And the Big Fool says to Push On

I'd prefer he disengage from Afghanistan (rapidly) but framing this as another Vietnam doesn't seem all that apt.

Did the insurgents in Vietnam actively seek nuke material from Cambodia to strike an American city or two? What part of New York was struck by the guerrillas trained in North Vietnam in the early 1960's?

He'll dig us out of that place eventually. He will do it despite the "my way or the highway" naysayers on the left and the right.

I've noticed the survivors of the 60's tendency in their sunset years has been to re-embrace the polarizing politics of their youth. Unfortunately, the calmer/moderating voices of the WWII generation have largely left the scene. That is the environment in which this decidedly not foolish president finds himself. He's navigating these waters better than most and I for one am grateful given the cynical/reactionary alternatives presented in 2008.

Isn't it clear now, and already from the sad, compromised excuse for healthcare reform being promoted, that the guy either had no intent of going where he led the Left to expect, or doesn't know how to.
Max, the U.S. has been heading toward the rightward "pole"--what most anywhere else would be called the far, far right--for 3 decades; a push toward the left can hardly be termed polarizing (agreed, though, that it's going to be hard to navigate against the reactionaries' pull in the next elections).

Paula,

I don't disagree about the countries accelerated lurch to the right (thanks to the previous administration in particular). If the current administration fails the next candidate from the right (shiver) will make Cheney look like Pete Seeger.

I believe the current President doesn't do short game tactics he plays long ball. The same strategic long ball approach that had pundits at Fox AND CNN smirking when Obama threw his hat in the ring. Three years from now he'll be able to say either 'mission accomplished and we're out' or 'hawks you had your shot and blew it and we're out.' Either way we're out.

Regarding healthcare, had he built the left's dream plan it would have died in the Senate. Then the left could be self-satisfied, blame the blue dogs and once again not deliver anything but pious positions. If the plan as currently built makes it through to law in 3-4 years I'd wager healthcare will look much more like what the left said they wanted.

At this point I'm putting my chips on the long ball. after 8 years of often simple minded tactical sprints from the left and right it just feels like the right way to go.

I am pretty sure every President since JFK or at least Truman, heck, maybe even Wilson, has simply taken his marching orders from the shadow government bent on Globalization (ie-global government). These quagmires all serve a purpose towards that end, even if not in the national interest.

Maybe the British elite just outsourced their empire building across the Atlantic and we still serve the crown and the money power in London (or is it Shanghai now) by providing military services and interest on the debt needed to support that service, or perhaps it is the Bilderbergers or some other group, or just a consensus among the ruling elite who have learned it is better to rule in the shadows and get along with each other while screwing the lower classes.

Of course, conspiracies do not exist, so say those who serve the conspirators, so it must be a coincidence that every President is simply an idiot clone of the other, no matter which party. Hope and change, roll that dice again, and see you in 2013 to talk about the new fool or the 2nd term fool.

It is a sad day. Obama seems to have forgotten all of his promises. There is no Hope. There is no Change. Just more of the same.
Eisenhower was right. The military-industrial complex runs the country and a constant state of war is good for their business. Keep us afraid and we are easier to control.
Obama has so much promise and we placed our faith in him. Sad to see him turn out like all of the rest.
It would have taken real courage to go against the military and corporations but Obama does not have that courage. On health care, he is selling off 'reform' to the highest bidder (and that's not people who need health care).

Dear Max,

The 'insurgents' in Vietnam were backed by China. Which did indeed seek nuclear power and have it. Were we really threatened by that relationship? Apparently, no. Although now we quiver and quaver at the rising economic power of China and we buy products made in Vietnam without thinking twice about it. We even vacation there because, you know, it's so exotic and all.

But I'll accept your point and agree that the comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan isn't "all that apt". It doesn't actually matter. The decision to continue the war in Afghanistan and to increase and extend our commitment to it is wrong whether or not that decision resembles the decision to stay in Vietnam. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

PFT, yes we are told conspiracies do not exist and to posit them is to be a crazy, then we watch Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar and have absolutely no problem with the idea of a conspiracy to kill Ceasar. Of course conspiracies exist, the problem is that they are by nature hidden and therefore trying to guess them can result in crazy theories (some of which may be true). Meanwhile TPTB conspire to convince us that no conspiracies exist so even tho the second investigation in Congress had to conclude there were at least 4 gunshots when JFK was killed, they quickly shut up shop, went home, failed to investigate and played it down. They even suggested that maybe by chance there were two crazy lone gunmen on that day in Dallas.

When JFK stopped taking his marching orders he was killed. How can we expect any president after that to disobey?

Max: No war is exactly like any other war but the similarity here is the decision that Obama and Johnson had to make about escalating or de-escalating and the likelihood escalating will net out positively for us and the Afghanis. We took the position from the outset (even before the outset) that there was no justification either in international law, morality or national interest in invading a country that had not attacked us. Being a home for terrorists can not be a pretext for war. if it were, the UK would have been jusified in attacking South Boston, Cuba in attacking Florida, the Federal gov't for attacking Montana (militia) and of course Iraq would have had every justification for attacking the US after we invaded them. If that were the principle, the only thing that prevented justified attacks on the US was military might and the imbalance of power. That's not a principle we should be claiming. And of course the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis and the Saudi gov't is essentially no different than the Taliban (except they have oil and US connections).

