Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Watching the reaction to Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan has been very interesting. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about it either way. I know less about such matters than I do about almost any other political issue and I must therefore rely more on the judgments of others, like Spencer Ackerman, who are far more knowledgeable about it.
But the spin from the right is quite fascinating to me. They support an escalation in troops, which Obama is giving them, but they still have to find some way to attack him for it. So no matter how much his policies are in line with their own, he must be attacked. Spencer nails the Wall Street Journal for this headline:
U.S. Opts for Limited Surge
Which has now been changed to:
Obama Plans Accelerated Troop Deployment for Afghan Mission
Spencer responds to the first headline:
Two things. First, a "surge" is not the same thing as an "escalation." Here's how to tell the difference. A "surge" is a one-time deployment of additional troops. If the new troops complete their tours, go home, and troop levels return to what they were before those troops deployed, then we have a surge. If, on the other hand, other troops relieve those troops, keeping the total troop contribution at the higher level, then we have an escalation. The available evidence suggests that what the Obama administration envisions is an escalation, paired with an ultimate time-horizon for ending the war, beyond any combat brigade's year-long tour. That's, for instance, what Gen. Stanley McChrystal was quoted yesterday as envisioning. We won't know for sure until Obama's West Point speech tonight.Second, and this is a judgment call, but how is this a "limited" troop increase? The Journal says that the troop increase will total around 30,000. The Washington Post's headline says 34,000. If either figure is correct, that means Obama will order tonight a greater troop increase into Afghanistan than President Bush ordered into Iraq in 2007 for the iconic troop surge. What's more, there are about 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan today, versus about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2007, so relative to the existing base total of troops, this Afghanistan troop increase is way bigger than the Iraq one. Agree with it or disagree with it, there's nothing "limited" about it.
But why let reality get in the way of a little propaganda?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 3, 2009 9:34 AM
The Right's plan for Afghanistan:
If Victory - Credit McChrystal
If Stalemate - Blame Obama
In addition, the Right is lying about the plan. The new plan only starts troop withdrawals on the planned date and then only in specific areas where risks are minimal. The Right is acting as if Obama put a plan in place that totally pulls combat troops out quickly, which is not my understanding.
The most humorous and dishonest claim was Karl Rove claiming that Bush was victorious in Afghanistan in a shorter period of time than it took Obama to commission, consider, and decide how to react to McChrystal's assessment. I forgot his exact time parameters but I think they were from the point of the initial invasion to the some abitrary tactical victory given Bush never succeeded in Afghanistan, even he admits that (or at least used to, who knows now that the revisionist impulses are kicking in on the Right). I don't have time to cite but it was on the O'Reilly Factor broadcast immediately after Obama's speech.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 3, 2009 9:47 AM
Of course it's a "limited surge." What was the Wall Street Urinal expecting, an infinite number of troops? You'd think an allegedly pro-business rag like that would know better.
The most humorous and dishonest claim was Karl Rove claiming that Bush was victorious in Afghanistan in a shorter period of time than it took Obama to commission, consider, and decide how to react to McChrystal's assessment.
Yeah, that's a total laff riot, if you're with the Taliban. So if Bush won the war that quickly, why are we still fighting it? And why are the Republicans still complaining that Obama isn't doing enough to win?
There's Americans getting killed out there, and the Republicans can't even pretend they know what they're talking about. I've never seen such depraved indifference in my life.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2009 10:06 AM
Obama should start making statements in support of motherhood and apple pie, just to see if the Republicans are willing to go on the record against them.
Are you kidding? Obama's conduct as a father is one big statement in support of motherhood and apple pie; and yes, the Republicans have been on record against it at least since that infamous "baby mama" comment.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Heh, I've always joked that if Obama officially declared that he likes puppies and rainbows, at least one Republican would accuse him of being inverse-racist towards kittens and trying to push the Gay Agenda. Sadly, I'm afraid that I might actually be right.
Posted by: catgirl | December 3, 2009 10:37 AM
Catgirl, I think you're close. But I think both would be attributed to the Gay Agenda. He just wants to make sure there will be enough dogs on hand when legal gay marriage leads mass bestiality.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 3, 2009 10:50 AM
Abbey: Are you suggesting that we might be facing a DOG GAP?
Posted by: kehrsam | December 3, 2009 11:00 AM
While we're belaboring hypocrisy, I am JUST as astounded at folks who; as long as it was W's war; decried all the killing of innocents and needless waste of American lives there.And are NOW defending the same actions by Obama. I pointed out that Obama was only 130 words into his escalation plan before he pulled 9-11 out of his 'bag of rhetorical tricks' to JUSTIFY it...and that he esentially then used a lot of sophistry tricks to esentially say 'we are fighting them over there so we don't have to here'....
