Restitutor Orbis

President Obama has made his long-awaited decision about Afghanistan. The question never really was whether or not to leave, but came down to how many additional troops were we going to send, and how long were they going to stay. There were vague demands that we fight to win from such stalwarts as John McCain, but what constitutes victory?

In modern American wars, that idea seems to be little considered. Take Korea. In the just-concluded Second World War, the United States knew just what it wanted to do: destroy Hitler; destroy Japan. Easy. We knew what we wanted, we knew what the public demanded, and we did it.

But then Korea came along, a war nobody really wanted, except perhaps Douglas MacArthur. And nobody really knew how to win the damn thing. It was in many ways a precursor to Vietnam. Both wars took place in Asia, far away from home, in areas the American public knew little about and cared about even less. And both wars put us in position of creating bigger wars - World Wars - if we tried our WWII strategy of total annihilation.

We couldn't invade North Korea without triggering a Chinese response (as events proved) and we couldn't invade North Vietnam without...you got it, triggering a response, either from China or from Russia, which was busily supplying the North Vietnamese army and even providing, as we had done in the 60's, military advisers.

Afghanistan is different. Again, it is far away. Again, it is in Asia. Again, it is a country the public doesn't really know much about and doesn't seem to care about. Add to that the fact that in all of history, only Alexander the Great seems to have had any luck there, and that was more than two millennia ago.

Not promising.

And here, even if we wanted to, there is nobody to invade. We're already IN the country. Coming to grips with the enemy and destroying him has proved difficult. Promoting the local government and infrastructure seems to be the way to go. We can't just role over the enemy with superior numbers or fire power. "Shock and awe" don't mean much in that remote country. The enemy is neither shocked, nor awed.

The decision could not have been easy for President Obama. The New York Times tells us,

On the afternoon he held the eighth meeting of his Afghanistan review, President Obama arrived in the White House Situation Room ruminating about war. He had come from Arlington National Cemetery, where he had wandered among the chalky white tombstones of those who had fallen in the rugged mountains of Central Asia.

That visit must have made for a sobering period of reflection. "How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month, he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war."

Think about it: eight years. We were in WWI for just two years; in WWII for just four. We fought two world wars in a period of just six years. We have been in Afghanistan for eight. And we're still not entirely done with Iraq.

And Mr. Obama made Afghanistan of central importance during his presidential run. He constantly harped on President Bush's mistake in invading Iraq, saying Afghanistan was where the war should have been fought. You have to wonder, knowing what he knows now, how President Obama feels about those words. He committed himself; now, as president, it was time to put his money where his mouth was.

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

The new plan in a nutshell? Mr. Obama seems to be hoping for a little shock and awe, getting 30,000 additional troops (Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the man on the spot, made a request for 40,000) there as quickly as possible (within the next six months - not exactly Hitler's invasion of Poland or France) in the hopes that we can regain the initiative (if we ever had it to begin with) not to win a crushing victory on the ground, but to buy time. Time in which to permit the Afghan government to establish itself and for their forces to pick up the slack so that our boys and girls can come home, starting in a year.

We have a huge stake in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has a lot to gain (he can win a war the Republicans didn't even try to prosecute, let alone win) and a lot to lose (though the Democrats didn't start the war, they'll certainly take the blame for losing it). And he had already sent additional troops: Even before this decision for a surge he had "ordered the military to send 21,000 more troops there, bringing the force to 68,000."

We already have more men there than Alexander did; and we've been there a lot longer. Of course, Mr. Obama can't cement local alliances by marrying a chieftain's daughter and the enemy is no longer foolish enough to fort up on a convenient mountain top to give us the victories Alexander so often gained.

And, of course, the United States is sadly lacking in spare Alexanders. We haven't had one of those, or even anything close, since WWII.

How will it all end? Can we win the victory we want and need? An end to terrorism? Even if we put a strong Afghan government in place, will the United States have succeeded in its goal?

It's impossible to say.

As the New York Times says, "When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war."

An excellent piece by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC from March 19, 2009:

President Obama has set a deadline of 18 months for US operations in Iraq. But he plans to leave 50,000 US troops there "to provide stability." Democrats are not happy with the decision. According to Reuters,

Congressional Democrats who fought the Bush administration for two years to bring home U.S. forces home expressed disappointment, with Senate leader Harry Reid saying 50,000 troops was "higher than I had anticipated" and Representative Lynn Woolsey calling it "unacceptable."