Afghanistan was always wrong on principle and wrong morally and wrong legally and pragmatically it is a debacle as Alexander the Great, the French, the British and the Russians had cause to know. But the Big Fool says to push on. Even smart people can be fools.

K: The congressional investigation that you reference based their findings primarily on audio evidence from a recording of police radios, but that particular evidence has long since been debunked.

JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and there was no conspiracy. Read "History Reclaimed" by Bugliosi, and you'll realize that any other theory of conspiracy sounds crazy, in comparison.

Yes, when I heard about the troop surge I was disappointed and even more disappointed that the Taliban have already done a press release that they will respond. I read some of the comments... very interesting. Personally I don't think that war is a good solution period. The United States and Afghanistan have long histories of fighting wars so I guess that's what they're good at. It would have been nice for him to also visit either Nakasaki and Hiroshima during his last Japan visit (no US president ever has)especially since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price... and it would make more sense for him to consider more of a diplomatic solution than more troops. When is there going to be a draft so that the American's wake up to all those that are dying?

Max, I agree with you about Obama looking to the long term. Since voters don't (but should) I hope it works for him! And I agree that if his policies lean further left than many people find acceptable, eg regarding health care, nothing will get done. He's hoping to accomplish something rather than nothing. Small steps.

To those who are disappointed with his decision about Afghanistan, didn't he campaign on committing more resources to this war? Maybe I've misremembered.

All: Just to be clear. I'm disappointed but not surprised. He campaigned on doing this. I said then and I am saying again it is wrong. He didn't change his tune and neither did we. Many Democrats were glad to use Afghanistan as a stick ot beat up on Bush. But it was dumb. Iraq is and was an atrocity and a debacle, but so is and was Afghanistan. Obama's position in the campaign was terrible on the war as a result (right on Iraq, wrong on Afghanistan) and on health care he was also the furthest right. So neither is a surprise, although both are a disappointment.

But then there's: Guantanamo, repeal the Patriot Act, do away with the military tribunals, put more money into education, support teachers, solve the Middle East problems, stop Israeli expansion into what's left of the West Bank and Jerusalem, strengthen the right of choice, do away with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and too much else. Maybe he'll deliver on some of it. Maybe. He gets high marks from me for not being George Bush. But not much else. No free passes.

That's all urgent stuff that needs to be done. Instead he is doing something that make doing any and all of those things more difficult. And we are saying we think so. Long term? In the short term he's just doing what he said he would do. In the long term he will only do what we make him do.

I can't argue with anything you say here, because it's all true. One phrase, however, caught my eye:

Being a home for terrorists can not be a pretext for war.

You might want to check your international law on that. Other than that, though, the extreme Left and the extreme Right seem to have morphed into one Extreme Reality-Based Community - with the center left to its crack pipe. Not the only issue on which this has happened.

moldbug: I'm glad to be corrected. Do you have a cite?

Sure - from the link I gave, Vattel, who was generally considered the canonical authority on international law from the mid-18th century to the end of the 19th, including of course by the American Founders. From his introduction, two paragraphs which get as close as it comes to the essence of classical international law:

The laws of natural society are of such importance to the safety of all states, that, if the custom once prevailed of trampling them under foot, no nation could flatter herself with the hope of preserving her national existence, and enjoying domestic tranquillity, however attentive to pursue every measure dictated by the most consummate prudence, justice and moderation. Now all men and all states have a perfect right to those things that are necessary for preservation, since that right corresponds to an indispensable obligation. All nations have therefore a right to to forcible means for the purpose of repressing any one particular nation who openly violates the laws of the which Nature has established between them or who attacks the welfare and safety of that society.

But care must be taken not to extend that right to the prejudice of the liberty of nations. They are all free and independent, but bound to observe the laws of that society which Nature has established between them; and so far bound, that, when any of them violates those laws, the others have a right to repress her. The conduct of each nation therefore is no further subject to the control of the others, than as the interests of natural society are concerned. The general and common right of nations over the conduct of sovereign state is only commensurate to the object of society which exists between them.

Vattel, p. lxiv. Note that "natural" is meant in the sense of "natural law."

Clearly, the Taliban government in Afghanistan was wilfully and knowledgeably sponsoring al-Qaeda (just as the Serbian government sponsored the terrorists who committed the outrages as at Sarajevo - or Emerson and his friends in the Republican party sponsored John Brown). Despite the camouflage of plausible deniability produced by the absence of a formal organizational link, clear chains of responsibility exist. Moreover, under classical international law, a sovereign has little ability to escape responsibility for anything of importance that happens on its soil. If the attack comes from Afghanistan, it is an Afghan attack, regardless of the internal structure of Afghan government. Thus, the casus belli is quite clear-cut.

Bear in mind: I am citing classical international law, not modern international law. As a progressive, you believe the former to have been invalidated by the latter, which owes more to Benjamin Franklin Trueblood, LL. D., than to Vattel or Grotius or Maine or any of the other pre-20C experts on international law. Under modern international law, war is yucky - harmful to children and other living things. No one has the right to make war, any more than they have the right to pollute the environment or call a black gentleman a wog. This attitude is growing only stronger - if you are not correct now, you will be soon.

Of course, to classical international law, the US's behavior in the 20C is pretty much a textbook case of what not to do. Again, we can agree on this! BTW, if I can get you to click on just one more link, I'd love to know what this page from LIFE Magazine does for you...