of big corporations, so why talk bad about Afghan government officials. You know, like the pets of Insurance companies that won't allow public option, pets of Telecom that wont allow net neutrality, pets of Oil companies, Auto companies, Banks, etc.

Posted by: Dave27 | October 28, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The war has been going on for eight years and is perhaps reaching a political milestone. The US economy is in the dumps with record debt, the war cost being a large contributing factor. And everybody is clamoring to expedite the military escalation of a war that no one even has any idea of what a victory would look like.

Hurry, hurry don't be the last one to jump off the cliff.

Posted by: dfdougherty | October 28, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

As soon as the polling and focus groups are done, President Obama will have a decision that will upset the least of the kkok nut base that keeps him and other liberals in power.

Posted by: thelaw1 | October 28, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

There is no relationship between President Obama’s time taking decision and the killing of 8 U.S. soldiers on Tuesday 10/27; that is American forces in Afghanistan is not endangered because the 40,000 troops General McChrysler requested are not there yet.
The soldiers were killed by 2 IED, that would kill more in a larger gathering
Nguyendatthinh

Posted by: nguyendatthinh | October 28, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

There is no relationship between President Obama’s time taking decision and the killing of 8 U.S. soldiers on Tuesday 10/27; that is American forces in Afghanistan is not endangered because the 40,000 troops General McChrysler requested are not there yet.
The soldiers were killed by 2 IED, that would kill more in a larger gathering
Nguyendatthinh

Posted by: nguyendatthinh | October 28, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

It is difficult not to conclude that President Obama is waiting until after the US elections--temporarily appeasing the moveon.org crowd just long enough to get more Democrats in office. Either that or he is trying to figure out a way to do the impossible: Doing the right thing while keeping his core constituents happy. Maybe he can use his oratory skills to explain to them that allowing Taliban thugs to terrorize Afghanistan, raping and beating young girls, intimidating the citizens, enforcing an unwanted dictatorial extremist rule--all of that is NOT "peace". We simply cannot abandon Afghanistan (again) and let the Taliban take over (again) and let Afghanistan become a safe haven for Al-Qaida (again). President Obama knows this, his generals know this. It is his political advisers who are squeamish.

Posted by: sam38 | October 28, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who doesn't have all the specifics on the Afghanistan "dithering" is in a big hurry to rush in to Afghanistan and to judge Obama's deliberation. More intelligent wisdom reveals there is a lot more going on than these hasty critics even imagine!

"pgr31 wrote: For a rethink on this, suggest you read the story in today's nytimes about the link between Karzai''s brother, the CIA and a whole lot more. Just how deep do we want to get into this snake pit?
All this info, new to us, has been available to the Obama team for months. It is a whole lot more coomplicated than McCrystal would have us believe.
After reading this, I think taking a little time to decide what to do is probably a good idea.

Posted by: Maerzie | October 28, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

The Administration has decided it needs a closer look at which parts of Afghanistan actually have working governments. You can't run a counter-insurgency campaign in a lawless, service-less area. Instead, in those areas you run a direct humanitarian aid campaign in combination with the more limited counter-terror campaign. And cross your fingers that you don't waste too many innocent civilians.

There is time to figure this one out. It would be very, very stupid to rush more troops to Afghanistan before seeing the results of the run-off election. As for the myth that a larger force is safer, take note that McChrystal is not exactly setting his men to watching each others' backs.

Posted by: fzdybel | October 28, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

The president would like Afghan's political situation to become a bit more stable before offering his conclusion, this may not happen in time. But, when he does speak he will offer a troop surge between 20,000 and 40,000 and more focus on nation-building.

Posted by: yarbrougharts | October 29, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Million of Talibans will be in Afghanistan for another 100 years if not many more. Are we going to be there as long as the Talibans are there ??? Or do we think we can kill all of them ?

If they allow the Al Quadas to gather there then we just bomb all of them on a periodic basis and go home. What wrong with that ?

They want us to go home and we insist on nation building when our own nation is in shamble.

Psychologists says that you can never, never force someone to do something that he /she does not really want to do. We keep telling them what they don't want to hear or do.

Moreover, I think their national pride will outlast our patience. We had better go home now before we are forced to go home anyway and lost the precious lives of our soldiers and create thousands orphans.


