Garry Wills: Obama Buying Second Term With Lives of Young Americans

New York Review Of Books:

I am told by people I respect that Barack Obama cannot pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan without becoming a one-term president. I think that may be true. The charges from various quarters would be toxic that he was weak, unpatriotic, sacrificing the sacrifices that have been made, betraying our dead, throwing away all former investments in lives and treasure. All that would indeed be brought against him, and he could have little defense in the quarters where such charges would originate.

These are the arguments that have kept us in losing efforts before. They are the ones that made presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon pass on to their successors in the presidency the draining and self-lacerating Vietnam War. They are the arguments that made President George W. Bush pass on two wars to his successor.

Read the whole story: New York Review Of Books

Comments

[condor101]

Based on the number of killed and wounded soldiers in the past 12 months, any soldier who goes to Afghanistan should have their head examined. And anyone who joins the military should go to a mental ward pronto.

Based on the current 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan:

odds of getting severly wounded in Afghanistan: 1 in 1000
odds of getting killed in Afghanistan: 1 in 5,000

Those odds really suck.
I bet the army recruiters don't mention those statistics. Nope, they talk about career opportunities and college tuition re-imbursement....blah blah blah.

Sucks for the soldiers who are ordered to go there.
And the survival benefits for the family of dead soldiers is pitiful. Police officers have far superior benefits and don't have the risks like those soldiers.
What a pathetic nation.

[Altruth]

The go so that jokers like you can sit at a computer and type nonsense!

[Altruth]

correction:

They go so that jokers like you can sit at a computer and type nonsense!

[condor101]

People like you said the same thing during the Vietnam War.
Bush, Cheney and the other young from elite families avoided going to Vietnam through their connections.
Result of those wars: over 50,000 Dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of seriously wounded soldiers. Our own military even dumped Agent Orange on our troops which resulted in 10's of thousands of deaths years later stateside.
These are Facts.
Afghanistan and Iraq are the Vietnam of today. Back in the 80's, not even Russia could conquer Afghanistan after 10 years of occupation.

And jokers like you think it's OK for these young people to go there and die.
I stated facts; all you can do is regurgitate garbage from Fox news and the rest of the MSM.

[SCrae]

I don't know why people us anonymous sources like "people I respect." and then expect the reader to believe them. When Obama walked into office, there was a SOFA agreement with Iraq to withdraw combat troops by mid-2010. The rest would come out in the next yr. His admin. has been pressing Iraq to stay on schedule. They need an election before mid-2010 and Iraq passed the needed law on Sunday. Obama mentioned this in the rose garden on Sun.

I'm not convinced he will give McChrystal what he wants. Obama said before the election he would send 3 or more brigades to Afghanistan. It was clear well before the election he would send more troops. Now you say it is his fault if these people die. He never promised anyone he would withdraw troops from AfPak. I know liberal people think he did, but his speeches are available to read. He certainly didnt start these and is trying to deal with them the best he can. Your allegation he is doing it to stay in office is ridiculous.

[Bingram]

Your data seems correct. I supported Obama's campaign and I wish 'change' would move along faster but Obama cannot effect these changes all alone, we need to help !
As I remember He always said, "WE can do it" and he inspired us to dream that what we wanted as citizens could be accomplished.
Obama's strength is his ability to inspire us to help ourselves.
It is up to US to convince those who are stopping our dream to get out of the way or suggest a better plan.
Its up to YOU, its up to ME, its up to US to make needed change happen.

[rzan1]

What makes me really angry is that, if Obama loses the next election, they will still be blaming him. I resent those who feel it is all on his shoulders. They are putting all of our futures in jeopardy.

[Altruth]

Willis must have a hard time going because he is FULL of IT!

[NOPARTYOFNO]

hey morganchya!

why dont you go campaign for PALIN in 2012! and i'll go campaign for President Barack Obama! You can have your party of NO. I'll take Yes We Can!!!!!

[blimie]

Please do not equate Kennedy to Obama. Kennedy was going to pull down troops, there was not a full fledged war on. Obama is a one term President, but we are going to have to live with the havoc he creates for a long time. His decisions are going to cost more young American lives and Muslim lives.

[Dr Scott]

I don't see what the big deal is. Obama cannot possibly win a second term. As long as the republicans control the Senate, he won't be able to get anything done. Its not his fault, of course, but he's wasted a lot of time and political capital trying to win the hearts and minds of the Repubs. The Repubs have fully committed to filibuster everything he wants. In fact, the minority seems to be able to get what THEY want out of Obama without ever giving him anything. Unless you can take another five Senate seats from the conservatives in 2010, it's a done deal. Why he's so happy to jump into his own quagmire is beyond me.

