At West Point the President allies himself with Karl Rove
What has happened that President Obama finds himself allied with Karl Rove (and the Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress) on the hawkish side of the debate regarding the U.S. role in Afghanistan, while, for example, nearly the entire gamut of NYTimes op ed writers from left to right (not to mention myriad liberal voices throughout the country), have lined up against his position to send additional U.S. soldiers into battle as outlined during his most recent speech at West Point?
Has our president succumbed to the power of the military/industrial complex? Much like the Congress, that so far has chosen not to substantially reform how health care is delivered in the country, but has rather given up its own power to change things, apparently succumbing to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries who would keep things as they are?
I don’t really believe that the President has done this, nor even that he believes that primarily by force of arms the Afghan people, never yet in history tamed to the will and desire of a foreign power by any means, will now obediently follow our direction, ousting Al Qaeda and the Taliban and establishing a central government capable of uniting the country and its people in shared tasks (for the first time ever)?
Yet President Obama has decided to send 30,000 additional American soldiers, at a cost of about $1 million each, into battle with a ragtag assortment of Taliban fanatics, Al Qaeda terrorists, warlords, drug traffickers, and various other insurgents.
I find myself much more convinced by the arguments, not of the President, but of those, of whom there are more and more, who are writing and speaking against the decision to send additional troupes.
Together, this time in opposition to the President, are Thomas Friedman of the Times, and George Will of the Washington Post, both of whom, liberal and conservative, although currently speaking out against the President’s decision, are often sympathetic to this President and his views.
Here I quote two passages from their two most recent op ed pieces:
Thomas Friedman: “To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role.”
and George Will: “The president’s party will not support his new policy, his budget will not accommodate it, our overstretched and worn-down military will be hard-pressed to execute it, and Americans’ patience will not be commensurate with Afghanistan’s limitless demands for it. This will not end well.”Explore posts in the same categories: Current Affairs