After 93 days of deliberation regarding a potential troop escalation in Afghanistan, last night President Obama addressed the nation in what was widely expected to be a re-selling of the war.
In the speech Mr. Obama cited a new strategy that included the deployment of 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan - and this, just 2 weeks before he is to accept a Nobel Prize for Peace.
The speech was delivered at West Point, which was seemingly designed to add legitimacy to the intentions and conviction to the words, but simple accounting reveals the truth: that a troop escalation of this magnitude will bring the region's total American military contribution to just over 100,000 - with a scheduled troop withdrawal not to begin until July of 2011
Thusfar the Invasion of Afghanistan has cost an estimated $235 billion - that's a 2-3-5 with 9 zeros after it - which, when combined with the cost of the Iraq War - brings the total to just south of $1 trillion ($938b at press time)
After the speech, most interested parties acted in accordance with their standard modus operandi: criticism from the left was swift and decisive due to the plan being anything other than a strategy for withdrawal. Senator Feingold (D-WI) was quoted as saying that we were engaging in "armed nation building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy" while Jon Meacham of Newsweek said that the speech "contained the opening notes of an Obama Doctrine"
The right flexed its contortionist skills by agreeing with the president while still maintaining their standard hawkish position: Karl Rove, the chief political architect of the previous administration, lauded praise on the current one. On Tuesday morning, prior to the speech, the operative formerly known as "Turd Blossom" stated on NBC's 'Today Show' that if reports of a 30,000-plus-troop surge were true it would constitute "a definitive action" and this action would result in him being "the first to stand up and applaud". On Wednesday night, after the address, he criticized the President for giving a speech with no energy, taking too long to decide on troop levels, and setting a timeline that would embolden the enemy.
Regarding the necessity of the increased deployment: National Security estimates state that there are fewer than 100 members al-qaeda in Afghanistan and roughly double that in Pakistan - so the math on an increased troop presence - which is essentially a second surge - seems somewhat (excuse the pun) overkill.
All this - while a quiet murmur continually grows louder: that the true danger lies in Pakistan.
While the new strategy outlined by the President calls for increased cooperation from Pakistan, prior to the address Pakistani officials stressed two deeply harbored fears: that the US will add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border and that the American effort will end too soon - so its a good thing Mr. Obama didn't make reference to anything involving troop numbers or effective withdrawal dates.
In turn, the US fears that Pakistan, a nuclear power which shows evident signs of corruption and stability on par with a bag of rats in a burning meth lab, will continue to allow drug lords and taliban leadership to function as an ad hoc governing body, potentially destabilized further by a reinvigorated military campaign.
And while the President's speech mentioned that the US and Pakistan have a common enemy, many in Pakistan feel the conflict in Afghanistan is one created by the US, and calls for partnership and shared ownership fall silent when positioned next to their reluctance to be drawn into such a conflict.
A myriad of problems lie before Mr. Obama and his advisors, rivaled only by the 8 years that lie behind him. The address to the nation spoke of his determination to finish the job in Afghanistan and also implied a break from the policies of the previous administration. But despite criticisms of past commanders-in-chief and the realization of a catastrophe inherited, in endorsing this escalation, it just became Obama's war.
In the speech Mr. Obama cited a new strategy that included the deployment of 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan - and this, just 2 weeks before he is to accept a Nobel Prize for Peace.
The speech was delivered at West Point, which was seemingly designed to add legitimacy to the intentions and conviction to the words, but simple accounting reveals the truth: that a troop escalation of this magnitude will bring the region's total American military contribution to just over 100,000 - with a scheduled troop withdrawal not to begin until July of 2011
Thusfar the Invasion of Afghanistan has cost an estimated $235 billion - that's a 2-3-5 with 9 zeros after it - which, when combined with the cost of the Iraq War - brings the total to just south of $1 trillion ($938b at press time)
After the speech, most interested parties acted in accordance with their standard modus operandi: criticism from the left was swift and decisive due to the plan being anything other than a strategy for withdrawal. Senator Feingold (D-WI) was quoted as saying that we were engaging in "armed nation building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy" while Jon Meacham of Newsweek said that the speech "contained the opening notes of an Obama Doctrine"
The right flexed its contortionist skills by agreeing with the president while still maintaining their standard hawkish position: Karl Rove, the chief political architect of the previous administration, lauded praise on the current one. On Tuesday morning, prior to the speech, the operative formerly known as "Turd Blossom" stated on NBC's 'Today Show' that if reports of a 30,000-plus-troop surge were true it would constitute "a definitive action" and this action would result in him being "the first to stand up and applaud". On Wednesday night, after the address, he criticized the President for giving a speech with no energy, taking too long to decide on troop levels, and setting a timeline that would embolden the enemy.
Regarding the necessity of the increased deployment: National Security estimates state that there are fewer than 100 members al-qaeda in Afghanistan and roughly double that in Pakistan - so the math on an increased troop presence - which is essentially a second surge - seems somewhat (excuse the pun) overkill.
All this - while a quiet murmur continually grows louder: that the true danger lies in Pakistan.
While the new strategy outlined by the President calls for increased cooperation from Pakistan, prior to the address Pakistani officials stressed two deeply harbored fears: that the US will add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border and that the American effort will end too soon - so its a good thing Mr. Obama didn't make reference to anything involving troop numbers or effective withdrawal dates.
In turn, the US fears that Pakistan, a nuclear power which shows evident signs of corruption and stability on par with a bag of rats in a burning meth lab, will continue to allow drug lords and taliban leadership to function as an ad hoc governing body, potentially destabilized further by a reinvigorated military campaign.
And while the President's speech mentioned that the US and Pakistan have a common enemy, many in Pakistan feel the conflict in Afghanistan is one created by the US, and calls for partnership and shared ownership fall silent when positioned next to their reluctance to be drawn into such a conflict.
A myriad of problems lie before Mr. Obama and his advisors, rivaled only by the 8 years that lie behind him. The address to the nation spoke of his determination to finish the job in Afghanistan and also implied a break from the policies of the previous administration. But despite criticisms of past commanders-in-chief and the realization of a catastrophe inherited, in endorsing this escalation, it just became Obama's war.
