News   Mar 28, 2024
 92     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 

Obama - first Peace Prize winner to accelerate war?

Brandon716

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Niagara Region
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6918004.ece

Nobel Prize winner President Obama still searching for foreign policy success

In less than a month President Obama will head to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize — awarded to him not for what he has done, but for what the judges hope he will achieve during his first term.

President Barack Obama received the Nobel Prize for Peace because of political reasons. People internationally bought his rhetoric.

Yet recently he announced he's accelerating the war in Afghanistan with 30,000 more troops and a general goal to possibly start withdrawal after 2012, but no committment.

Its 100% identical to Bush doctrine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-12-01-obama-afghanistan_N.htm

Obama vows 30,000 troops for Afghan war

President Obama asked the nation to support 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan and vowed to start bringing home U.S. forces in 2011, saying his rapid escalation of the costly war is necessary because "our security is at stake."


Question is, why is Bush hated so much, yet Obama hated so little thus far?? Will Obama become the next Bush: scorned, disliked, and with approval ratings in the 20's only among his hardcore supporters.

Will Obama even remain 20% popularity since the Democratic party was split to begin with? Bush was able to retain his 25-30% Republican base, but the Democrats are never as unified and I can see Obama becoming as low as the teens - beating Bush's unpopularity.
 
The awarding of the Nobel prize was not something Obama asked for or had any control over. It should not be held against him.

I personally don't recall Obama running on a platform of pacificism. From what I recall, his opinion on the current wars matches mine: the war in Afghanistan made some sense in the wake of 9/11, when it was clear that the Taliban government was supporting Al Qaeda. Where the Bush Administration erred was in launching a second war in Iraq two years later, which had little to no relation to 9/11. It was this second war that consumed most US resources for years, leaving Afghanistan forgotten. The early progress and support that was gained in Afghanistan has now been lost and will be difficult, if not impossible, to regain.

But the damage has been done. The war in Afghanistan is underway, and Obama can't change that. To abruptly pull out all troops and end the war would be tantamount to admitting failure. It would also cement all the billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost so far as a 100% waste. The mere perception that the US has been so utterly weakened would embolden terrorists and diminish US influence in the world. It would also reaffirm the general perception by most Republicans and some centrists that the Democrats are more cowardly than the Republicans. Should another terrorist attack occur during Obama's term the Democrats would then be doomed for another decade or so.

Obama's new plan, therefore, makes sense on paper. He's trying to end the war soon (2011 is around the corner) and is trying to rectify Bush's mistake of pulling troops and resources out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq. He's trying to stabilize the country enough the US can pull out without utter disaster, and with enough positives to point to that the end result can't clearly be called a "failure" or a "lost war" -- even if it can't clearly be labeled a "victory" either. The war won't be 100% success, but it won't be a 100% of a waste, either. In a perfect world, the pullout would be well underway by 2012 when Obama's term as President ends, allowing him to declare that he has fulfilled his election promise of ending the war, while simultaneously not appearing to be weak when it comes to the defense of the US. It's a complete compromise, and a sensible one.

That of course, is on paper. The reality of Afghanistan is much messier and I'm apprehensive. I would be surprised if the plan doesn't go awry sooner rather than later. But right now I think Obama is between a rock and a hard place: he's stuck with the problems caused by the previous administration, and try as he might, I'm afraid he will be blamed for the resulting disasters. As much as I like Obama, I've had a bad feeling from day one that the winner of the 2008 election was doomed to failure due to many problems beyond the elect's control. This presidency could turn out to be the ultimate booby prize.

My biggest fear is that the result of Obama's presidency will be a hard swing to the right in 2012 as Americans react to the many, many problems that surface during Obama's presidency -- ironically forgetting that all these problems have their root causes in the 2002-2008 Bush period. Afghanistan is just one such example (the economy being another). Sometimes, there is no perfect solution.
 
The awarding of the Nobel prize was not something Obama asked for or had any control over. It should not be held against him.

I personally don't recall Obama running on a platform of pacificism. From what I recall, his opinion on the current wars matches mine: the war in Afghanistan made some sense in the wake of 9/11, when it was clear that the Taliban government was supporting Al Qaeda. Where the Bush Administration erred was in launching a second war in Iraq two years later, which had little to no relation to 9/11. It was this second war that consumed most US resources for years, leaving Afghanistan forgotten. The early progress and support that was gained in Afghanistan has now been lost and will be difficult, if not impossible, to regain.

