To Look Good Or To Feel Good?
It’s a Lamasian dilemma* for Obama. Washington Post reports the top general in Afghanistan is sticking it to him. More troops or mission failure:
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
So it’s now in the hands of people who view war strategy as a fashion statement. And Afghanistan is so 2008.
The report goes on to enumerate the familiar list of difficulties of the Afghan war, among them the fact that “a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”
And in conclusion, “Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.”
Don’t forget the rest of the world and all of our allies and enemies out there, also paying attention. Our last big fashion faux pas, Vietnam, was all over us like a cheap suit for decades. Right up to Sept. 11, 2001. The problem is, the decision is still in the hands of people who have signalled that they can’t tell the different between looking good and feeling good.
It’s really great that America is somewhat fashionable in the world again, but it’s times like this when it would be good to have a pair of sensible shoes in the White House.
Surber: “Right now, if I was another country, I would not trust the United States until it gets a responsible president.” Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it.
The Weekly Standard helpfully tries to point Obama toward his place in history. It isn’t whether he can win some kind of symbolic victory on health care. It’s whether he’ll lose a chance at a real one in Afghanistan.
… Obama’s deliberative pace — he has held only one meeting of his top national security advisers to discuss McChrystal’s report so far — is a source of growing consternation within the military. “Either accept the assessment or correct it, or let’s have a discussion,” one Pentagon official said. “Will you read it and tell us what you think?” Within the military, this official said, “there is a frustration. A significant frustration. A serious frustration.”
So what path will Obama choose? Obama will probably try to kick the can down the road even further to avoid the political consequences of a hard choice in either direction. That means either no new troops or an insufficient increase, with no commitment for the long term. That’s exactly what McChrystal warns will lose this war in this report. If Obama does act in that manner, it will be interesting to see if McChrystal stays in his position or abruptly retires.
FireDogLake: Leak “attempts to push Obama to escalate” … or maybe just make a decision. Hey, what is a FireDogLake, anyway? Hmm, sounds like a novel creative concept for an embarrassingly detailed medical treatment ad regarding the kind of intimate issue not usually discussed in polite company.
ATTACKERMAN: Deer in the headlights = “a thorough and deliberative process from the political leadership to determine what the national strategy ought to be.”
Andrew Sullivan: “Let’s surrender just like I advocated in Iraq!” Ha ha, just kidding, that’s not how he put it. But like all the other surrender enthusiasts, he’s always surrendering the last war.
Yglesias: “Ha ha, penises!” With a link to another reason why you should exercise caution in taking geopolitical deep thot from anyone still two years out from his 30th birthday.
* The twin coathangers of a Lamasian dilemma, to look good or to feel good? Based on a theory developed by the great social philosopher Fernando Lamas. When you’ve considered all your options, always go with the one that makes you look marvelous.
(Care to comment? Registration is shut down, due to persistent spammers. Use the “contact” link to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand, include the screenname and temporary password of your choice, and I’ll create a logon for you. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, meanspirited rightwingers all welcome. Just keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)
Topics: Afghanistan, Obama, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:05 am Comments (3) on Monday, September 21, 2009
3 Responses to “To Look Good Or To Feel Good?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
President Obama never believed in the war. He thinks he can talk, and all those rogue nations will sit still and listen and believe. He also doesn’t want to alienate his left-wing anti-war base, which he thinks is the majority.
September 21st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
[...] To Look Good Or To Feel Good? [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Seems to me that looking good matters tremendously to US libs, primarily they want to look good to European libs. I don’t understand why, really.
Was reading some European article re global warming and carbon emissions, about how Obama is really falling down in their eyes, because not getting Cap&Trade done means that either the Europeans have to delay some treaty they’re working on, or do it without the US. So he’s looking bad to European libs. In their eyes, the US is just so backwards. They fear our hicks in pickup trucks with gun racks in the back are going to take over again, and then the US will just blow off global warming.
They may be right, at that.