What Obama didn't do during his Afghanistan deliberation
I was reading this piece over the weekend about Vice President Joe Biden and his role in the U.S. policy toward Iraq. Inside the magazine were several photos of the vice president in Iraq, including one we affectionately here at N&S call “the Paul Bremer look” – when a pol goes to a war zone wearing a suit and combat boots. (Former CPA leader Paul Bremer first donned this look in 2003 while serving in Iraq; every politician since has adopted it. Indeed, it has become perfunctory.)
The piece reminded me that for all the time Biden has spent in Iraq, the president has yet to visit Afghanistan, even as he is about to deploy roughly 34,000 more troops there, in addition to the 21,000 he sent earlier this year. That is, for all the time the president spent deliberating, he never actually touched down on the ground and saw the mission for himself. He went once, in July 2008, when he was running for president, but not since.
Is this a good or bad thing? I can’t decide. On one hand, this trips are costly and largely vapid of actual fact finding. More then anything, they have become political missions. Yet, should the president visit a war zone before he doubles the number of forces going there? Readers, I kindly ask for your thoughts.
I really don't think he's in charge. I think he gets his instructions from advisors, who are REALLY in charge. That's why it will be a long road before USA gets out of that unwinnable war. Just look at Bo, pet Portuguese water dog, that Kennedy gave him. Is that dog wearing Dogly Ogly shoes? Or what? I see family decisions there and advisor decisions on the big stage. But I don't see anything other than those carefully crafted robotic statements coming out of him. Is he a wind-up president? What is real in the White House and what has been crafted behind the scenes? I just can't figure.
Posted by: Maziana | January 10, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Yes, if he doesn't trust the Army, Marines, Air Force, CIA, and State Department officials who are on the ground there to tell him the truth about what's going on. And if that's the problem, we're in big trouble.
Posted by: mary suruma | December 15, 2009 at 01:35 PM
Hey everyone: Thank you so much for your comments. It is a great array of opinions indeed. I find it interesting that there is universal agreement that such trips are not for information gathering but support, theater and politicking.
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | December 01, 2009 at 12:02 PM
It would be a nice gesture to indicate that he has some personal understanding of the conditions to which he's committing the young humans under his control, but it's not a necessary precondition for making policy, particularly when the policy doesn't seem to be driven by any especially rational considerations.
Posted by: Weldon Berger | December 01, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I can't see how he could learn anything on a trip there as President that would be of use in any decision. It would be a purely political thing. He'd do better to get info from people who *can* get closer to what's going on there than to parade through with a bunch of body guards.
Posted by: Suzanne | November 30, 2009 at 08:34 PM
I am much less concerned about whether or not Obama visits Afghanistan than the fact he appears about to repeat LBJ's mistake (as well as the USSR's mistake): escalating an unwinnable conflict.
Posted by: Joe Buck | November 30, 2009 at 07:27 PM
should the president visit a war zone before he doubles the number of forces going there?
as a former grunt in the us army, i don't think that the president needs to put boots on the ground. remember, Obama the candidate flew over Iraq / Baghdad with general betrayus ( photo op more than anything else ).
as for the bremer look suit with combat boots - too bad an IED hadn't nipped that satorial display in the bud.
Posted by: 11BP | November 30, 2009 at 06:18 PM