But the damage has been done. The war in Afghanistan is underway, and Obama can't change that. To abruptly pull out all troops and end the war would be tantamount to admitting failure. It would also cement all the billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost so far as a 100% waste. The mere perception that the US has been so utterly weakened would embolden terrorists and diminish US influence in the world. It would also reaffirm the general perception by most Republicans and some centrists that the Democrats are more cowardly than the Republicans. Should another terrorist attack occur during Obama's term the Democrats would then be doomed for another decade or so.

Obama's new plan, therefore, makes sense on paper. He's trying to end the war soon (2011 is around the corner) and is trying to rectify Bush's mistake of pulling troops and resources out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq. He's trying to stabilize the country enough the US can pull out without utter disaster, and with enough positives to point to that the end result can't clearly be called a "failure" or a "lost war" -- even if it can't clearly be labeled a "victory" either. The war won't be 100% success, but it won't be a 100% of a waste, either. In a perfect world, the pullout would be well underway by 2012 when Obama's term as President ends, allowing him to declare that he has fulfilled his election promise of ending the war, while simultaneously not appearing to be weak when it comes to the defense of the US. It's a complete compromise, and a sensible one.

That of course, is on paper. The reality of Afghanistan is much messier and I'm apprehensive. I would be surprised if the plan doesn't go awry sooner rather than later. But right now I think Obama is between a rock and a hard place: he's stuck with the problems caused by the previous administration, and try as he might, I'm afraid he will be blamed for the resulting disasters. As much as I like Obama, I've had a bad feeling from day one that the winner of the 2008 election was doomed to failure due to many problems beyond the elect's control. This presidency could turn out to be the ultimate booby prize.

My biggest fear is that the result of Obama's presidency will be a hard swing to the right in 2012 as Americans react to the many, many problems that surface during Obama's presidency -- ironically forgetting that all these problems have their root causes in the 2002-2008 Bush period. Afghanistan is just one such example (the economy being another). Sometimes, there is no perfect solution.

This.

Although the US has stuck with lame duck presidents time and time again. It's up to the administration to make sure Obama's public opinion standings aren't as low as Carter. If they can muster that, all should be swell.
 
Obama may be headed toward one term presidency at this rate. The problem being that Republicans are still completely insane, but that doesn't make whats happening at present any worse than it is.
 
I think what Obama has been, is a centrist. You can tell he's into a good compromise, but the problem with that is that a good compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied. At this point, neither the government, nor the American public want to suddenly abandon the Afghan war. I like the idea behind it.

As much as I hate the Iraq war, I must admit, the surge did work. Obama's pretty much saying that it's time to do the same in Afghanistan: finish the job once and for all, and then leave the rest to the newly established government.
 
Brandon716 said:
Obama may be headed toward one term presidency at this rate. The problem being that Republicans are still completely insane, but that doesn't make whats happening at present any worse than it is.

I agree... but what could Obama do differently? If he was to shut down the war in Afghanistan, declare defeat and call home all troops, would that improve or worsen his chances at re-election? His choices are to accelerate the war, do nothing, or pull out. All three choices are less than optimal, with no guarantee of success and many risks.

I think what Obama has been, is a centrist. You can tell he's into a good compromise, but the problem with that is that a good compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied. At this point, neither the government, nor the American public want to suddenly abandon the Afghan war. I like the idea behind it.

Absolutely, Obama has always been dead centre in my eyes, especially when his policies are compared to those of mainstream Canadian political parties. The only people who paint Obama as being a far leftist are right-wing Republicans (all is relative!) and those who truly are left wingers (who are engaging in wishful thinking).

As much as I hate the Iraq war, I must admit, the surge did work. Obama's pretty much saying that it's time to do the same in Afghanistan: finish the job once and for all, and then leave the rest to the newly established government.

Also agree. But I think it's too early to declare definitively that the surge has "worked": there is a real possibility that it may have just delayed the chaos in Iraq. The insurgents are crazy, but they're not stupid. They have access to the same news we do, and they know that the US troops are withdrawing sooner rather than later. Why pointlessly kill yourself fighting an enemy that's leaving anyway? Better to bide your time and wait for an opportunity to make a real difference.

It's quite conceivable that many insurgents are laying low, waiting until Iraqis are essentially defenseless before re-emerging in a violent attempt to gain control on behalf of their faction/group. If civil war has not broken out in 2 or 3 years, and if another dictator in the tradition of Saddam has not emerged by then, only then can say the surge worked. Until then, all bets are off.

I hate to engage in stereotyping, but I have difficulty envisioning an Iraqi parliament composed of elected representatives of Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds sitting around calmly discussing their differences and building coalitions of compromise. Not when the wounds from the recent years/decades/centuries of conflict are so fresh.
 
