Has Obama failed at everything?

[GernBlansten]

How do you measure victory in Afghanistan? Russians couldn't figure it out. Perhaps killing all Afghan males might be considered a win. Other than that, what determines victory? How would an additional 20,000 or 100,000 troops make any difference except for providing more targets?

[NJCubScouter]

Personally, I think the President's core ideology is "liberal", whatever exactly that means. (Of course I am one of those who still think that "liberal" should not be regarded as a "bad word.") But Presidents don't always get to govern according to their own personal ideology, they have to take into account the political circumstances and what the American people seem to want, on average, at that particular time. I think that right now, most people don't want ideology at all -- they just want the country's problems to be solved. I also think that there is a balance that Obama has to maintain, and that is governing a lot of his policies. Specifically, if the economy at the time of his inauguration was what it was during most of the Clinton and G.W. Bush years (good, in other words), I think the health care bill passed by Congress would have been much better (as I view it), would have included at least a "public option", and most people (not the road talk show hosts or Fox News, but most actual people) would think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I also think we might be out of either Afghanistan or Iraq or both.

 

What I find ridiculous is all the names I hear the President being called in all the usual places, including by some people in this forum: Socialist, Marxist, etc. etc. I've known people who actually were Socialists and Marxists and President Obama isn't even close. And he has had to govern even further from those things than he would have otherwise.

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

Great question that should have been asked initially. It is my stance that to a greater extent that the executive branch and the congress should determine the political goals and then ask the military to determine what is required and carry out the plan. The more that the politicians meddle, the worse the situation. That said, I think that the initial plan should have been to go after Bin Laden et al. and leave the Taliban alone unless attacked. The attack should have been massive and then declare that we had our reckoning and leave. Now, I do not know how to get a tribal culture to become a modern democracy and so I do not know what constitutes victory. Iraq is a little better but I doubt that our idea of democracy will last long in Iraq. Is that a success or failure? Perhaps, the US should be more careful about committing troops and should have a clear cut goal determined in advance. So Gern, I am frustrated with our commitment of troops and the results. I think that at this point in time that Americans do not have the stomach to do what is necessary to win a war.

[NJCubScouter]

On Afghanistan, I seem to recall that the original reason we went in there was to "get" Al Quaeda for what they did to us, and for that reason it was a war that I supported -- somewhat reluctantly but I felt we had no other choice. However, it became clear awhile ago -- 2004, 2005, in there somewhere -- that if we wanted to actually accomplish that goal, we had to go into Pakistan, hopefully with the Pakistani government's agreement, otherwise without it. But G.W. Bush did not want to confront Pakistan, and this is yet another policy of that administration that has been continued by the current administration. Instead we are hunting "rebels" in a country (Afghanistan) that seems to be made up almost entirely of rebels of one kind or another, and trying to prop up a corrupt, election-stealing government that seems to have almost no support among the people outside of the zone of direct US/UK military control. I quite honestly don't know what I would do about Afghanistan if I were president -- I think leaving is going to make things worse, but staying probably isn't going to make things any better. But I do know what I would like to do about Pakistan -- and I am not talking about getting into a war with Pakistan. I think that if push came to shove, the Pakistani government would cooperate in our efforts to get the bad guys, or at least leave us alone to do what we need to do. (Boy, some of that didn't sound very "liberal", did it?)

[GernBlansten]

We should have a constitutional amendment to require an exit plan and clearly defined metric for victory before engaging our military.

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

That is not a bad idea. The Amendment could solve the issue of initial commitment of troops that often comes up. The president says that he can commit troops and the congress says that he cannot without approval. Certainly, if Russia , China, or some other country launched an attack, we do not want to have to get congressional approval to respond. At the same time, we might wish to make sure that the president cannot act in a manner that would commit troops in an activity that will likely lead to a war.

 

Also, I would add that we cannot commit troops to a major operation unless it is a declared war.

[GernBlansten]

I would like to see a system of checks and balances that requires the President and Congress to go on the record, that before they pour American blood on the soil of a foriegn country, that they establish a clear and present danger, a clear and definable objective, and a clear and measurable exit strategy. Anything less and they cannot deploy the troops.

Had Bush had those controls, we wouldn't be in the mess that Obama inherited. Too many good Americans died. We must honor them and their sacrifices, by never allowing this to happen again.

[JoeBob]

Obama's liberal ideals have run smack dab into reality:

 

Close Gitmo?

1- No other country (or state) wants the prisoners.

2- Most of the released prisoners return to the battlefield.

 

Hold terrorist trials in NYC? (The Lawyer employment guarantee policy)

1- Security costs out the wazoo.

2- Biased jury pool.

3- The one trial that was held in the US got ONE conviction out of 286 charges?

 

Withdraw from Afghanistan?

That idea has been thouroughly trashed in previous entries in this thread.

 

Tax the rich?

1- The rich are the most mobile - they will leave.

2- Ever get a job from a poor man? You want jobs or petty class warfare victories? Pick one.

 

Socialize healthcare?

1- The numbers don't work. Smoke and mirrors may help you pass a bill through a congress that doesn't read, but neither smoke nor mirrors will pay hospitals.

2- Unconstitutional.

3- Make Doctors work more for less money? They'll retire and not work at all.

 

Make friends with our enemies? We just need to be nice!

They're still our enemies, whether you win a Peace Prize or not.

 

Obama has not failed. He has been forced to face reality and admit that many liberal ideas simply don't work.

 

[BadenP]

Sorry Gern but a constitutional amendment requiring a set exit plan before engaging our military is not only impractical and short sighted but it could lead to more casualties of our troops. If you had ever served in combat you would understand that any military campaign develops in the field once the commanders have a solid picture of the situation at hand. You can't do that in advance except on a very superficial basis.

[Beavah]

Ever get a job from a poor man? You want jobs or petty class warfare victories? Pick one.

 

Yah, I agree with most of your post, JoeBob. But this one unfortunately has broken down.

 

There is no incentive for a wealthy individual to build a business or employ more people so long as they can get a higher return by playing the high-stakes financial derivatives and stock pump-and-dump market. Why would anyone spend the time and effort to build a business and employ people to earn 8% down the road when yeh can play the unregulated markets and rob pension funds, naive retail investors, and taxpayers to the tune of 20% per annum right now? Especially when as an exec your compensation in stock options incentivizes short-term gains? All you can do to make short term gains is try to takeover and destroy a healthy business. Buildin' industry and jobs only gets yeh long-term gains.

 

That's da problem, eh? Our deregulation of the financial markets and da executive compensation structure has led directly to the death of our industry and the failure of conservative financial principles like those you comment on.

 

Conservative financial principles rely on conservative social principles, eh? Yeh need real corporate business ethics, and as Buffet is tryin' to demonstrate, a deep Christian sense of charity for them to work. That's da piece that the neo-conservatives in Congress have forgotten, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Mr. Boyce]

Beavha: some good points there. I, too, have wondered why anyone with some capital to deploy would risk it in a small (unprotected, right?) business, when there are so many special investment options out there, totally secure (bail-outable, since we want to keep the rich fat and wealthy).