Posted by: cpham1 | October 29, 2009 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Million of Talibans will be in Afghanistan for another 100 years if not many more. Are we going to be there as long as the Talibans are there ??? Or do we think we can kill all of them ?

If they allow the Al Quadas to gather there then we just bomb all of them on a periodic basis and go home. What wrong with that ?

They want us to go home and we insist on nation building when our own nation is in shamble.

Psychologists says that you can never, never force someone to do something that he /she does not really want to do. We keep telling them what they don't want to hear or do.

Moreover, I think their national pride will outlast our patience. We had better go home now before we are forced to go home anyway and lost the precious lives of our soldiers and create thousands orphans.


Posted by: cpham1 | October 29, 2009 2:05 AM | Report abuse

As the saying goes, "Not to decide is to decide." Actions have consequences, but so does inaction. As usual, the most immediate and dire consequences are to those who have little or no say over the situation. Look around you, and it is always the powerless, the expendable, who are the first to be forgotten or shuttled aside. Sh*t isn't the only thing that rolls downhill. So do bullets and road-side bombs. The final answer to this problem isn't simple. But King has pointed out the first logical step of the answer: Decide, already.

From an Obama voter.

Posted by: martymar123 | October 29, 2009 7:11 AM | Report abuse

I dont often agree with Colbert but he is right this time. We have been in this war for years ...there should be lots of data to study... months have gone by since Obama made his way into the White House. He must act now, ths situation is getting worse. Unfortunately it appears that he is waiting until after the Virginia and New Jersey elections next week...... POLITICS BEFORE LIVES ... This is the change that we can believe in huh ???

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | October 29, 2009 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I'm glad that Obama, who has no military experience or notable foreign policy expertise, is turning to trusted advisors who have both, and is not rushing to implement a policy that could easily turn out to be a catastrophic mistake.

This is a case where there is no "right answer," just one that is less wrong than others.

And this is a situation where we need to put down our tea bags and support our president, who has terrible decisions to make on our behalf, and is taking the time to carefully consider how he can avoid wasting our friends' and neighors' (troops') lives.

I suspect that John McCain and most other veterans agree with me. There are times when patriotism must reign over fealty to buffoons like Beck and Limbaugh and their equivalents on the left side of the political fence.

Posted by: roblimo | October 29, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

It was The Decider who got us into this mess and then botched the job for 7 years. It is obvious that there are no good answers here and no clear path. There isn't even a clear goal and never was. False certainty in the face of complexity and ambiguity is most likely to lead to catastrophe (see Bush, George W.) It takes real guts to tolerate the uncertainty and "muddle through." Pragmatism is often not very pretty, but it is the approach most likely to lead to decent outcomes at lower cost.

Posted by: mrkdoom | October 29, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Get Your Facts Straight: A stripped-down approach would signal caution in widening a war that is going worse this year than last despite intense U.S. attention and an additional 21,000 U.S. forces sent there on Obama's watch.

Fourteen Americans were killed Monday in Afghanistan in two helicopter crashes, and roadside bombings Tuesday left eight U.S. troops dead. October has been the worst month for U.S. fatalities since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan began in October 2001.

Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he has asked for atop the current U.S. force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press. The option still would adopt the commander's overall goals for a counterinsurgency strategy aimed at turning the corner against the Taliban next spring.

That approach would reflect a shift in thinking about what parts of the war mission are most important and the intense political domestic debate over Afghan policy.

A majority of Americans either oppose the war or question whether it is worth continuing to wage, according to public opinion polls dating to when Obama shook up the war's management and began a lengthy reconsideration of U.S. objectives earlier this year.

Any expansion of the war will displease some congressional Democrats. If Obama does not meet McChrystal's request, Republicans are likely to accuse Obama of failing to give McChrystal all he needs.

Even if McChrystal gets less than he wants from Obama, the U.S. may still end up adding more troops later in 2010. The most likely reason would be to fill voids left by some NATO allies who have been considering troop cutbacks.

Posted by: omaarsblade | October 29, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

President Obama is frightened.

All his life, others have fought his battles, and he has existed behind the fence of laws and policies.

The world's realities are far different than the legal system of the United States.

Now he must decide to fight back or quit.

Maybe he should conference with President Sarkozy.

