Last year I posted here, and at my blog at Standpoint Magazine, a series of "hard questions" for then-Senator Obama, who had shown himself during the primaries and election campaign unusually adept at avoiding such.
Herewith a new edition of Hard Questions for President Obama.
1) What are the US goals in Afghanistan?
2) What, so far as we understand, do the Afghan people want?
Given the degree and length of US and NATO involvement, answers to these questions should be clear, as for instance they are in Iraq, yet they are not.
Readers' answers in the comments section are welcome.
My previous "hard questions" posts may be found by following the link at the tag below.
Showing posts with label Hard Questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hard Questions. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Redux: Hard Questions for Senator Obama
Last year I posted, on this blog and on my blog at Standpoint magazine on-line, an occasional series, entitled “Hard Questions for Senator Obama."
Here were some I posted in July 2008:
1. Why does Senator Obama advocate a surge of troops in Afghanistan though he considers a surge of troops in Iraq to have been a mistake?
2. Why is a stable Afghanistan crucial to US interests while a stable Iraq is not?
3. How long does Senator Obama expect to keep troops in Afghanistan?
4. Why is an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan manageable while the same in Iraq is not?
5. How much does Senator Obama expect to spend rebuilding Afghanistan?
6. Why is rebuilding Afghanistan affordable while rebuilding Iraq is not?
7. Why does Senator Obama consider the ethno-sectarian issues in Iraq to be nearly intractable while in Afghanistan they are something we can overcome?
8. If leaving Iraq will make the Iraqi government behave more responsibly, how will an increased presence in Afghanistan affect the Afghan government?
9. Why does Senator Obama advocate a "surge in diplomacy" and multilateralism in Iraq while simultaneously advocating unilateral action in the Pakistani tribal areas?
10. How large of a "residual force" will be left in Iraq and for how long?
Here were some I posted in July 2008:
1. Why does Senator Obama advocate a surge of troops in Afghanistan though he considers a surge of troops in Iraq to have been a mistake?
2. Why is a stable Afghanistan crucial to US interests while a stable Iraq is not?
3. How long does Senator Obama expect to keep troops in Afghanistan?
4. Why is an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan manageable while the same in Iraq is not?
5. How much does Senator Obama expect to spend rebuilding Afghanistan?
6. Why is rebuilding Afghanistan affordable while rebuilding Iraq is not?
7. Why does Senator Obama consider the ethno-sectarian issues in Iraq to be nearly intractable while in Afghanistan they are something we can overcome?
8. If leaving Iraq will make the Iraqi government behave more responsibly, how will an increased presence in Afghanistan affect the Afghan government?
9. Why does Senator Obama advocate a "surge in diplomacy" and multilateralism in Iraq while simultaneously advocating unilateral action in the Pakistani tribal areas?
10. How large of a "residual force" will be left in Iraq and for how long?
Monday, July 14, 2008
Obama's Re-Calibrated "Plan for Iraq"
I've just posted on STANDPOINT magazine's "Lost Illusions" media column about Barack Obama's NYT Op-Ed "My Plan for Iraq."
My conclusion?
"Obama's primary posturing, and McCain's hyperbole, aside, differences on Iraq are narrowing. That said, Obama concludes his editorial by again underscoring his long ambition to "End the War"; but as I've twice asked in Standpoint on-line posts: what war does the candidate mean he is ending?
"Over the last year, US, UK and Iraqi forces, fighting together, have virtually ended the conflicts against the various parties attempting to thwart establishment of civil society and democracy in Iraq. They’ve done so by defeating those malefactors.
"It’s now clear that, over the last eighteen months, the best way to 'support the troops' was to let them win."
Read the post HERE, please!
Along with Jonathan Foreman and others, I'll be an occasional contributor to "Lost Illusions," which of course took its name from the Balzac novel of the same name, about the 19th century Parisian world of letters.
My conclusion?
"Obama's primary posturing, and McCain's hyperbole, aside, differences on Iraq are narrowing. That said, Obama concludes his editorial by again underscoring his long ambition to "End the War"; but as I've twice asked in Standpoint on-line posts: what war does the candidate mean he is ending?
"Over the last year, US, UK and Iraqi forces, fighting together, have virtually ended the conflicts against the various parties attempting to thwart establishment of civil society and democracy in Iraq. They’ve done so by defeating those malefactors.
