Obama's Decisions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan Will Determine Re-Election Chances

[tekisui]

Source: The Nation

The president is on the cusp of a decision which will define his presidency and re-election chances in 2012: whether to risk multiple military quagmires or campaign on a decisive pledge to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and drones out of Pakistan and Libya.

Centrist that he is, President Obama may gamble on a promise to “stay the course.” Sound familiar? All that is known is that the decisions will come quickly. On Afghanistan, Obama told the Associated Press last Friday that his coming July announcement of troop withdrawals would be “significant…not a token gesture.”

Though the president offered no specific numbers, the phrasing was an important signal, delivered in White House–speak. According to Bob Woodward’s book Obama’s Wars, the internal debate between the White House and Pentagon over Afghanistan has been intense. When the president announced in a December 2009 West Point speech that he was sending 30-33,000 more American troops in a military surge to Afghanistan, it appeared that the Pentagon and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had won the argument. But Obama slipped a hedge into the West Point speech pledging that he would “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011.”

What did it mean to “begin” a transfer? When would it end? Would it be based on conditions on the ground, as demanded by the military, or a firm deadline, which Obama expected would come from the Hill? Peace groups, opposed to Obama’s troop surge of 33,000, weren’t impressed by vague talk of simply beginning something that had no end. The cynicism deepened when Obama announced in November 2010 that American combat operations would end by 2014, and that counterterrorism capabilities would remain beyond that date.

more: http://www.thenation.com/article/160194/obamas-decisions-afghanistan-iraq-pakistan-will-determine-re-election-chances

[patrice]

1. K&R

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Tell me the 180-day trend in U3 90 days before the election...

...and I'll tell you how he does in the election.

The Nation's been around since the days of James Buchanan. They should know better.

They're confusing what they think is the key issue in the campaign, with the key issue in the campaign.

Economics elects presidents. Whether he campaigns "on a decisive pledge to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and drones out of Pakistan and Libya", or not, won't even move the electoral needle.

[tekisui]

3. The Nation has been around long enough to know how to frame things.

I think that is the point here. Yes, it is what think will be an issue, and likely what they hope will be.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. A widespread....

...disappointment with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly what energized the liberal base, and swept President Bush II out of office in the 2004 elections. No wonder President Kerry was so solicitous of their opinions during his first term.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. John Kerry would've been President if that were always the case

[robcon]

5. Nonsense. It's the economy, stupid.

n/t

[totodeinhere]

7. Bot our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan is tied into the economy.

Just think about the economic benefit that could be derived from the billions we are spending on those useless wars if that money could be diverted to domestic uses.

[robcon]

8. A big stretch, IMO.

The economy will be the biggest determinant of the election results next year. Defense spending has only a peripheral impact on the economy between now and the election.

[davidpdx]

9. I agree with you

The economy has to improve a bit before we can say for sure Obama will get reelected. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan is only part of what needs to be done. Personally I'd like to see the unemployment rate drop below 7%.