[NOPARTYOFNO]

oh and mr willis where were you when BUSH was starting the war?

some people just hate our prezzie!

[NOPARTYOFNO]

if one thing gets me fired up & ready to go its people pickin on my prezzie!!!!

mr willis maybe you should vote for the PARTY OF NO! NO! NO! NO!

thats all i hear from anybody! we need to support or president and our demmies 100%!

[CommunistUtopia]

Don't worry. Little o is reckless with our military people and and reckless with our money. Look at the tanking dollar. Look at the soaring deficits and overall bad leadership.

[MorgaineChya]

Look at the number of sulcides because of our economy and sky-rocketing unemployment.

Maybe he and the Mrs. will throw another celebrity-filled, million-dollars party. Lord knows, seeing those photos splashed all over the media the next day would really cheer up someone who is looking at having to send their kids to live with relatives because there isn't enough money to feed the kids at home.

[rzan1]

And why is this Obama's fault?. I am unemployed and soon to be without health insurance. Guess what - IT"S NOT OBAMA"S FAULT! The economy tanked before he ever took office. The previous administration nearly destroyed this country. Obama, contrary to what you may believe, does not have a magic wand.

[indy007]

Question for those of you still loyal to this President. As someone who fought hard to help this man get elected, I ask it sincerely:

What does it say to you that so many bloggers on this predominantly progressive website have turned against the President? How do you explain their political disaffection after only nine months? Are we, his critics, missing something in explaining his actions these past nine months?

[parlimentMike]

It says that his supporters remain perceptive.

[NOPARTYOFNO]

i say we need to get movin and remember the pledge during the campaign: YES WE CAN!

have you forgot that? YES WE CAN.

i dont know about you but im fired up and ready to go to support our prezzie!

[DavidDial]

Yes, you are missing political reality. In this regard the left is every bit as deluded as the right is. Try, if you can, to set your ideological blinders aside for a bit. Approximately 40% of the voters in this country consider themselves to be moderates... centrists. More to the point, the great preponderance of Independents think of themselves this way. What this means at the bottom line is that you can't govern effectively from the fringes... either of them. If President Obama tried to steamroll his opponents or shove changes they aren't ready to swallow down their throats not only would he likely be a one term president, Democrats would also lose seats in almost all of the toss up districts. I don't know about you purists, but that isn't a picture I find very attractive. President Obama doesn't always do what I think I might do if I were in his shoes but you know what? I can't think of another human being I think would do a better job of wearing those shoes, including me and I am incredibly arrogant sometimes. That being the case before I start running my mouth about how much he is disappointing me I try to remember any president who actually has made me happier and until I stop drawing blanks I'm going to keep my mouth shut, thank my lucky stars he is where he is and try to do my best to keep him there. Consider doing the same.

[MorgaineChya]

It is you who is missing a political reality.

Have you been following Pew's polls? A few months ago they pubished disurbing findings--Obama is, as we all know, tanking in his job-approval ratings, but that's not the serious part. The serious part is that he is losing large numbers of members of his core support groups, upon whom Obama counts to maintain a Democratic majority in 2010 midterms, and for his own reelection in 2012.

It hasn't improved since then. Now the LGBTs, FINALLY are urging a boycott of Obama and the Democratic Party: votes, support, and contributions.

That Obama sat on his kieester and allowed Congress to totally destroy the REAL HCR he promised us is bad enough--but, as usual, Obama's efforts seem focused on convincing the GOP they are still the majority power in Congress, as can be seen with the abortion-funding restrictions on the HCR bill.

Obama has broken 7 major campaign promise in 10 months. At this rate, he will have broken 403 promises by the end of his first--and hopefully only-- term in office.

We can no longer trust anything he says, and his promises are just for giggles now. Who is so gullible as to believe him after the bait-and-switch swindle he's pulled on the American voters?

Continued--

[MorgaineChya]

Continued --2

This is how it will translate--he's skrewed it up so bad, I can't see how it can be changed no matter what he does.

The Democrats Obama has worked so hard to alienate, being unable to vote Obama out of office in 2010, will take their anger out on the Democrats in Congress, and many Democrat seats will be lost.

If we end up with a GOP majority in Congress in 2010, there is no way OBama can be reelected in 2012. He will be blamed for the loss of the Democratic congressional majority in 2010, rightfully so.

The DNC won't run another Democratic presidential candidate as long as Obama wants to try to be reelected. That means we will have a Republican president in 2012.