The American Left is doing its best to eat itself with the Obama presidency. The dude continuously said through his campaign that he would immediately begin a withdrawal process in Iraq while also putting an increased emphasis on winning in Afghanistan. Now he's done that. Nobody should be surprised.

I don't see him being a one-term president unless the Republicans have a surprise candidate up their sleeve that they haven't revealed yet. At this rate, I think the wingnut faction of the party is big enough that we may actually see a three-way race between the incumbent, a mainstream Republican and Sarah Palin.
 
The American Left is doing its best to eat itself with the Obama presidency. The dude continuously said through his campaign that he would immediately begin a withdrawal process in Iraq while also putting an increased emphasis on winning in Afghanistan. Now he's done that. Nobody should be surprised.

I don't see him being a one-term president unless the Republicans have a surprise candidate up their sleeve that they haven't revealed yet. At this rate, I think the wingnut faction of the party is big enough that we may actually see a three-way race between the incumbent, a mainstream Republican and Sarah Palin.
God help the world if Sarah Palin comes in charge. I can almost imagine the Northeastern States and the West Coast leaving the country.
 
Before the US Marines arrived in the South, we had essentially one Canadian reinforced infantry battalion (about a thousand guys) covering Kandahar province, an area the size of Nova Scotia. Including support personnel, Canada had less than half the uniformed manpower of the Toronto Police Service to cover all of Kandahar province. Imagine what would happen if the TPS was cut in half and required to maintain law and order during a gang war in Toronto, and you have an idea of the conditions our troops faced.

There is no doubt that more troops are needed to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. I am fairly sure that a similar analogy to what I've described above was explained to US decision makers by General McChrystal.

If the US wants to at least find a face-saving way to exit it has to do this. The other option is to pull out now and leave the global reputation of the United States in tatters. Keep in mind that in Afghanistan and the region, there is a strong suspicion that the US will 'abandon' Afghanistan like it did at the end of the anti-Soviet Jihad. There is a perception that this abandonment is what lead to 9/11 and the wider terrorist troubles in the region (Pakistani Taliban, anti-India terrorist). The Prime Minister of India (the fifth largest donor country to Afghanistan) made the point that US abandonment would embolden terrorists to strike US interests and US allies around the world and would result in a general decline in global security. And Manmohan Singh is hardly what one would describe as a hawk.

I don't envy Obama's position. He has to balance domestic distaste for the war with the sincere advice given by his national security advisors and global partners. He has to balance the calls to pull the troops out with the knowledge that doing so could very well lead to a global decline of the reputation of the US.

Finally, there is the domestic political dimension. If he pulls out of Afghanistan and a terrorist attack does happen in the US with links to Afghanistan, you can bet that the same independents who dislike the war in Afghanistan and voted for Obama will turn on the Democrats and keep them out of the White House for at least half a generation. I am sure there is more than a little concern about this, especially when we can virtually a guarantee a return of the Taliban if NATO pulls out now, which in turn means a return of the Al Qaeda, LeT, etc. safehavens.

I, for one, hope the surge works out. For his sake and ours.
 
Obama may be headed toward one term presidency at this rate. The problem being that Republicans are still completely insane, but that doesn't make whats happening at present any worse than it is.

I doubt it. The Republicans will never be able to field a centrist candidate that could appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Their best shot was with McCain and they screwed that up by pairing him with Palin.

But if there is another 9/11, Obama's done. Hence the surge.
 
The awarding of the Nobel prize was not something Obama asked for or had any control over. It should not be held against him.

One almost gets the impression that he was given the prize as some sort of bribe.

I find prizes like these grow increasingly irrelevant - even more so when they appear to be so politicized.
 
Last edited:
One almost gets the impression that he was given the prize as some sort of bribe.

I find prized like these grow increasingly irrelevant - even more so when they appear to be so politicized.

Yep. They are getting to be bribery. How else to account for Yasser Arafat getting one? He basically got the prize for dropping his terror campaign against the Israelis. But he failed to truly make peace because he refuse to make any concessions.

What about guys like Henry Kissinger? Or Al Gore? What's he done for peace? Oh yeah, they get to expand the definition of 'peace' when they like.

In this case, I am more than sure it was a bit of a bribe. And more than glad it didn't work.

Just imagine in the 1940s, the Nobel Committee refused to give Gandhi a prize. And there are several reports that said he was given nothing but superficial consideration or were even critical of him:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/
 
Last edited:
Just imagine in the 1940s, the Nobel Committee refused to give Gandhi a prize. And there are several reports that said he was given nothing but superficial consideration or were even critical of him.

Interesting article. I suspect that simple racism also played a role. Previous winners tended to be drawn from the ranks of European diplomats -- not brown guys in dhotis.
 

Back
Top