Posted by: AlongTheWatchTowers | October 29, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I have never seen you be so wrong. In fact, it was brilliant. The purpose of the so-called "dithering" was to place enough pressure on President Karzi to force him to agree to a run-off. Without the political force generated by the run-off, it wouldn't matter if we sent forty, fifty or seventy thousand troops. You should have trusted your instincts that the President is wiser than you.

Posted by: walfishj@yahoo.com | October 29, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

New York Times Reports - "Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A."
--------------------------------------
Who "outed" an undercover CIA Operative! Un-named sources...

This is a travesty that undermines US security and places in life and death danger a CIA undercover operative.

This illegal leak was obviously done at the highest levels of Government, possibly all the way the White House for purely political motives.

We need a congressional investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this.

Rahm Emanuel or Joe Biden is going to be frog marched out of the White House.

Posted by: Davidsonville | October 29, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

When are people going to realize that Pakistan has to be in a position to "help put a sock in it". One cannot play the middle with no solid government leading in any one direction-which why Hillary Clinton is left puzzled. Who exactly is Pakistan at the moment or who were they in the beginning of it all? One cannot hide the Taliban on the borders and let Al Queda go back and forth and then throw your hands up and say look we "don't know?"
So, are ya gonna step up or not? Are ya with us or against us? What the "f" are ya doing? So, for me personally-Afganistan never was rational and continues to be a pain in the rear. So, these two countries don't have a damn clue so how can we help when they are upside down and slow to get the point that we will help them but, not be the source of battle for their wars. That should never be. Look if one starts a fight they need to be prepared to help put the fire out and step up to the damn plate. America needs to defend itself when the time comes. And we cannot if all our troops are fighting somewhere else in some crazy street fight with jacka.s.s.es who allowed democracy to escape their grips. We should help but, not be their personal army as well. Did you hear that? We are not your army-we are their to support ya but, ya gotta fight ya own battles. Now mind ya we are not gonna "let ya be a whipping post if you are right" but we are not gonna support wrong either. So, we all need to learn America is not a weapon but, support and assurance for democracy. We cannot make ya get it and we cannot tell ya what to do but, if you want it and have a plan that comes with it-hey we will do what we can but, we damn sure will not be stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got that Hillary!! Puzzle solved. Pakistan a Player!

Posted by: Scar1 | October 29, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Afganistan who the hell knows-they just love war. So, it is mental with them-just damn mental.

Posted by: Scar1 | October 29, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Mr. President you are somewhat on track but, until Pakistan has solid government and stops being the ground for everyone to run to-huh, we are in a real pickle or puzzle like Hillary found out. Fareed, Wares and people like me understand these jokers got game big time. The whole deal is to weaken America financially and mentally so, do you all get it now??? Hope so.

Posted by: Scar1 | October 29, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not frightened-worried yes but frightened-hell no. He is a Black President isn't he? So how scary is that? So, no he ain't afraid of s.h.i.t!!!
He is just cautious and he better be. These jokers are use to War and how to bring down the enemy-in their blood now-ain't been doing nothing else but, being blood thirsty. Read the History and perhaps religious accounts from the past and all the battles fought-still the same crap. We need to step back and study this mess for real.
But, what do we know? We did not make these dumb agreements and know all the back room deals that have gone on with CIA; the White House or all the wealthy folk cashing in on weapons, oil, and other interest in the region so, who knows-who knows?????????

Posted by: Scar1 | October 29, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Mr. King, you and others (myself included) can posit rash and oft-times emotional decisions pertaining to Afghanistan. President Obama doesn’t have that luxury. He is responsible for each life lost and damaged on his watch as well as the long-term implications involved in whatever strategy is decided upon. I consider myself fairly well read, but I don’t know all the geopolitical implications and tribal, ethnic and religious intricacies involved. I don’t believe Afghanistan is worth the blood and treasure of one more American, but there are always unintended consequences and blow back with any decision. As a veteran I have no problem with him taking the time needed to arrive at a sound and responsible decision.

Posted by: summertyme40 | October 29, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The "SPEECH GIVER" has no HONOR what so ever!! All over every NEWS site is a PHOTO-OP picture of this man saluting a HERO'S casket!! This is a disgrace.

The " SPEECH GIVER" does not talk to McCyrstal for months it makes the news. Then what do we get a PHOTO_OP picture. LOOK at me I the "SPEECH GIVER" am on the job!!

