Originally Posted by
Aemilius Paulus
A wise point - I was so carried away with bashing Rasmusen
(well-deserved bashing IMNSHO 
) that I forgot that whether Rasmussen is correct or not, they are close.
Hmm, I'm not a serious poll-smoker like CA, but even I have heard that Ramussen tends to be the outlier, for whatever reason.
I segregate out Rasmussen's approval numbers from the other polls because they've been very different from the rest, generally showing disapproval scores about 10 points higher than the other agencies and approval scores a couple of points lower. Unlike with horse race polling, where all the pollsters are ultimately subject to a pop quiz in the form of an election, there is no obvious way to validate whether an approval poll is right or wrong. That makes it particularly important to pay attention to house effects. Rasmussen's approval ratings for Obama have been different from the other agencies, and/but, they've been consistently and predictably different. In any event, both the Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen data series ultimately show the same pattern: Obama's disapproval ratings have increased over time.
Originally Posted by
PanzerJaeger
To return to the topic at hand, let me ask you if you feel the president's announcement of a withdrawal date in the same speech as he announced his "surge" was a wise decision? And if so, why?
The president is playing to multiple audiences, not least of which is the corrupt froth at the top of the current Kharzai government. And I have to take issue with your blank assertion that "the Taliban thinks in generational terms." Care to back that up, given that the Taliban has only existed as a notable force since 1994? How do you support the notion that we're dealing with a multi-generational long-game mastermind group when they've only been a player for sixteen years, the last seven of which they spent out of power? Non sequitur; it does not follow.
My personal opinion is that Obama & Co. were seeking leverage with the existing/emergent power structures in Afghanistan, and the delay had nothing to do with the ostensible policy review. There are a lot of corrupt, crafty fellows in Afghanistan, and telling them that we're going to write a blank check and underwrite their security indefinitely gives them so many angles ... it's enough to make an honest grifter drool. As anyone who has read anything on the subject of CI warfare can tell you, attempting to tamp down an insurgency without a legitimate parnter is exactly as productive as plowing the sea.
So let's look at the angles. We're committed, and any attempt to remove support will result in massive political backlash at home and amongst allies. The Afghans know this; they are not stupid. So what impetus do they have to clean up their act, or take their security into their own hands? Why should they take on the hard, unrewarding work of governing when they could just loot like everyone else has done for the last sixty-odd years? Why should they bother to build roads and secure villages if they have an infinite credit card with Uncle Sam's name on it? Getting leverage with the warlordocracy is non-trivial.
So President 44 holds off, and even suggests that he might withdraw. If you followed events in 'Stan during the time, this had something of a focusing, bullying effect on Kharzai and his cronies. Which was a good thing. Now we announce that we're going to up the ante and pour in more troops, but it will not be indefinite. A beginning date for drawdown is given, which, as another poster pointed out in a flash of blinding obviousness, is not the same as a date for withdrawal. (To flog the obvious horse: I can start leaving your house at any time I like; when I actually leave is a whole 'nother matter.)
Your alternative? Are we to underwrite Kharzai and the crazy-quilt patchwork of local warlords indefinitely? Should we annex Afghanistan and make it the 51st state? Given that almost all AQ activity has moved to Pakistan, why would we do this? Moreover, are we to invade, secure and rebuild every failed Muslim nation? If no, why not?
You post a strange mixture of total forgiveness for strategic transgressions made by the previous administration, a seeming total lack of understanding of the complexity of the situation on the ground, a willingness to condemn every diplomatic and military choice made by the current administration, and a series of slogans instead of any vision of how we should proceed in Afghanistan.
If you have a realistic notion of how we should proceed in the Graveyard of Empire, let's hear it.
Re: "Soviet" solution in Afghanistan?
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
- Horseman of the 
Bookmarks