Sweet babblin mother of christ, this team player crap covers both sides of the money party coin, as long as the guy doing what the money party wants has the correct D or R next to his or her name these team players will defend them come hell or high water and exploding irony meters be damned.
Posted by: StandingDamaged | December 3, 2009 11:01 AM
No, dumbass, we're not "defending the same actions by Obama." He didn't start the war, nor did he mismanage it to its current state; so his actions aren't the same as Bush's. Your "equivalency" argument is bogus.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2009 11:08 AM
The war in Afghanistan is slightly different than the war in Iraq, considering that Osama bin Laden is actually in Afghanistan (probably). For the record, I am disappointed with Obama's choices on this issue, especially in Pakistan, because I don't think it will be particularly effective in accomplishing anything, including the capture of bin Laden. Still, it's not quite the same as what W. Bush did, and it's really to simplistic to equate the two. Reality matters.
Posted by: catgirl | December 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Herod, something close to that has already happened. You'll remember, when Obama gave a talk to students, encouraging them stay in school and get an education, wingnuts went into an absolute tizzy, with a large number of them keeping their kids home rather than exposing them to Obama's alleged socialistic rant. Apparently, getting an education is a threat to mom and apple pie.
The brain just wants to explode over shit like that.
Posted by: gary l. day | December 3, 2009 11:26 AM
StandingDamaged, do you honestly not understand the difference between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The war in Afghanistan was started in the fall of 2001 in direct response to the attacks of 9-11. It had the support of over 90% of the country when it started. The war in Iraq started in the spring of 2003, and was claimed to be related to the attacks of 9-11, but there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda and Hussein's government ever had a working relationship, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Before that war started it had much lower support, and one of the main reasons was because it pulled resources from Afghanistan. This was actually candidate Obama's position throughout the 2008 campaign. I, like Ed am pretty lukewarm on this decision. It seems to make some sense, but I don't really know. In any event it has little relation to my feelings on the war in Iraq.
Posted by: penn | December 3, 2009 11:33 AM
Anything that makes people view Glenn Beck in a negative light is evil, so therefore education is evil because you might learn how to spell correctly.
Posted by: catgirl | December 3, 2009 1:02 PM
Why is it I am skeptical of someone who inserts all caps into their argument?
StandingDamaged,
Those folks who decried all the killing of innocents are, for the most part unhappy about Obama's decision to send more troops. That response is, of course, pretending that your argument is actually a valid one and, at the same time, pretending that you "accidently" morphed Iraq and Afghanistan, morphed opposition to Iraq into general opposition to all war, and that you "accidently" ignored that Obama said all the way back into his campaign that he would strive to implement a reduction and pull out in Iraq and a reevaluation and, if feasible, redeployment to Afghanistan. I'm certain that those were just accidental oversights and weren't in any way an attempt to pretend that none of these were distinct issues. And honest mistake, I'm certain.
Here is another one of those, "I'm sure you're simply making a mistake here," moments. I mean really, you couldn't be intentionally pretending to be this obtuse, could you? It's just a typo, right? A slip up.
Afghanistan, unlike Iraq during the Bush era, actually is related to 9-11. Afghanistan, if successfully conducted, actually does have a chance at engaging Al-Queda, Afghanistan does actually present an opportunity to reduce their power structure, capture their leaders, stifle their expansion. Whether any of these potentials actually occurs is entirely another matter, but to pretend Obama is repeating the antics of his predecessor is, at best, moronic.
Actually Obama has been taking a beating on this website so again either you are simply making a mistake, are unaware, or you are lying out of your ass. Obama has taken a lot of heat from liberals and libertarians for continuing Bush policies when it comes to government secrets, Habeas Corpus, and other civil liberties issues. He's taken a lot of heat for failing to implement civil rights legislation for homosexuals. All of this negativity has come from the left, from liberals and libertarians.
To pretend that liberals, libertarians, even Democrats are in lock-step agreement over any of these issues is utterly laughable.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 3, 2009 2:37 PM
penn, dogmeat and others have been right on. I don't have a strong opinion concerning this specific decision, but I think the others have addressed it quite well.
I did want to comment on something dogmeat said:
I cannot tell you how many people I have tried to explain this to. Be it tea bagger types or people who just don't take the time to look into these things beyond what they see on cable news. Obama does get plenty of criticism from the left, but it's for the ways he's the same as Bush, not for the ways he's different. These people think he's so liberal and all this because that's the image they get from popular media. He has been anything but that, though. And that is why we're frustrated with him.
Posted by: havoc | December 3, 2009 5:43 PM