This PHOTO-OP picture released today is DISGUSTING!!! The ONLY reason he was in Dover to greet these caskets was for POLITICS!!

LOOK at ME the "SPEECH GIVER" see I care I am not always golfing,fundraising,playing basketball,dancing, I the "SPEECH GIVER" care!! TRASH!! TRASH!! TRASH!!!

How many of our HERO'S have been coming home to Dover and the "SPEECH GIVER" picks NOW to visit, Timing sucks!!! PHOTO-OP, PHOTO-OP,PHOTO-OP!!

TERM LIMITS NOW!! FAIR TAX NOW !! and SEND IN THE DAMN TROOPS NOW!!!

YOU ARE A DISGRACE!!!

Recommend

Posted by: 79USMC83 | October 29, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The only way this guy can "honor" our troops is to stop delaying them needed reinforcements. This is a disgusting "photo-op" for Obama and HIS liberal mainstream media is too stupid to see it.

Posted by: DKNAUP | October 29, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Of course Afghanistan will wait - until the spring thaw. We have time and we will either get it right or at least get everyone to declare what they want now. Then they will stick with it longer.

Time to win the war and reap the benefits.

Time to confound thse who can not envision what it means to win and see endless war as our only option to running away.

Posted by: gary4books | October 29, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"If they allow the Al Quadas to gather there then we just bomb all of them on a periodic basis and go home. What wrong with that?"

It would be stupid for one thing. They are already good at doing decoys. They could be great. We would be fools. And evil ones at that.

Posted by: gary4books | October 29, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The President's problem has nothing to do with Strategies or tactics in Afghanistan. His problen is politics at home.

Bluntly, because this column won't take a full analysis, Obama can't give his generals what they want, because the Republicans would vote unanymously and resolutely for all manpower and money bills sent to Congress to accomodate the generals'

A full analysis is available. ceflynline.com

Posted by: ceflynline | October 29, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Correction: The Republicans would vote unanimously and resolutely AGAINST any money or manpower bills that would be required to give the generals what they are asking for.

Without REAL bipartisan support this particular war is an immediate disaster. How many of you cmplainers would be in favor of $250 billion a year in new taxes to pay for the troops needed to prosecute this war at the levels actually being requested. (Hint: it is a whole lot more than just 100,000 troops in country.)

Posted by: ceflynline | October 29, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this strait. King says, "Afghanistan is a problem that won’t wait.".... Yet admits it has already been an "eight-year-old war"... 8 years have past with 7 of those 8 years totally mismanaged!!! Remember Rumsfeld saying something like "you don't go in with the army you want you go in with the army you have", which turned out to be woefully inadequate.

Now all of a sudden their is a grave sense of urgency that this new administration can't wait 3 or 4 weeks to make an informed decision about this lingering war. I am appalled at these pseudo "real Americans" with their so called indignation at the POTUS...... Truly amazing how silent everything was over the past 8 years of republican rule....
If this "White House is in the grips of “analysis paralysis.” What was the previous administration guilty of.
I will NEVER respect hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: wise_pharaoh | October 29, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Do the math King.

The more troops we send to Af-PAK the more
targets the Taliban have to shoot at, kill, and blow-up with I.E.D's. e.g 40,000 more troops equals 40,000 more targets for them! What are you thinking? Huh?

The fewer troops we send to THEIR shooting gallery the less targets they have to shoot at, KILL, and blow-up with I.E.D.'s.

If we don't send 40,000 more targets to THEIR shooting gallery they have 40,000 less targets to shoot at.
It is simple math King. Get it?

Posted by: teksensereality | October 29, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse


"King, It looks like you are the one who cannot wait. A president who cares about the well being of citizens of his country will take the time make correct calls.

Only a war mongering thoughless president, or a puppet president of his vice-president would jump when McCrystall or whoever says jump."

Posted by: Dave27

Unless, of course, you campaigned by saying that you would listen to your generals on the ground. And in this case, your own "hand-picked" general.

More selective recollection, I assume.

Posted by: jpmenavich | October 30, 2009 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Don't be so hard on Obama. It's very hard to craft a solution which allows you to take credit for any success while escaping blame for any failure.

Posted by: MaryMc1 | October 30, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Will someone please tell me what the TRUE CLEAR PATH is in Afghan?

Is sending more troops to a country that has never ever been defeated by any :Liberator"
Is maybe waiting a little further to see if the people in that country THROUGH an electoral proces remove that corrupt slime of a leader they have?
Is it maybe seeing if their are other options, such as assisting in housing, school, hospital (sll the things conservatives refuse to do in this country but want to do in every other country of the world)

Let the man think about what the strategy is for the next 8 years - because if we stay we will be there for that long at least.

And I thank GOD he is taking his time. I need a break after serving two tours over in the middle east. we are running out of people and money.

Posted by: kare1 | October 30, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The "SPEECH GIVER" has no HONOR what so ever!! All over every NEWS site is a PHOTO-OP picture of this man saluting a HERO'S casket!! This is a disgrace.

The " SPEECH GIVER" does not talk to McCyrstal for months it makes the news. Then what do we get a PHOTO_OP picture. LOOK at me I the "SPEECH GIVER" am on the job!!

This PHOTO-OP picture released today is DISGUSTING!!! The ONLY reason he was in Dover to greet these caskets was for POLITICS!!

LOOK at ME the "SPEECH GIVER" see I care I am not always golfing,fundraising,playing basketball,dancing, I the "SPEECH GIVER" care!! TRASH!! TRASH!! TRASH!!!

How many of our HERO'S have been coming home to Dover and the "SPEECH GIVER" picks NOW to visit, Timing sucks!!! PHOTO-OP, PHOTO-OP,PHOTO-OP!!

TERM LIMITS NOW!! FAIR TAX NOW !! and SEND IN THE DAMN TROOPS NOW!!!

YOU ARE A DISGRACE!!!

Recommend
____________________________________

And you are what - GOD INCARNATE//


You sir as dumb as BUSHIE and CHENEY and the idjit who put us there to begin with.

Do you also espouse invading every country where Al Queda is housed? Because under BUSHIE CHENEY and company they are everywhere.....

So MR. US MARINE or whatever the F(( you are prepare to sign up again if you think that sending more troops for AFGHAN, PAKI, SUDAN, SOMALIA, MOROCCO, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, bangladesh, Senegal, Mali, all the ISTANs, (or any of the other mostly 48 islamic countries of the world)

IDJIT

Posted by: kare1 | October 30, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

King, how dare you question Obama!?? He's thinking and he'll make a brilliant, a winning move that only Obama can make when ready! Everyone shut up, take a breath and watch! We can do this!

Posted by: joebob2nd | October 30, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Let's see. There is a once-in-a-generation election in Afghanistan that is still not decided. Nobody knows who will be in charge and how strong they will be. Nobody knows what coalition will emerge, if any. Nobody knows how the Afghans will react. Sounds like a perfect time to wait a bit. If anyone seriously tries to claim that waiting a month or six weeks to change policy will make much difference they are mistaken. This is Afghanistan. There are basic things in much of the country that haven't changed in a milennium. Six weeks ain't gonna matter.

Posted by: steveboyington | October 30, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is no dummy as we all know. He's "dithering" for one very big unmentioned reason: You won't get healthcare passed if you piss off the left by increasing troops in Afghanistan. So, he will wait as long as it takes to pass healthcare and then piss off the left by increasing troops.

Posted by: tomb5 | October 30, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The mistake was getting in the first place
By leaving Aghanistan as a "safe haven" for Al Qaeda,at least we knew where to find them and bomb them.
the US intervention was in fact an intervention in a civil war that was raging on.In my opinion we picked the wrong side.We should have aided the Taliban win their war in return for Bin Laden head.that's a simple math that the Taliban would have understood very well.At least we would not have the influx of Opium problem we have right now.
Fixing Afghanistan can be done by the Afghanies,no one else.

Posted by: marioliggi | November 1, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

It is a difficult decision but it has to be made.Obama can no longer"vote present".
The problem is Obama has no,nor has ever shown any leadership ability and his on the job training is costing lives. One thing is for sure,when Axelrod or Emmanuel,or whoever make these decisions finally makes one it will be a political solution to a military problem.

Posted by: mikem12 | November 1, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

So King likes the "shoot-from-the hip" and ask questions later style of the last administration - wait a minute - they never asked the qestions. I prefer informed, thoughtful decision making myself.

Posted by: withersb | November 2, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company