It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would favor a modest U.S. military presence in Iraq even after the end of 2011 to assist Iraqi security forces if requested by Baghdad.

Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."

"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.

Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.

And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.

It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.

We hear from Reuters that "President Barack Obama forecast the biggest U.S. deficit since World War Two in a budget on Thursday that urges a costly overhaul of the healthcare system and would spend billions to arrest the economy's freefall."

While this is not good news, it's not surprising. We must spend to get out of this depression and only the government has the ability to do that spending. Still:

An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country's finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy -- the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.

Reuters also reports:

President Barack Obama requested about $205 billion in war funding through the end of fiscal 2010 on Thursday, as he sought to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from Iraq and boost forces fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Obama's first budget proposal asked for $75.5 billion through September, which would bring total war spending to $141.4 billion for the current fiscal year. Obama also requested a slightly smaller $130 billion to fund the wars for fiscal year 2010, which starts on October 1.

Obama asked Congress to increase the Pentagon's regular budget to $533.7 billion next year -- up 4 percent, or $20.4 billion, from its spending plan for the current year, drawn up under the Bush administration.

This will likely not sit well with many on the left who are opposed to both wars. I predicted continued high military spending, however. Clearly, the military, despite ghastly high levels of funding, is worn down. Equipment needs to be replaced, more (and better) equipment is needed and bringing the troops home from Iraq (and sending others to Afghanistan) will not be cheap. In addition, equipment will be left behind because of our accelerated withdrawal and will need to be replaced.

U.S. military spending accounts for roughly half the global total, according to independent experts.

Obama, who took office on January 20, made a campaign promise to bring U.S. troops home from the unpopular Iraq war and was expected to announce his withdrawal plans in a speech on Friday at Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina.

But Obama has also authorized the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where insurgent violence is worsening. The costs of pulling out of Iraq and building up in Afghanistan mean the price of the wars will remain high.

The US has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 38,000 in Afghanistan.

This last bit is no surprise at all:

U.S. congressional Republicans, having vowed to return to the conservative ideals of limited government, denounced President Barack Obama's $3.55 trillion budget on Thursday as excessive and misdirected.

Of course, Republican responses are typically amusing: "I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hard-working American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Wow, unprecedented? The Republicans conveniently forget who got us into both of these wars - and who mismanaged them both, and who ran our economy into the ground. Amazing that they become fiscal conservatives only when they're no longer in power.

"I think we just ought to admit we're broke. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids," said House Republican Leader John Boehner. Right, John. And whose fault is this? Being broke wouldn't have anything to do with two wars and a mismanaged economy, would it? Under Republican auspices? Ring a bell?

MSNBC offers a good start to the day:

The relatively violence-free Iraqi elections mean “substantial” numbers of U.S. troops will be able to return home from Iraq within a year, President Barack Obama told NBC News on Sunday.

“We are in a position to start putting more responsibility on the Iraqis, and that’s good news for not only the troops in the field but also their families, who are carrying an enormous burden,” Obama said in an interview with Matt Lauer, anchor of NBC’s TODAY show.

The article goes on to say that "Obama gave no details, but he said his administration would make its intentions on troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan known in coming days."
This is good news to Americans. Obviously, some of these soldiers will be going to Afghanistan instead, but over all we will still see a significant reduction in the numbers of US soldiers deployed overseas. The Iraq war has been ghastly in terms of lives and dollars and we'll be well out of there. Then there is the loss of Iraq as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Once we are no longer there to stir up tensions, they will find fewer people willing to sign on for their global war. Contrary to Bush rhetoric, we will be safer from terrorism when we're out of Iraq.

On another front, Obama is being accused (rather gently, I think) of having broke his first campaign promise.

Really, every complaint I've heard about Obama so far, since he has taken office, is either petty or an outright lie. And when you consider what Bush and his cronies did to this country, it's really outrageous that anyone is complaining at all. I'm not used to seeing so much information made public. It's night and day compared to the Bush Whitehouse, which hid every damn thing it could lay its hands on.

Apropos of lies, Harpers ran a piece today condemning some tomfoolery, as they call it, in the Sunday Los Angeles Times.

n a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

Rendition, also known as "extraordinary rendition" and "irregular rendition" (I do love euphemisms) are, according to the definition on Wikipedia, "terms used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another,[1] and the term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the US has transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture."
In the words of Harpers, "The Los Angeles Times just got punked."

In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride.

