Comments

1. Tony De Lucci wrote:

   Oy. It feels like the Bush Doctrine is alive and well…

   Rachel Maddow had a great critical reading of the speech: http://bit.ly/7Dnr0T

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶

2. Adrienne wrote:

   No more war, Obama!

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶

3. jmn wrote:

   So did Obama win a Nobel Prize for peace or for war?

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶

4. Evan wrote:

   Sadly, we are looking at a one-term presidency in the making. The conservative Republican base is re-energized and the progressive-Democratic base is disappointed. And don’t count on a strong African-American voter turnout in 2012. This is a recipe for disaster.

   Full-time Jobs…not bank bailouts or stimulus-killing deficit slashing.

   Nation-building at home as opposed to the Middle East.

   Reduce the Pentagon budget.

   Aggressive climate change…not caving into the hot air generated by big corporations.

   President O has been a big fat ZERO since January.

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:37 pm ¶

5. Keith wrote:

   The region is a mess because of what Bush has done during his Presidency I pulling out is a not as simple as people would like to make it. We are an imperialist nation an our needs come first before anything else.

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶

6. Lola wrote:

   I’m disappointed.

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶

7. Kendra wrote:

   You can’t trust these corporately bought parties or their so-called candidates. Obama is just more of the same and you’d be lying to yourself not to realize it.

   There has never been a need for war in any of these regions, as there was never a need for war in countries such as Vietnam and Korea. US military intervention most often creates tension or exacerbates things. It’s first and foremost about self interest.

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶

8. Michelle wrote:

   I am so saddened by this turn of events.

   I am so afraid that Dick Cheney will be our next president. Can someone, anyone tell me why the President is doing this?

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 5:51 pm ¶

9. K-Nine wrote:

   I agree with Lola and Keith at the same time. I’m extremely disappointed, however if America has to fight anywhere, the only place that makes any shred of sense is in Afghanistan.

   If America is occupying a country, then with a clear timeline like the one Obama outlines, I feel as though it is a pretty good concession. Let’s see if it sticks.

   What really bothers me about the speech though, it that it seems as though Obama is speaking on behalf of the Afghani people…horrible. Does anyone know any blogs/website by an Afghani person who speaks about their opinion on the war?

   Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 6:18 pm ¶

10. shermari wrote:

    I’m not understanding the disappointment expressed by the posters here. During the campaign, I could have sworn that Obama stated a number of times that we should have been fighting in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I expected that the war there would be stepped up.

    You might not like it, but this decision didn’t come out nowhere.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 6:21 pm ¶

11. method wrote:

    Well, if he successfully completes the war and there’s an economic recovery before the next election and healthcare reform is a reality… then he’s FDR. He’s going long.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 6:22 pm ¶

12. S wrote:

    I think this is actually a pretty good strategic decision in the long run for both the US and Afghanis. There’s no way you can immediately pull all US troops out of the country as its so unstable right now, and the timeline for withdrawal is close enough to show he intends to complete it within this term while it isn’t too sudden to hinder training additional Afghani forces to really handle the country’s basic security needs. The only viable alternative that some Afghanis hoped for would be an increase in financial aid to the nation rather than a troop surge, but considering the serious issues of corruption within the Karzai regime (esp in light of the last election), sending more money to a federal government with so little transparency could be disastrous as well. Plus this shows Obama understands on a fundamental level one of the major factors contributing to factionalism in the country: the perception that the US is instituting an interminable occupation. I think the psychological effects of Obama explicitly declaring that the US does not want to maintain an occupation, while committing to a specific withdrawal date, could have a major positive impact.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 7:49 pm ¶

13. Minotaar wrote:

    I think it is risky, but brilliantly planned. Pulling out in 2011 will put the war’s end far before the 2012 election. That is a political eon, so the war wont affect him in the election. The economy will be looking up by then, and after announcing pullout, the economy will boost again. If he gets osama (presumably bin laden is at the border region between pakistan and afghanistan, and he is certainly sending his troops into the right place) then he will have an even bigger boost.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶

14. Cliff wrote:

    Nothing unexpected or ‘disappointing’ here except to those in the anti-war sector who willfully ignored Obama’s consistent senate votes in favor of funding occupation/wars against Afghanis and Iraqis.

    However, the anti-war “movement”, much like all the other professionalized non-profiteer “movements” in the US are simply subsidiaries of the Democratic Party–the left wing of Capital–and mainly engage in apologetics for power (D).

