Obama - first Peace Prize winner to accelerate war?

[kEiThZ]

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.

What's telling is that despite there being provisions to award it posthumously they still have not done it. I strongly suspect they don't want to honour Gandhi because it'll be seen as taking sides in the India-Pakistan dispute.

Still, they dishonour the hero of billions.

 

[cacruden]

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.

I think you are reading too much into it - it is not racism - that is too easily tossed around .... it has more to do with the fact that the award is awarded by politicians (left leaning generally) of Sweden. It has to do more with familiarity, news, etc. I doubt they are consciously saying - he that guy is brown - I think it will go to a white person.

 

[Blovertis]

I think you are reading too much into it - it is not racism - that is too easily tossed around .... it has more to do with the fact that the award is awarded by politicians (left leaning generally) of Sweden. It has to do more with familiarity, news, etc. I doubt they are consciously saying - he that guy is brown - I think it will go to a white person.

I wasn't talking about any biases that the Nobel Committee may have now. I was talking about the possibility that Gandhi was denied the prize during his lifetime because of racism 60-plus years ago. I hardly think it's a controversial point to be making that attitudes were not as enlightened--even among European elites--as they are now.

 

[Long Island Mike]

The Obama Presidency: Will it depend on what happens with Afghanistan?

PG and Keithz: I agree with both of you on the Obama presidency and the
Afghanistan surge-unfortunately to even try and clean up some of the Bush
mess we need the troop surge-and hopefully it will go Obama's way.

I figured that the Republicans-especially the hard right-would be out to get
Obama from day one similar to how they functioned when Bill Clinton was President in the 90s. It will be interesting to see how things go between now
and the 2012 Presidential Election cycle-and I do feel also that if the Republicans-barring something really bad happening-do not field a good candidate-NOT Sarah Palin-they will lose badly in 2012.

Obama is stuck in a bad situation concerning these wars(Iraq also) and no matter what happens there will be unhappy people on either or both sides.
Thoughts by Long Island Mike

 

[PukeGreen]

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.

Agreed. Also, Gandhi was frankly a bit of a hard-ass. Despite his non-violent beliefs he did not go out of his way to endear himself to people he disagreed with (which were many) nor hobnob with the kinds of people who get you awarded the Nobel.

 

[Yoshimura]

PG and Keithz: I agree with both of you on the Obama presidency and the
Afghanistan surge-unfortunately to even try and clean up some of the Bush
mess we need the troop surge-and hopefully it will go Obama's way.

I figured that the Republicans-especially the hard right-would be out to get
Obama from day one similar to how they functioned when Bill Clinton was President in the 90s. It will be interesting to see how things go between now
and the 2012 Presidential Election cycle-and I do feel also that if the Republicans-barring something really bad happening-do not field a good candidate-NOT Sarah Palin-they will lose badly in 2012.

Obama is stuck in a bad situation concerning these wars(Iraq also) and no matter what happens there will be unhappy people on either or both sides.
Thoughts by Long Island Mike

Wow, what an apologosit

Perpetual wars for perpetual peace… it's all about spreading freedom right? "We" can't come "home" yet.

Obama's just as much of a political hack as his predecessors. Time to snap out of the marketing.

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

/end rant

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Oh please. Can you lay out what a real (not a moveon.org fantasy) solution would be to pull out of Afghanistan while ensuring that it does not become a haven for jihadists again?

 

[Yoshimura]

^ Oh please. Can you lay out what a real (not a moveon.org fantasy) solution would be to pull out of Afghanistan while ensuring that it does not become a haven for jihadists again?

I've never visited moveon.org, I don't know what their political orientation is… and I'm not being sarcastic

The solution: GTFO ASAP.

 

[gristle]

Given that you offer this proposal as a solution, would you care to describe what it would solve for the people of Afghanistan who don't want to live under an extremist regime like the Taliban?