Of course, the Right Wingnuts are having a field day with all this. They're so eager to find anything wrong with Obama that they're clutching at straws, making up lies when one cannot be found. I've haven't seen such an outpouring of hatred and racism since the 60s when I was a little boy. It's frightening to see there is still so much of it.

Today is the day of the Super Bowl. I don't know if any bigger news will come out of Super Sunday than the name of the victor, which happens to be Pittsburg in a 27-23 game that came down to the last few seconds. President Obama will be happy; he was apparently rooting for the Steelers.

But that does not mean that events around it stand still, and indeed they have not. One bit of news, as reported by MSNBC, is that the catch-phrase "War on Terror" is fading.

The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

MSNBC goes on to say that "White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared."

We have lived with this myth of a "war on terror" for seven years now. And it never really was. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror but a war of naked aggression against a nation that had done us no harm. I've always equated it with Hitler's invasion of Poland, on equally flimsy justification. If the US fared better than the Third Reich as a result it is only because Bush's Reich lasted only eight years to Hitler's twelve. The US dodged a bullet.

Unlike Bush, Obama is not an ideologue. He understands that the world is far more complex than a black-white dichotomy can explain. The decision-making paradigm of the Bush administration was based on ideology and therefore was flawed. It could not be otherwise. Ideology imposes its will on the world whatever reality itself dictates. Obama is a practical man and I think we can safely say he won't make the same mistakes Bush has made. If war is the result of a failure to listen, we will at least know that Obama HAS listened.

Obama says that there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."

As the MSNBC piece observes,

According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran.

The New York Times reports that changes are taking place in Iraq as the US prepares to depart in 16 months, a timetable some still oppose.

Iraqis across the country voted Saturday in provincial elections that will help shape their future, but regardless of the outcome it is clear that the Americans are already drifting offstage — and that most Iraqis are ready to see them go.

As the New York Times article points out, "President Obama has made it plain that Iraq is not his war; he wants to focus on Afghanistan. In an economic crisis, there is simply not enough money for the country to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq."

It is the fourth day of the new Era. I can easily understand ancient dating systems that were reckoned according to the reign of a king. That is how clear the demarcation between January 19th and January 20th seems. Where nothing was possible before, everything seems possible now, and no critics have so far managed to rain on my parade. People are too quick to judge. No matter what Obama does, some will say he acted rashly, and others will say he acted too slowly. But it's the nature of people to think they know better (including me) as well as to be impatient. And can you blame them after the eight years we have endured?

There are concerns among some that Obama's executive orders of yesterday left too much wiggle room - too many things on the table that should not be on the table. For example, the army manual will be examined to see if anything needs to be changed. The ACLU fears methods might be added to the 19 methods of approved interrogation that could lead to further abuses and violation of international law. Apparently even the "isolation" of a prisoner is against international law and that is one of the 19 methods approved of by the army manual. An army general stated that it's much ado about nothing, that the military is constantly re-assessing its tactics and methods to improve them. I suppose this is one of those times we will have to wait and see what happens. Like the ACLU, I'm hopeful. We've been a rogue nation long enough and I do not believe Obama intends to further the alienation begun under Bush.

The big news today is the signing by Obama of another executive order, this one revoking the so-called "Mexico City policy" - a rule which prohibits U.S. money from going to international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services - first put in place by President Reagan in 1984, then canceled by President Clinton in January of '93 as one of his first acts in office, only to be reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001 as one of his first acts. Obviously, the conservatives are unhappy over this but CNN tells us that "The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

Something is being made of the fact that Obama chose today - one day after the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade - to sign this order. Other presidents have chosen that day to act, and it has been suggested that Obama deliberately held off one day to show so-called "pro-life" groups that he is not looking for a fight. I doubt Obama is that naive. He will get a fight either way. The abortion opponents (I simply can't grant them their self-styled title of "pro-life") offer no quarter and no compromise. It seems to have been the only real platform of the Republican base in this past election, and it is certain to resurface in 2012.

Also arguing against this interpretation are Obama's own words yesterday. According to CNN Obama said that Roe v. Wade

"not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."

On the international front, there are complaints that Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessor with reports Friday (unconfirmed by US officials) of U.S. drones striking militant targets in Pakistan and killing 17 people. Here is the interview former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf gave to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

Perhaps there will be more news by tomorrow that will affirm or reject these claims.

All in all, though less newsworthy, this fourth day of Obama's presidency has been quite satisfying.