Obama OK's Afghanistan surge
by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:27:59 AM EST
President Obama's Afghanistan speech leaked.
Yes, its a done deal: "The commander-in-chief has issued the orders."
Here's some fate that might save Democrats from this debacle:
An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore pulls no punches:
...Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid?
We thought you would stop the madness.
...You DON'T have to do this.
...You can be your mother's son.
Though I 100% oppose it, I don't find his decision surprising in the least. That Obama is in the same mold as someone like Evan Bayh in terms of his pragmatic don't-rock-the-boat support of the status quo way of doing things in DC seemed obvious during his Senate term. However, Obama won because he ran a campaign that did find believers in him being something different, and this isn't what they projected.
I jest with Moore's letter above, but I don't doubt that he sincerely expresses the feelings of betrayal that those who voted for Obama expecting a change of course in the Middle East wars-- and not 3-4 years down the road either.
I have been pointing out that this is going to become a major primary issue within the party, and incumbents that support the surge should be due warned that they are opening themselves up to insurgent primaries.
Jennifer Brunner, in a competitive Senate primary in Ohio, comes out against Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, Time to Bring Home the Troops: "...I believe the costs are too great--in human lives and economic resources--to continue along the current path. It is clear to me that America must set a timetable for bringing our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible...." I haven't seen any comments by her opponent, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, on the Afghanistan surge.
In case you haven't gathered, yes, going down this path led by Obama is going to drive a deep division into the Democratic Party. I have a feeling that this is a Humpty-Dumpty into pieces sort of moment for the Democratic Party: A '10-'12 primary split within the Democratic Party over the escalation of the US occupation in Afghanistan that could make the current healthcare reform debate look like patty-cake play.
There were a lot of terrific articles written about the coalition that came together in 2008 to finally win. The basic thesis is that the minority around 1972 McGovern's antiwar campaign, which won a plurality with Clinton in '92, finally captured the WH with a majority. You could probably even point back to McCarthy's '68 primary as the true genesis of the coalition. It seems irrefutable to me that Democrats won in '06 and '08 on the backs of those that demanded a different approach than a military one in the middle east. It wasn't just about Obama; but even more about a rejection of the Bush foreign policy approach. Though undoubtedly Obama will frame it differently in a speech tomorrow, this decision by Obama is effectively more of the same (with the 'different' or 'change' TBD at a later date).
Update [2009-11-30 15:59:23 by Jerome Armstrong]: Via David Dayen: who notes this from the Republican challenger to Senator Bennett in Utah: