Plouffe: Republicans want more war
Old Trooper sends us a link from Politico in which David Plouffe, Obama’s former campaign adviser and current senior adviser in the White House, declares that Republicans want more war;
Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Plouffe on his statement, asking “more war? Where are the Republicans calling for more war?”
“Well, listen, the point is, George, our opponent and many in Congress criticized our decision to end the Iraq war,” Plouffe said. “I think Gov. Romney called it a tragic mistake, oppose a timeline in Afghanistan. So — and, by the way, you know, that also has fiscal and economic consequences, because we have to focus on rebuilding this country. And that’s what the president wants to do, is take half the money from ending the wars and focus on rebuilding this country.”
First, it’s probably impossible for anyone to want more war than Obama, given his policies with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt…who else? Oh, yeah…Africa. And Plouffe is conflating the calls for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan with a thirst for war. Republicans wanted a conclusion to the war in Iraq, not a sudden withdrawal which results in hundreds of deaths of Iraqis because we didn’t end the war, we just up and left. And we’re about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration was unwilling to fight the war to a successful conclusion, so they’re just picking up and leaving.
And, by the way, where is “half the money from ending the wars” coming from, Dave? You can’t count on that money being there, just because the Administration plans on being spent somewhere besides the war. It sounds like that vacuous anti-war bullshit. Is the campaign slogan for the administration this year going to be “Make Love Not War”, too?
Yeah, I want the troops home, too, but not if we have to send the next generation to finish what this administration is unwilling to complete now. Like this generation had to do for my generation.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Politics, Terror War
Stephanopoulos should have asked Plouffe if he had a copy of the status of forces agreement that Obama signed setting timelines and force levels for Iraq. We can debate whether it was a mistake to leave Iraq when and how we did, but it was primarily Bush’s mistake. As I recall, the Obama administration was fighting til the bitter end to get Baghdad to agree to let us leave more troops for a longer time. Again, we can debate whether that would have been a good idea, but since it was an effort completely driven by Obama diplomacy, you had to know it was going to fail.
Hmmmm…US history obviously isn’t one of Plouffe’s strong points. Democrats have entered the US into more wars than Republicans throughout history.
What the fuck is a “Plouffe” anyway? Sounds kinda gay.
This from a guy who wouldn’t give an answer if asked if Obama would cooperate with an independent counsel regarding the White House leaks (and anyone who HONESTLY believes they aren’t coming from the WH, I have a bridge to sell ya.)
You forgot Yemen, Somalia (recently announced as ‘ramping up’) and Phillipines, Columbia, Venezuela, and a few other places in some ‘Stans…
AndyN – indeed, and furthermore, even in 2008, with what, 160K troops embedded across the country standing between Iraq and renewed complete chaos, we STILL barely got the SOFA agreement passed. If you’ll recall, the only conditions under which the Iraqi parliament would agree to it was with the promise of submitting it to the people for ratification – a promise which, thank God, they broke. Because had it gone to the people, it would have lost in a landslide.
So my question has always been, how on earth did we expect Iraqi politicians to do something in 2011 that they barely were able to do in 2008? I think Obama had zero room for maneuver, but not because Bush screwed up – because Bush got the best deal he could wrangle, and that was all we were gonna get.
So sick of hearing the tired old “we want to leave, but not until we’re done” line. Please define success in these conflicts, and tell me how on Earth such a thing could possibly be accomplished, even if we stayed in Iraq/Afghanistan for another 20 years? If you’re able to do so, then perhaps you should share your secret wisdom with the brainchildren that have been running this circus for the past decade. There have been no clearly defined objectives, and the vague notions about what constitutes success that have been espoused by both this administration and the last are, to say the least, impossible to accomplish.
So by all means bash Plouffe for casting Republicans as warmongers, but don’t pretend that sticking around in Iraq or Afghanistan any amount of time longer that we’ve been there already is going to make Americans safer, make the people of those countries safer, or ensure a stable, capable, and legitimate government is going to be left in place.
Success in Afghanistan involved rooting out Al Qaeda, overthrowing the Taliban, fighting terrorist bastards overseas instead of at home thus preventing any further attacks on the US for over a decade – that by itself is amazing – and giving the Afghans the opportunity to enter the 21st century and rebuild their country. The fact that many of them choose to spit on that opportunity isn’t our failing, it’s theirs.
Success in Iraq involved overthrowing Saddam, who was a clear and ever-present danger to the international coalition enforcing the no-fly zone, who was either developing or hiding with intent to restart his WMD programs, and thus a continuing threat to our physical security, and had proven himself a constant threat to any degree of economic security. Furthermore, success in Iraq involved quelling violent near-civil war, and giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a 21st century democratic state. Whether they take that opportunity or not is now completely up to them.
I’d rather have seen more time to help solidify the gains in Iraq, but there was no way to do that without completely ignoring the will of Iraq’s people and their elected government. But Afghanistan? I’m worried that ship has sailed…
By that metric, we were successful in Afghanistan within months of our initial invasion; the Taliban was toppled, and Al-Qaeda threw deuces. Yet here we are more than a decade later…
As for Iraq, by that metric we were successful within mere weeks. We didn’t plan on quelling a civil war, and the success that arose as a result of the Anbar Awakening was a huge stroke of fortunate luck for us, and not one that is likely to be repeated anywhere else we decide to go “nation-building,” least of all Afghanistan. Afghans are stuck in such a timewarp and live a life that seems so absolutely backward to us that they don’t even see themselves as citizens of a single country, province, or really anything larger than their immediate surrounding, family, and tribe. There is no way you can take people like that, who have no concept of citizenship, democracy, etc (or even want anything to do with it), and transform them. It’s a pipe dream. Afghanistan is not analogous to Iraq, and there is absolutely nothing for us to gain by staying there.