UNLESS, if there is a GOP majority in 2010, the GOPdecides to impeach and remove Obama from office. They would have done it by now but they don't have the numbers in Congress to force it through.

And don't EVEN start on me with "what reason would the GOP used." The GOP doesn't need a reason. All they need is the numbers in Congress.

And that may be the best thing that could happen to us and our country, because Biden would then be president and, if Biden wanted to run for election in 2012, I think--based on the apparent possible candidates at this time--Biden would easily win.

[Gretel1or2]

I don't buy it.
I've been on other progressive blogs, and it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that this website is not as "progressive" as it pretends to be. Some of the headlines are downright snarky and anti-Obama, anti-democratic, and anti-White House.

Secondly, there a many posters on here who are clearly right-wing (based on the excuses they make for GWB, Palin, etc), and how harshly they criticize this president for the very things that they were all too willing to excuse the previous president for. They pretend to be progressive, but they are not. Many true progressives are on here less and less.

[NOPARTYOFNO]

YES!

real dems support our president no matter what!! thats what we worked so hard for and im fired up and ready to go!

[MorgaineChya]

I've been on progressive blogs, too, and they run the gamut from DemocraticUnderground (the progressive equivalent of the FreeRepublic website) to Politico, who many progressives pitch a fit about, but they don't censor progressives or conservatives, and so what you see is what posters post.

I fought againt GWBush for 9+ years, starting when he was governor of Texas. He was a bad president, there is no two ways about it. We are stuck in a mess that he--and all of the Democrats who voted for deregulation of the banking industry--created.

I was so thrilled when Obama won. And then he almost immediately threw his LGBT voters under the bus. Can you imagine what would have happened if GWBush named David Duke to give his own invocation? But for many Obama supporters, that Obama had RWarren give his invocation was okay, even Warren's very close business relationship with the Uganda leaders who are sending de@th squads over into DRCongo.

And then, one after another, Obama broke major campaign promises. Plus, he simply wasn't working on what he promised he would, like HCR. HeII, if I wanted the Republicans in Congress and the bluedogs to design the HCR I would have to live with, I wouldn't have voted for Obama.

Continued---

[MorgaineChya]

Continued--2

Then--the big broken promise--instead of bringing our troops in Iraq HOME as he promised, he escalated what was a small, stable coalition military presence in Afghanistan, and sent these multiple-tours-of-duty troops into Afghanistan so they could experience the heII of the beginning of the Iraq engagement all over again.

Now, if this is what you support--I'm surprised you didn't just vote for John McCain. But if this is what you think OBama sold you during the election, good for you.

But you can keep your judgments on others' responses to a clear bait-and-switch scam from a Class A swindler to yourself.

[rzan1]

Interesing, isn't it. It's hard to tell the right wingers from the regressives - oops, I mean "progressives." They are two sides of the same coin. If they do not supprt this president, they they will earn themselves unbelievable setbacks. By the way, I am not convinced the LGBT communitiy will vote against Obama in the next election. There are some very vocal opponents, but these are the ones who won't be pleased, no matter what.

[rzan1]

We have to remind ourselves that HP is not the whole universe, or even the whole country for that mattter. They seem bent on destroying this president with their ever changing stories. Perhaps the queen never left her neocon roots.

[lemonyashes]

Oh you mean the right will villify him? Because the only ones who want to "win" at all costs are the Right, who love wars and guns, and losing/wasting treasure and young lives for no GOOD reason. So what if Obama's seen as weak or a peacenik by the Right. Have you seen the signs and references the right use against Obama lately, there is no worse than that. Ok then I vote Republican for president in 2012 if he doesn't get us out of these two wars that are unwinnable. What is "winning" anyway? Al Qaeda is out of both Iraq and Afganistan so we won, right? If McCain style strategies are the solution in Afganistan then why is Obama president if McCain's ideas are better and stronger and "winning".

[KDog76A]

well I agree in theory, I'm just not a fan of your general assessment of the Right, probably because I lean right, but Im not a hawk...

[tnkeating]

so let me get this strait, you believe this is for no good reason? Unwinnable? I truly can't believe you have any concept of why we are there. In WW2. over 600,000 Americans died to avenge 2900 men and women at Pearl Harbour. On 9-11-01 more than 3000 innocent people died, I watched people jumping from the upper floors of the towers who were traped rather than burn to death, we owe them some justice, all of them and the survivers, you can't quit just cause things get a little tough, it is winnable.

[Pierpier]

"I am told by people I respect". This is how the articles starts.
Out of this second hand speculation comes a scary title: The title is incredibly outspoken and cruel towards the President: willing to sacrifice lives for his own re-election.
If I may add: I am told by people I respect that this article is total bullshit.

