Erick Erickson could spin better than this.

That’s going to leave a mark with Rove.

OTOH, Erick’s going to be using this post as a reference in his quest for wingnut welfare grants. “DFHs admit that I’m better than that Karl Rove!!!”

This will lead to much laughter at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere.

Your point is like saying that a quarterback coming into game where the team is behind is not responsible for how well the team does after he comes into the game.

Aside from all that, Obama himself stressed how important the war in Afghanistan was, he took it on as his baby. “Bush did it wrong and I’m going to do it right,” was essentially how he phrased it.

Well, let’s see what he can do. As McChrystal says, it can still be made to come out OK. But, that depends on what we do NOW.

can still be made to come out OK

Define “OK.” In specifics, not some generalized claptrap.

WHEN will Karl Rove receive HIS judgment for his ability in creating George W. Bush’s messes?

Karl Rove is nothing if not a fat bald dastard.

The responsibility for the outcome of the war in Afghanistan rests squarely with Mr. Obama.

Actually Rove is correct. He is just the worse person in the world to be saying it.

And, what Rove was referring to was a practical matter. If Afghanistan does down the tubes, Obama will be blamed. Maybe not by the 20% who read this blog, but by enough of a majority to make it stick.

Unfair? Yes, but that is how it is.

Of course, I am hoping Obama does well.

Your point is like saying that a quarterback coming into game where the team is behind is not responsible for how well the team does after he comes into the game.

That is a completely inept analogy. This “game” has been going on for 7 years, because Bush failed to win. It should’ve been over long ago.

But even to indulge your scenario, Bush has had the ball for 4 quarters and has thrown a bunch of interceptions, and is down 4 scores. And Obama’s had it for two minutes — and Rove is saying “it’s all on Obama.”

It’s absurd.

No he won’t. Nixon wasn’t “blamed” for “losing” Vietnam.

Oh sure, he’ll be blamed by the GOP, but not the electorate — and certainly not history.

Define “OK.”

We leave.

Karl Rove is a moderately-bright bully who sees ethics as an impediment and who would normally not be talented enough to make it even as a Republican, but was lucky enough to be able to cultivate the Bush family — which is not only very rich, but has ties to entities far richer. He confuses this with being a genius.

We should have a GWB monument someplace. A permanent picture of him in front of the “mission accomplished banner”

No, no, Hugh, I wasn’t looking for the correct answer, I was looking for the rationalizations for staying. I’m really curious as to what these people think we can do that the British couldn’t do three times and the Russians once.

OK, to me means not a re-establishment of the Taliban as governing Afghanistan. Not some grand “victory.”

If you think there is no possible good outcome, then I would imagine you think it best to leave now and not waste any further effort.

Fair enough. But what do you see as the specifics of the future under that scenario–not generalized clap trap? Do you think the Taliban lives happily ever after as well as the citizens?

More specifically, what do you think will be the reporting from Afghanistan 5 years from now should we leave today? What kind of news reports might we see filed?

If Afghanistan does down the tubes, Obama will be blamed. Maybe not by the 20% who read this blog, but by enough of a majority to make it stick.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday morning [September 15, 2009] indicates that 39 percent of Americans favor the war in Afghanistan, with 58 percent opposed to the mission.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI…..index.html

Do the math.

my head just exploded.

Your point is like saying that a quarterback coming into game where the team is behind is not responsible for how well the team does after he comes into the game.

Well, sorta. Only if you grant that the end of the game happens when the new QB says it does, and accept that the new QB doesn’t have any responsibility for the first part of the game…

Aside from all that, Obama himself stressed how important the war in Afghanistan was, he took it on as his baby. “Bush did it wrong and I’m going to do it right,” was essentially how he phrased it.

Well, let’s see what he can do. As McChrystal says, it can still be made to come out OK. But, that depends on what we do NOW.

Well, Bush pretty much left things WORSE that when he started the war, so overall outcome can theoretically be laid at Obama’s feet, but only after due consideration to the shit hole that it was when he took over.

If he in fact (as you put it) Afghanistan goes down the tubes, then yes, that will be Obama’s fault (at least partially, since its already well on its way), but I don’t think McChrystal is the right messenger nor is he carrying the right message. We need to stop doing the same old stupid shit (like killing innocent civilians, flouting their beliefs and treating them like targets in a target practice range and do something new & different, like maybe pulling the douche bags guarding our embassy out of Kabul and hiring/training/supporting some locals for that and many other positions, stop supporting those who rig/steal elections, and provide a real alternative to the Taliban.

Give them reason to support us, and maybe we can succeed.

I’m really curious as to what these people think we can do that the British couldn’t do three times and the Russians once.

We do better at sucking up to the Afghani war lords who have been supplying heroin addicts for centuries.

There is no time limit to this “game.” Many people have shown in the past that bad situations, if acted upon with good leadership, can be turned around no matter how bad the situation.

Yes, if there was a time limit, your feelings would be correct.

