The debate in the blogosphere rages on Obama's Afghan strategy:
Bob Cesca writes:
So it seems like the president's plan for rapidly securing the
region followed by a withdrawal beginning in 2011 seems to be a good
enough way to confront these disparate problems. But make no mistake,
this is chemotherapy -- this is a chore -- this is clean-up. It sucks.
But I can't deny that there has to be a clean-up process.
And so I reluctantly support this plan with many, many concerns and
caveats. Mainly, this has to remain a clean-up and not evolve into a
reboot. If it becomes a reboot of the war, it will fail.
Matt Osborne concurs:
Amid all the hoopla from progressives, the message I get from this is: American troops start leaving Afghanistan in 18 months. I'm not sure which part of that promises "endless war."
While I take my highly esteemed colleagues points seriously, I still can't see how Obama's plan can be construed as anything but an escalation and another strategy doomed for disaster.
Along with the trillions of dollars spent on blowing up the country, buying off rival factions and attempting to extract oil, the U.S has the largest most expensive embassy ever in Iraq, a sure sign that it never really intends to leave. The fact that it is about to pour trillions more into Afghanistan is indication that America has serious strategic interests in maintaining control over the region. Obama has stated that 'facts on the ground' will ultimately determine policy, and if the generals tell him they need more troops and more time, it is highly likely he will concede.