See retired general Douglas Macgregor's short and highly critical analysis of Obama's deployment plans in today's N.Y. Times.
Also in today's Times, Bob Herbert has very fine column, making pretty much the same points I've been making the past few weeks.
Unfortunately, Obama has succumbed to the standard weakness of U.S. presidents: fear of seeming weak and inordinate respect for military theories and the military in general. I'm afraid tonight's speech will be a big disappointment (at least for me). Lyndon Johnson also had big plans for America, domestically (the "Great Society") and in Viet Nam; all he needed was a few more troops, just a few more...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I sort of agree with you, except that Obama said all through the campaign that the U.S. ought to be devoting more resources to the war in Afghanistan. His position now is consistent with his earlier posture, and doesn't *necessarily* mean that he's succumbing to military pressures or fear of appearing weak. (Of course, that doesn't mean one has to agree with his position, either.)
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's a minor quibble, but there are some vary damning Vietnam-era documents revealing just how important U.S. "credibility" was to decisions to escalate (beyond any real national security concerns)... I'm not ready to accuse Obama of making military decisions on this basis yet, which (for me) makes some of the Vietnam/LBJ comparisons--or rather, the moral condemnations implicit in these comparisons--premature.
Having said that, I am, like you, very skeptical...