[KDog76A]

it is B.S.

[indy007]

You and I both want to believe the premise of this article is bull, but how do we really know?

Are you suggesting no U.S. President has ever weighed political calculus in making decisions about war? Or are you suggesting Obama is incapable of being such a politician? I don't know what's in his heart, but to suggest this President is beyond harming Americans thru his political decisions is, imho, contrary to what we've seen from him so far. Even if we both don't want to believe it's true, it "might" be....

[MorgaineChya]

Why do you think Obama CHOSE--he didn't have to, there was no emergency,and there are plenty of more important issues he should have prioritized--to escalate what was a small, stable, coalition military presence in Afghanistan into a full-on war?

He did it because it suits his best interests (and, we're learning, that's the only reason he DOES anything) --he must appear as a tough national security guy so that, he prays, Cheeneey will STBHUP.

What he doesn't realize is that he allowed Cheeney to taunt and goad him into OBama's Afghanistan debacle. Cheeneey played OBama like a $2 banjo, and Obama fell for it.

I have no doubt he will keep throwing American troops into the me@tgrinder in Afghanistan, as long as it suits his best interests.

If he had one ounce of compassion for our troops, he would not have shoved them into a completely unnecessary escalation in Afghanistan.

[Moshe]

How many young lives is re-election worth?

And how many campaign contribution dollars from the MIC does it take to trump the young lives of dead sons and daughters lost in a known lost cause?

After over 8 years we now have a second administration still searching for a credible mission to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that they don't have to say the real reason:

There are wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so that there will be wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are useful political and profit vehicles for polititians and the MIC.

And the saddest part is that it works. The polititians get re-elected, the MIC gets richer, and the costs in lost lives and wasted dollars are paid by rest of us.

That is beyond sad. It is tragic and immoral.

[MorgaineChya]

Well, we knew Obama would sacrifice lots and lots of our children to war when he broke his campaign promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration and, almost immediately after he was elected, appointed William Lynn, a Raytheon vice-president and lobbyist to the government (Raytheon sells tomahawk missles, in addition to a few other knick-knacks of de@th) as Deputy Secretary of Defense, the second most powerful position in our DOD.

[Truthahn]

I must agree with Wills. As a candidate Obama embraced the Afghan war to show he wasn't a weak peacenik. Afghanistan allowed him to play the tough guy. As President, he can't wind down the war until enough soldiers have died to prove the toughness he simulated as a candidate. Basically, his reelection requires a blood sacrifice.

[Moshe]

Sadly agreed.

And how many young lives is re-election worth?

How many campaign contribution dollars from the MIC does it take to trump the young lives of dead sons and daughters lost in a known lost cause?

After over 8 years we now have a second administration still searching for a credible mission to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that they don't have to say the real reason:

There are wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so that there will be wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are proven political and profit vehicles for polititians and the MIC.

And the saddest part is that it works. The polititians get re-elected, the MIC gets richer, and the costs in lost lives and wasted dollars are paid by rest of us.

That is beyond sad.

[krocklin]

Obviously the occupation of Afghanistan is a losing cause. Costly and inhumane. I can't believe Nato nations would go along with it.

[MorgaineChya]

Obama's escalation of the small, stable coalition military presence in Afghanistan into a full-blown quagmire of a war was an issue of choice. There was no imperative reason for getting us sidetracked into this disaster, when we have so many other really important issues to deal with here at home.

Worse, he went into the war with the same lack of planning that GWBush did, something that Obama criticized him about during his campaign: No clearly definable goals, no benchmarks by which we can gauge our progress toward those goals, no estimates of military and civilian losses, and no exit strategy.

Of course, Obama's choice of McChrystal as his field commander in Afghanistan was a huge mistake, and immediately undercut the credibility of Obama's Afghanistan war.

McChrystal was part of the conspiracy to coverup the phragging/friendlyfire of Pat Tillman. Indeed, McChrystal authorized the SilverStar award, knowing that Tillman wasn't klIIed by enemyfire.

Just on the face of that choice, it looks like Obama's chose McChyrstal because McChrystal had shown himself to be a willing participant in a cover-up of real reasons for a soldier's de @th--certainly, the choice wasn't made because Obama felt confident that McChrystal would do right by the troops under his command.

The Afghanistan quagmire has been a disaster since Obama became president. Our troops continue to return home to Dover, while Obama's scatter-brained approach to Afghanistan, and the rest of his presidency, puts the surviving soldiers in Afghanistan at greater risk.