But, as I said, it is a practical matter; if you are President, and something goes down on your watch, no matter the prior history, you get blamed for it. The converse is also true (so there is some element of fairness), if something goes well on your watch whether you had a hand in it or not, you get the credit. That is life in the big time.

OK, to me means not a re-establishment of the Taliban as governing Afghanistan.

Yes, so much better to have warlords and narco-traffickers in charge who have made Afghanistan one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

Do you think the Taliban lives happily ever after as well as the citizens?

Have the Afghans been living happily ever after during our 7 year occupation?

Dragon, I believes you are being lectured

I guess part of the problem was that Bush failed to believe “wholeheartedly” in the Afghanistan war and managed, like everything he touches, to fuck it up.

Of course, Bush believed “wholeheartedly” in his Iraq war and still fucked it up. Like everything he touches. Also.

means not a re-establishment of the Taliban

Do you have a plan that does not involve the use of military force? If not plan on our grandchildren having to fight there.

Oh, yes, and while you are defining “OK” please account for how far into minus-OK we are and how we make that up to just get back to zero-OK.

Thank YOU.

We should have a GWB monument someplace

a sort of secular wailing wall where successive generations could go to express their feelings about W’s legacy.

bushels of eggs and tomatoes will be placed judiciously.

I’m really curious as to what these people think we can do that the British couldn’t do three times and the Russians once——

Hmmm…maybe completely implode their OWN country by waging war without end,amen?

Looks like weve got a good head start with the Wall STreet bailout,no jobs,no health reform,etc.etc, ad infinitum…..

Everybody, duck!!!

YOu are talking about something quite different. I am talking about who will be blamed if it goes down the tubes. That is different from who favors continuing or not.

Do you think that if 70% favored bailing out GM and the government taking stock in it, that it would mean that no one would blame Obama if it went down the tubes?

They are two different things.

You didn’t answer the question.

I can learn from anybody, even ideologues. *g* This one just hones my arguments.

Ding! Ding!

But it’s still minus-OK and it’s on us.

Huh?

When my son was in Afghanistan he was very much involved in devising the plan for an attack on Tora Bora where OBL supposedly was cornered. It was rejected by the higher ups in DC. Wonder how things would be today if OBL had been pursued.

We can’t fix Afghanistan. We have to provide safe passage for any refugees and leave it to the Taliban, and then manage the borders to contain the virus, kinda like Iran. Or North Korea. Or whoever.

That’s reality, man.

Again, the question wasn’t answered. What is your better alternative? That is what I am asking.

Many here want us to leave, OK, but what do you think the reporting will be 5 years from now?

Besides that, the one thing I have read that IS common over there, and the only thing that is giving us any thread of cooperation is that the population doesn’t want the Taliban back. So, that tells me they may not be living happily ever after, but they are living happier than with the Taliban. Or, they’d be in a big rush to get them back.

But, maybe we should let the Taliban come in and schedule some rounds of public hangings to entertain the people.

I don’t have a crystal ball. Your goal of “not a re-establishment of the Taliban as governing Afghanistan” shows that you’re unfamiliar with the culture, the history or the ground.

I think you are dreaming.

Your question is a red herring. Another bright shiny object to distract from the reality what’s going on NOW.

Buh bye, troll.

YOu are talking about something quite different. I am talking about who will be blamed if it goes down the tubes. That is different from who favors continuing or not.

That makes no sense at all. If nearly 60% of Americans are against the war and we leave, then that’s it. What happens there happens there. He may or may not rain in Brazil, neither we nor Obama are responsible for that either.

Is an active war theatre in Afghanistan REALLY worth 45,000 dead every year at home due to lack of proper health coverage?

Is it? Really?

My only point is that that reality is a worse reality than what exists now.

But, whether the war is good or not wasn’t the original point. The original point is that Rove is right, no matter how fair or unfair, Obama will be judged by the results in Afghanistan. Had he not embraced it, had he said it was a mistake all along, he wouldn’t be. But, that isn’t what he did. You might say he doubled down on a bad bet.

Sorry, SD ~ I was just adding to your brilliant request for definition, along the lines of we have actually made things worse. *bows*

Are you saying that the Taliban has always governed Afghanistan? I’d say if there have been long periods where they haven’t, then there certainly can be long periods where they aren’t.

But, arguing the good or bad of the war is not really the topic.

Even IF it’s true that the population doesn’t want the Taliban back (is that something like 70% of us wanting the public option and it ain’t gonna happen anyway ..?) THAT STILL DOESN’T MEAN that we and Nato can make the Taliban go away.

If wishes were horses …

What is your better alternative?

Leaving.

There are dozens of countries on this planet with terrible governments and somehow we have managed despite the efforts of neocons like you to avoid invading and occupying them. Afghanistan is the responsibility of the Afghans. We can offer them what aid we can. We can look out for our security interests there as we do with other countries in the region short of invasion. But the alternatives aren’t ours. Afghanistan, like Iraq, was never ours to win or lose. Get used to it.