    For the left and the Dems, the wars were simply an election issue. As soon as Obama got elected, the Wars were declared over and now it’s up to him to steer the ship of US Imperialism to the peril of poor people and people of color around the globe.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 9:04 pm ¶

15. -M wrote:

    @shermari, I agree.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 9:32 pm ¶

16. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    @Minotaar, I like the way you think. I’m depressed about all of this (the fact that my cousin just joined the military adds to this) but I still support Pres. Obama. I’m terrified that a feeling of disillusionment with him will lead to a Cheney/Palin ticket and then I will have to find a way to scream and vomit at the same time, which could be tricky. I would prefer to avoid that, so I’m going to think along the same lines as Minotaar and trust that the President, genius that he is, is doing the best that he can for the U.S. and his party (as crappy as that party might be sometimes — I don’t see a viable alternative).

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 10:25 pm ¶

17. Natalie wrote:

    I’m not understanding the disappointment expressed by the posters here. During the campaign, I could have sworn that Obama stated a number of times that we should have been fighting in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I expected that the war there would be stepped up.

    You might not like it, but this decision didn’t come out nowhere.

    I find this statement incredibly irritating, and I feel like I’m answering it all the time. Surprise is not a prerequisite for disappointment. If it were, I wouldn’t have been allowed to complain at all during the Bush years, and I don’t remember other alleged progressives giving me crap about it then.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 10:45 pm ¶

18. Tristan wrote:

    @Kendra,

    Of course we’re serving our own interests. Wars are usually fought on behalf of the state’s interests.

    People seem content to bag on Obama for being too soft on Iran, while others are adamant about him ceasing all operations in Afghanistan as if the timetable could be implemented in just a few months.

    He’s following a difficult road, but his foreign policy is yet untested. And how exactly can we access that his presidency has been ‘zero’ since January? The ramifications of his decisions are largely unfelt at this time.

    Some posters are beginning to sound eerily like the maddening crowds that sit at the feet of people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh..

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 10:57 pm ¶

19. Invasian wrote:

    Well, gee whiz. Isn’t Obama just another neo-liberal, free-market politician posing as a progressive? They’re called Democrats, and they do it all the time.

    Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 11:54 pm ¶

20. ashlynn wrote:

    It’s a tough call. I would prefer a troop surge that gets the job done efficiently with minimum loss of life on all fronts, than to let the soldiers already stationed linger without the help and protection they need to bring stability to Afghanistan.

    I believe that what a lot of people seem to miss/forget/fail to realize is that the troop surge is at the request of US military generals IN Afghanistan, who are on the ground and are actively assessing the situation 24/7, and have been for years. The surge helps the war and Obama- the GOP will be satisfied, and the Dems are glad to at least have a definitive timeline for a pullout, effectively buying himself some time on the war front. Hopefully now, he can refocus on the economy, healthcare, and civil rights- as many of the young voters put him in office to do.

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 4:05 am ¶

21. dersk wrote:

    @Natalie – well, I think most people take the word ‘disappoint’ to involve expectations, not absolutes. So I’m disappointed that the Bush regime turned out even worse than I expected to; I’m disappointed that Obama hasn’t stood up for gay rights like I’d have expected him to; I’m not entirely happy, but also not disappointed that he made the decision about Afghanistan that he said he would.

    I think that’s why most folks who were expecting the decision find it strange that other folks seem surprised by it.

    With regards to the decision itself – I have a feeling we’re going to be there a lot longer than 2011 (notice he talked about beginning to withdraw then), but I personally don’t know of a better option and for whatever reason I trust him to have looked at all options from all angles and to have chosen the best of a set of bad options.

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 8:02 am ¶

22. homeBiscuitsAndGravy wrote:

    i’m having a hard time chewing on this “change”…would someone please pass the hope?

    (did i mention that politics always gives me an extreme case of gas? just checking)

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 11:20 am ¶

23. Melanie wrote:

    It cheapens the Nobel Peace Prize that a sitting war president received one. He should be stripped of it.

    I am still limply supporting this president because of the many things he has accomplished (equal pay! stem cell research!) but I do not support war. Unless we are fighting injustice in other countries (looking at you Sudan and China) then we shouldn’t be doing it in any country.

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶

24. jvansteppes wrote:

    Awarding that peace prize to Kissinger already drowned its significance…

    Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 11:53 pm ¶

25. nick wrote:

    Heya,

    Just a quick note. Someone from Afghanistan is called an Afghan.

    Afghani is the name of their currency.

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 5:12 pm ¶