Others would characterize Obama's deliberations as thoughtful and considered, particularly in light of the fact that the Afghan government is essentially non-existent at the moment (not something Bush had to consider, yet he still delayed sending more troops), AND that Obama has yet to hear Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' assessment of the situation. (Reportedly, this will happen some time today.)
Me, personally? Given that conservatives are complaining that Obama is taking too long on this decision (i.e. "fiddling") I think Bush's sitting on his hands for three months hoping someone else would respond to his own generals' call for troops should also be characterized as "fiddling."
But again, this isn't a term I've used; I'm merely using the right's own words to highlight the similar type of "fiddling" by the Bush administration.
Beyond this, I believe Bush's obvious reluctance to fill troop requests in Afghanistan at a time when they could have made ALL the difference, had everything to do with his focus on fighting his unnecessary and foolish war in Iraq. In light of Bush's failure to respond properly in Afghanistan (resulting in a worsening situation in that country), it was up to the Obama administration to fill McKiernan's requests.
And the Obama administration did just that.
Now, with a fraudulent election in Afghanistan and essentially ineffective Afghan government, we are faced with a dramatic situational change which directly affects our ability to accomplish anything on the ground. We cannot count on the Afghan government/military to effectively assist us, the way Bush could. Because of this, strategies far more complex than throwing more troops at the problem must be considered and refined. Obama will receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendation concerning additional troops in Afghanistan today. I'm more than willing to give him a few weeks to consider Secretary Gates' input.
Interestingly enough, Bush didn't make a move in Afghanistan or Iraq without the input of his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (this could be expanded; Bush repeatedly followed Rumsfeld's awful recommendations with apparently little consideration), and evidently, most of those on the right felt this was appropriate, as I do not recall their pointing fingers at the Bush administration for its long delay in answering troop requests.
For those same people to insist today that Obama make an important decision in Afghanistan without the input of his Secretary of Defense also seems hypocritical.
You do know that casualties are twice as high now as they were last summer don't you??Beyond this, I believe Bush's obvious reluctance to fill troop requests in Afghanistan at a time when they could have made ALL the difference, had everything to do with his focus on fighting his unnecessary and foolish war in Iraq. In light of Bush's failure to respond properly in Afghanistan (resulting in a worsening situation in that country), it was up to the Obama administration to fill McKiernan's requests.
You do know that Bush sent troops to Afghanistan in August 2008 at McKiernan's request don't you. And 42,000 troops were approved for deployment in May 2008 and arrived there last fall. Sounds to me like there was a steady stream of troop deployments last year.And the Obama administration did just that.
I don't believe Obama was in office then.
"Fiddling" is how conservatives define Obama's delay in sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Using the conservative definition, therefore, Bush must also have been "fiddling" while he waited (even longer) for someone else to send more troops to Afghanistan. "Fiddling" is not a term I've chosen; I'm merely using it against Bush the same way conservatives use it against Obama.
However, I don't consider Obama's delay "fiddling," in that he no longer has the luxury of depending on the Afghan government/military to help out as Bush did, AND that he has yet to receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendations.
"Fiddling" is your strawman. Own it.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
here. Follow the link for more info.
You do know that the reason the war in Afghanistan went bad is because Bush diverted much-needed top CIA specialists, elite Special Forces units, regular troops, equipment, and money from Afghanistan to the unnecessary and ill-conceived war in Iraq, don't you?You do know that casualties are twice as high now as they were last summer don't you??
I for the life of me can not understand what it is that makes liberals just have to continually lean on that 'Bush did it too' crutch. Look, Obama said that the War in Afghanistan was the real front line in the war on terror, and that he was going to pursue it that way. He even made a giant show of appointing his own General that took him months to pick, and assured that with his new strategy in place, and his shinny new General, that we were about to make short order of this ordeal. Now come to find out, he doesn't talk to the General, Afghan's are losing confidence, and in the face of a tough, but honest assessment that they need 40K more troops, or they face failure, Obama sits like a deer in the headlights, and his minions make excuses, pulling out once again the tired, 'Well, Bush.......(insert diversion here).
If I could say one thing to Mr. Obama, it would be "Look Pal, you are the man now, not Bush. **** or get off the pot!"