:-))

If Obama is going to be blamed for staying and any outcome when there is no possible good outcome and Obama is going to be blamed for leaving …

THEN …

WE CAN LEAVE RIGHT NOW!

Great!

It works for me.

Actually, that’s a fine analogy. He’s talking about the future and you’re talking about the past. Yes, Bush was an idiot who made a mess: so what now?

Try this: The BushCo Garage misinstalled your car’s water pump and caused severe damage. You take the car to Obama Motors where they say they can fix it. If they can, they’re heroes. If they can’t, they’re fakes. If they make it worse, they join the loser list.

Perhaps, but it stands a better chance than if we keep on killing random civilians.

wake up people:this is not the President,s war. it,s the world,s war.The WORLD,S WAR’ not Mr.Obama,s.

Killing any civilians is how we started losing this thing. At least McChrystal is clear on that. But it’s far too late. Obama should have stopped that on Day 1 ~ instead he let the military continue to be sloppy. Now it’s finally a long-overdue high-level policy discussion and it’s way too late for that. We showed that we didn’t care.

I think the population is so integrated and interwoven that any local police/miliatary effort is going to be infiltrated and subject to being blown up in droves … certainly as long as we are still there.

fails to achieve victory in 7 years in Afghanistan

After pounding the enemy into the ground in the first several months of the war.

Exactly so, but if Obama decides that we have to try and clean up our mess, we stand a better chance of succeeding if we stop the B.S. and start doing some good for the people of Afghanistan.

Emptywheel has a new cross-post up: “What Judge Sullivan’s Opinion Means”

Victory is achieved by turning corners measured in Friedman Units.

Victory (Success) occurs daily as the Military Industrial Complex drains our supply of worthless paper money (success). Crunch all you want, Helecopter Ben will print more (success). No money for us working fools. We think we can do more with less (success). Pretty soon, we won’t even need social security. We can give it to Wall Street (success).

All this daily success is a sign of Victory. Victory in Afghanistan. Vistory in Iraq. Victory for the victors. To the victors go the spoils. We get shit. No jobs. Jobless “recovery”.

Obama is a mastermind.

Right, like Nixon was blamed for Vietnam.

We have a couple of George W. Bush monuments:

– Ground Zero
– New Orleans
– Gitmo / Abu Ghraib

Not to mention every home that lies empty because of CEO Bush’s economic stewardship… every headstone in Arlington from Iraq & Afghanistan… and every mansion and private jet bought with the trillions of our tax dollars handed over to war profiteers. Heckuva job, you betcha!

OMG, that’s hilarious and somehow entirely appropriate. LOL

But, as I said, it is a practical matter; if you are President, and something goes down on your watch, no matter the prior history, you get blamed for it.

Got some evidence to back up that assertion? Because I find that a) Nixon didn’t get blamed for Vietnam; b) Eisenhower did not get blamed for Korea; and most recently, c) W. didn’t even get blamed for 9/11 (see the 2004 election).

Sometimes you get what you wished for, even if you take a very long circuitous painful route. Bush got to be president for two terms despite all the crap he put us through and which will remain with him in the history books (the ones he hopes will redeem him in 100 years). He probably wishes he could have achieved his goal in some easier, but effective way.

What’s ideal in Afghanistan? What do we really really want for it? Take any route and you will probably still end up at what you ‘really really want’. Of course, most people appreciate a shorter less painful trip if it can be achieved.

This is why I said it was useful for Pres. Obama to set broad goals for healthcare reform and just stick to that. I think, whatever means we get to, those goals will largely be achieved. It just might not be the legislation we had originally envisioned.

Better and better. LOL

What is “OK” wrt Afghanistan? Well, we needed to crush Al Qaeda. Have we achieved that? We would like to capture & question bin Laden (if alive) and al Zawahiri. We would also like to help Zardari fight the Taliban, get some Justice for the assassination of Bhutto, push the Taliban away from the decent population of Pakistan and push the Taliban away from the nukes. Have we done those things?

How well or how much of that we’ve done can be judged by whomever has the numbers on our performance there.

There may be some other reasons for staying in Afghanistan, but making it a great country isn’t one of them. Wasting lives & money forever isn’t one either. If somebody thinks we should stay there THEY have to show why and with lots of convincing color pictures & graphs & stuff. The public won’t stand for wasting our military on garbage.

What precisely was the original “bet”? Bush had our troops over there a long time after Tora Bora and what were they supposed to be doing?

I don’t know that the Obama plan for PakAf is quite the same as the one Bush had. The “bet” he’s placed is simply different. The Dem party said we should go over there and deal with Al Qaeda. Have we done that? Forget Bush. Has this gov’t done the job?

Staying without a reason would be as moronic as anything Bush did. Do we want that?

Indeed. Yet there was strong evidence Al Qaeda remained viable. This raises the question of what defined “victory” or “completion”. For that you have to go back to the original goal(s). Were they achieved?