"It’s now clear that, over the last eighteen months, the best way to 'support the troops' was to let them win."
Read the post HERE, please!
Along with Jonathan Foreman and others, I'll be an occasional contributor to "Lost Illusions," which of course took its name from the Balzac novel of the same name, about the 19th century Parisian world of letters.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Hard Questions for Obama on Iraq at STANDPOINT
Further to my "Hard Question" series below, I've just posted a piece on my new blog at STANDPOINT magazine.
"Barack Obama has had an Iraq problem building over the last ten months. Ever since General Petraeus’s Iraq counter-insurgency strategy, involving “the surge” of troop deployments in theater, has shown signs of success, the Democratic Party and its attendant commentators have been in a quandary."
Read the whole thing HERE.
"Barack Obama has had an Iraq problem building over the last ten months. Ever since General Petraeus’s Iraq counter-insurgency strategy, involving “the surge” of troop deployments in theater, has shown signs of success, the Democratic Party and its attendant commentators have been in a quandary."
Read the whole thing HERE.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Hard Questions #4 - Obama and Iraq
...as BEFORE, hard questions on Iraq and international matters face Obama.
George Packer in the New Yorker elaborates.
George Packer in the New Yorker elaborates.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Hard Questions - and Robert Kagan
If you want to see someone stick to their guns, watch neo-con, McCain advisor, and classics scholar Robert Kagan on BBC's Hard Talk. Video, available only in the UK, here.
Iraq - More Hard Questions
As note by WSJ:
"This spring, the Iraqi army routed insurgents in three of their most important urban strongholds. These gains follow the success of the surge in crushing al Qaeda in the Sunni triangle, meaning that we are at last on the verge of winning in Iraq and securing a strategic victory in the Middle East. Question: Is this emerging victory – achieved at a cost of more than 4,000 American lives – something we are prepared to abandon after November?
...
"This is the improving Iraq that the next U.S. President will inherit, and it is the heart of the Iraq debate Americans should have in November."
read the whole thing here.
"This spring, the Iraqi army routed insurgents in three of their most important urban strongholds. These gains follow the success of the surge in crushing al Qaeda in the Sunni triangle, meaning that we are at last on the verge of winning in Iraq and securing a strategic victory in the Middle East. Question: Is this emerging victory – achieved at a cost of more than 4,000 American lives – something we are prepared to abandon after November?
...
"This is the improving Iraq that the next U.S. President will inherit, and it is the heart of the Iraq debate Americans should have in November."
read the whole thing here.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Iraq - The Hard Questions
As the press becomes distracted by the latest non-controversy in the primaries, the hard questions about Iraq are receding from view. However, "Iraq," meaning the continuing conflict, the efforts to build a civil society, is not going anywhere. It's always tempting to push difficult questions aside.
The next president will face questions raised by the facts here. , and by Muhammed Fadhil here.
The candidates should begin to address them now.
Also noted, Mudville Gazette retraces his own time-line here. As his parsing shows, his own narrative differed markedly from that of the main-stream media. The LA Times, NYT, and WaPo is only this week catching up to him.
About this Victor Davis Hanson comments:
How odd (or to be expected) that suddenly intelligence agencies, analysts, journalists, and terrorists themselves are attesting that al-Qaeda is in near ruins, that ideologically radical Islam is losing its appeal, and that terrorist incidents against Americans at home and abroad outside the war zones are at an all-time low—and yet few associate the radical change in fortune in Iraq as a contributory cause to our success.
Read the whole thing here.
The next president will face questions raised by the facts here. , and by Muhammed Fadhil here.
The candidates should begin to address them now.
Also noted, Mudville Gazette retraces his own time-line here. As his parsing shows, his own narrative differed markedly from that of the main-stream media. The LA Times, NYT, and WaPo is only this week catching up to him.
About this Victor Davis Hanson comments:
How odd (or to be expected) that suddenly intelligence agencies, analysts, journalists, and terrorists themselves are attesting that al-Qaeda is in near ruins, that ideologically radical Islam is losing its appeal, and that terrorist incidents against Americans at home and abroad outside the war zones are at an all-time low—and yet few associate the radical change in fortune in Iraq as a contributory cause to our success.
Read the whole thing here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)