 

[kEiThZ]

This situation really shows why nothing could have been done in Rwanda. Simply put, Western nations are not willing to risk even a few lives to preven the slaughter of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. The height of hypocrisy are those who advocate armed intervention in Sudan to protect Darfurians while advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Those shouting to get the troops out have zero regard for the thousands or millions who would get slaughtered by the Taliban. Keep in mind the last time the Talibs took power they slaughtered 400 000 innoncents. Where were the moveon.org types back then? Oh I forgot, Afghanistan is not in Africa. So if a million die there it's no big deal.

 

[shumoon]

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 ...

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.

Obama had three options.

1) Get the U.S. out of Afghanistan.
2) Take all the 100,000+ troops that are being withdrawn from Iraq and transfer them to Afghanistan to really go after the Taliban.
3) A modest surge of troops to Afganistan to compromise.

IMO, option #1 is the best long-term policy for the U.S. For 8 years, the U.S. has not been able to defeat the Taliban, and it doesn't look like anything is going to change in the next few years. Americans don't want an open-ended conflict to drag on and on with little to show for it.

The second best option would be option #2: to go "all-in" and send the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. This is closest to the policy articulated in Obama's election campaign: Iraq was the wrong war and it compromised America's ability to go after the Taliban. It would also send a message to the Taliban that the U.S. is in it for the long haul.

Unfortunately, Obama chose the not-even-half-ass option #3 of sending only 30,000 troops. This won't do enough to fight the Taliban, and it still reinforces the message to the Taliban that the U.S. isn't going to stick around because it is only going to put enough troops that it can quickly evacuate. American political opinion favours that the U.S. withdraw sooner rather than later and the Taliban know this. The Taliban only have to hide and bide their time until the U.S. is gone.

 

[cacruden]

Obama had three options.

1) Get the U.S. out of Afghanistan.
2) Take all the 100,000+ troops that are being withdrawn from Iraq and transfer them to Afghanistan to really go after the Taliban.
3) A modest surge of troops to Afganistan to compromise.

IMO, option #1 is the best long-term policy for the U.S. For 8 years, the U.S. has not been able to defeat the Taliban, and it doesn't look like anything is going to change in the next few years. Americans don't want an open-ended conflict to drag on and on with little to show for it.

The second best option would be option #2: to go "all-in" and send the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. This is closest to the policy articulated in Obama's election campaign: Iraq was the wrong war and it compromised America's ability to go after the Taliban. It would also send a message to the Taliban that the U.S. is in it for the long haul.

Unfortunately, Obama chose the not-even-half-ass option #3 of sending only 30,000 troops. This won't do enough to fight the Taliban, and it still reinforces the message to the Taliban that the U.S. isn't going to stick around because it is only going to put enough troops that it can quickly evacuate. American political opinion favours that the U.S. withdraw sooner rather than later and the Taliban know this. The Taliban only have to hide and bide their time until the U.S. is gone.

#1, the problem here is that we have treated Afghanistan as if it is a country..... it is not.... it is a bunch of tribes that were brought by force under an administration. The current government is corrupt. Now, remember the US was not occupying them and they were used as a staging ground for some rather spectacular "terrorism" / acts of war..... We could leave them.... but what does that mean, does that mean that they will be used to stage another attach? Can the president of the US politically take that chance, what happens if they leave and it is reoccupied by foreign terrorists using it as a base of operations? It is a tough call. Everyone likes simple solutions.... sometimes there are none. If you are going to "create" a country there - it will take 40 years, not 8 - but for politicians to be honest .... with estimates..... is not going to happen.

 

[cacruden]

I don't envy Obama with any decision that he would have made.... it is not a simple problem....

 

[Cooool]

This is off topic, but does anyone believe the democrats are going to lose the house majoirty come November? Nancy Pelosi is arguably one of the most hated figures on the left because of Republican bitterness. Her approval rating is like 11%. On the other hand though, she did secure enough votes to pass health care.

 

[GenerationW]

This is off topic, but does anyone believe the democrats are going to lose the house majoirty come November?

Probably not, but Democrat majorities in the House and Senate will almost certainly be reduced.