I expect this is the point at which someone chimes in about “denying safe haven” for terrorists. The very nature of 21st century terrorist activity is such that they do not need a single country, city, or municipality in which to gather an plan their activities. There is no “rooting out” of terrorists; the very notion smacks of ignorance about what terrorism is and why it exists.
Plouffe is a hack, and a bad one. I couldn’t even follow his sentences, and I’m familiar with many versions of English.
The European press gave Plouffe space to sell this tripe, and even they panned him.
What we have here Plouffe, is a failure to communicate. Here’s what you meant to say:
“Yes, George, President Obama tried to satisfy the neocon lust for war with his military adventurism in Libya. But even leaving thousands of widows and orphans, who are currently being preyed upon by just about everyone in North Africa, these warmongering Republicans are playing the hypocrite for not impeaching the President for breaking the law as codified in the War Powers Act.
And, as you well know George, President Obama is committed to peace. His foreign policy is a triumph of peace. Iran had not one but two revolutions that would have replaced the theocracy and super jihadist militant government with a pro-western government that would have given up its nuclear and terrorist ambitions and opened up Iran to American commerce. But President Obama stood firm! He refused to be distracted from his tense, fruitful negotiations with Achmidinijad, who gratefully ensured there’d be no further interruptions for another generation, at least.
George, there’s just no satiating the warmongering GOP neocons. Why, they even object to President Karzai controlling all American operations in Afghanistan. The intransigence of the neocons is leading to higher than average casualty rates, as they protest Karzai’s tremendous effort at coordinating American strikes with local, indigenous forces.
George, the American people understand and appreciate President Obama’s principled stances, like scrapping America’s ballistic missile and air defenses from Eastern Europe, which over the past 25 years incited the former Soviet Union and Russia to threaten America with a stern eyebrow arch. And those eyebrows are thick and heavy.”
I’m probably closer to your opinion on Afghanistan that I’d like to be (especially considering I may be there this time next year…) – but on Iraq, the country was already pretty chaotic in the immediate aftermath of the invasion (remember the widespread looting), and with the pressure-cooker lid of Saddam gone, the place was poised to explode. I think our presence put that off for a time (I know others argue that our presence provoked it, but I completely disagree), but AQI/ISI provoking sectarian violence, al Sadr’s forces agitating in the south, AQI overplaying its hand in Anbar – all that would have happened with us or without us – but our presence, and COIN/the surge, helped get them through that without a complete collapse. The country, and the region, have a chance now. And there’s a chance that we won’t have to go back in next generation. That wouldn’t have happened if we’d have left after a few weeks.
“That’s what the president wants to do, is take half the money from ending the wars and focus on rebuilding this country.” Yeah, and the other half of the money will go for rounds of golf, flights on AF1 for dinner and “date nights”, overseas vacations and funding more give-away programs.
And nothing will get rebuilt, because this clown posse doesn’t know what’s up and who’s who.
Hey, quick question for ya there “E”?
Is this your first enlistment? Just curious.
Sparky: Roger that. Enlisted at 35, did a tour in Iraq at 37, and depending on another unit’s PERSTAT, might get to see Afghanistan next winter. I hasten to add, I typed for my country – never been shot at, I’ve just been a fobbit – my sacrifice is not going into danger, it’s leaving my wife and my liquor cabinet behind.
My befiel is if you want a peaceful or civilized nation, they must have their education lvel raised to the 20th century at least.The most barbaric nations are the most illeriate.
My problem isn’t with pulling out of Afghanistan, but the way it was announced. Either we’re there to accomplish a task and we’ll leave when it’s done (in which case we can debate the value of that task and how we measure ‘done’), or we should get out ASAP and stop wasting lives and money. The current plan wastes lives, money, and time for no definite achievable goal, and announces our planned departure date whether we’ve accomplished anything or not. All they have to do is lie low for a bit and they can have it all because we’ve already announced we’re going to take a few more swings and then go home.
If I were to mobilize to go back again, I’m not sure I would have even as minimal an outlook on it as I did when I left in early ’07. If the leadership doesn’t believe in the mission, why should joe? How the hell do I lead soldiers into something like that?
Sometimes, when I’m having anxieties, I fantasize about a Civil War between Republicans and Democrats, a real shooting war like the one in 1860. Trouble is, we’re too homogenized now to establish boundaries and two distinctly different ways of life.
@17 Well the first clue as to who is a dem would be the distict smell of weed that tends to waif of the more annoying ones. Also the republicans probably wouldnt miss as much.
@ #18 – I’m not saying that one couldn’t tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
I’m saying that, in any given part of the country, there are so many Republicans and Democrats mixed together and living close together that if a Hatfields and McCoys type blood feud broke out between them, one couldn’t separate them, giving the Republicans the South and the Democrats the North. Because we’re too homogenized, It’s too late now to have a CSA and a USSA, albeit a practical solution to most of our country’s problems, imho.
Perhaps I should say Conservatives and Liberals, instead of Republicans and Democrats.