Obama's splendid week is subject to downward revision

[bigtree]

from Buzzflash: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/354


As the Washington Post understated the matter yesterday:

"European leaders have proved reluctant to follow Obama in his first major foreign policy initiative.... "

"They said Obama is likely to come away from the summit Saturday with a broad endorsement of his idea that stabilizing Afghanistan is a strategic goal for NATO and support for his decision to devote more civilian as well as military resources to eliminating al-Qaeda havens there and in Pakistan."

"But they also said that summit pleasantries are unlikely to mask Europe's refusal to commit to major new troop deployments."

In the world's most inhospitable trouble spot we effectively are on our own again, just like in Iraq -- and just as Iraq is again heating up. (Now there's a surprise.) The hardening contours are both unmistakable and terrifying: Obama's "increasing American troops in Afghanistan to some 68,000 by the end of the year, from 38,000 today," muses the Times, essentially "Americanizes an operation that in recent years had been divided equally between American troops and allied forces."


read more: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/354

[FrenchieCat]

1. 1/2 glass empty

while failing to notice that this is "politics" and how they work,
it is obvious that 5th columnist is underestimating Barack Obama....
like folks usually do. However, most who listened always knew that
Obama wasn't a Messiah who could walk on water,
and who was going to perform miracles at the G20 Summit or the NATO Summit.

Obama inherited a shitload of problems,
and cannot "fix it" it all in one fell swoop...
and no, everything won't be smooth and silky and
just fall into place! doh!

Obama knows this.
Not sure where 5th columnist has been? :shrug:

[bigtree]

2. face it

It would be hard to find a critic of Obama's policies that you wouldn't personally characterize as a 'fifth columnist'. Your defense is as arrogant as it is nonfactual.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Fry it

Look, the author acts like Barack Obama is unaware of what is going on.
Like he basically has no clue.


Odd how folks believe that they have all of the insight.
That is what is arrogant.

[bigtree]

7. The author made a specific (and valid) point about the level of international commitment

. . . and the increase in our dominating responsibility in the military pursuit. I don't see where the author is claiming the administration is unaware of the imbalance. The point is that the imbalance persists and looks to be increasing beyond the short-term commitment to supervise the elections.

It would be helpful if, in your refutations and defenses, you offered something more to the points in the article than your confidence in the correctness and wisdom of the administration.

[Puzzler]

3. Yeah... the NYT did one of their polite hit-pieces today...

... under the guise of news (on page 1). It read more like a thinly veiled opinion piece.

[bigtree]

5. Theirs is not the only news source to come to this conclusion

Indeed, the administration and the Pentagon has stressed that their intention is to shoulder most of the burden and to leave the others to provide a 'surge' of economic and humanitarian assistance.

It is an inescapable fact that the original coalition - which was almost equally split between international forces and Americans - is now reduced to a state where more than two-thirds of the combat troops are U.S. brigades. You characterize that however you want.

I can only conclude that the 5000 total commitment from the entire group of NATO participatory nations to match our 21,000 (as well as their short-term designation as election monitors) is an outright rejection of the military mission President Obama took such great pains to outline this month, concluding with his presentation to this momentous gathering of nations.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. is this another article about the expectations game?

Raise them for the Dem and lower them for the GOP?

[bigtree]

8. no

It's a commentary on the state of imbalance of forces committed to the military mission President Obama defined.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Just found this thread and it's sad to see it trail off.

We're near Ft. Knox and friends with retired military folks, some field grade officers. Several worked with the allied forces.
They are highly concerned with this trend and with the consequences for U.S. troop strength.

Odd that it should be a legitimate (and generally civil) discussion IRL but so touchy here at DU.