Joe Biden on The Huffington Post

Biden Serves Lunch To Homeless Men In D.C.

2009-11-13T13:47:24Z

Vice President Joe Biden made a surprise stop at the Father McKenna Center of St. Aloysius Church in Washington, D.C. today to serve lunch to the homeless.

About 80 men watched the vice president don gloves and an apron to serve fish sticks in the nation's capital, which is home to approximately 18,000 homeless people.

Biden said he wanted to serve to remind himself of the grim reality that many D.C. residents face. According to The Washington Post, when Biden left the church, it took his motorcade less than five minutes to bring him back to the White House. St. Aloysius church is about half a mile north of the White House, and less than a block west of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

From The Washington Post:

"I do this at home," Biden said while lifting a piece of crust-covered fish with tongs and placing it on the plate of a man who shuffled by, eyes down, not recognizing his server. "I wanted to do this. I asked where I could do this without a lot of fanfare and they told me I could do it here."

Get HuffPost Impact On Facebook and Twitter!

Jackson Williams: Bush Oil Buddies Divvy Up Iraqi Oil, Now Joined By "Liberal Scion" Peter Galbraith

2009-11-13T10:48:15Z

The ongoing saga of the Iraqi oil patch pie adds a new chapter, courtesy of the Thursday New York Times, and its above-the-fold front pager, "American Adviser to Kurds Stands to Reap Oil Profits."

In today's installment, we learn that Peter Galbraith, former ambassador, foreign policy expert to Joe Biden and John Kerry, and son of the famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, is in line to reap $100 million dollars -- maybe more -- from contracts between a Norwegian oil company and the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. As an advisor to DNO, Galbraith and a partner received a 10% stake in a large Kurdish oil field back in 2004.

What's more, Galbraith has long championed the idea of partitioning Iraq, presumably into three regions that roughly encompass the country's three stakeholder groups (Shiite, Sunni and Kurd).

Why does this matter?

For one thing, the American-created central government in Baghdad has long insisted that it has sole constitutional authority over all of Iraq's oil. For another, giving the central government time to devise an equitable oil agreement between the stakeholders was the main goal President Bush touted when he announced "the surge" in January 2007.

Later that same year, in September, Hunt Oil of Dallas announced an oil production-sharing agreement with the grand poobahs of the Kurdistan region. At the time, Bush briefly feigned concern:

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm - if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

Nine months later, in June 2008, Ray Hunt himself crowed about it at a dinner in his honor. D Magazine's online blog "Front Burner," in a piece titled "Oilman Hunt Sees A 'Soft Partition' For Iraq," quoted the longtime Bush crony parroting the Galbraith line:

"I think that, in the end, you'll end up with a soft partition of Iraq, a very decentralized government, with authority granted to three provinces. The Kurds I think will end up being an example...American democracy is not one-size-fits-all, but, as an example of what freedom can do, it's remarkable that this can happen."

Freedom's just another word for "I'm gettin' mine, boys!" Galbraith apparently figured that out years earlier.

Remarkably, the latest story in the Times states that "Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith's thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith's oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say." Come again?

Vice President Biden may not favor partition now (he's not in charge of foreign policy), yet he certainly advocated it for years. In fact, he co-wrote a 2006 op-ed promoting it -- in the Times, no less! -- and often hyped it as one of his great ideas on cable chat shows. Partition may or may not be a great idea. Still, how does the germane fact of Joe's historic support not make it into the paper's story today?

Alan Greenspan noted in his 2007 memoir The Age of Turbulence, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Since I've previously blogged about this at Huffington Post, I'll just say it again:

Desert Storm in 1990 was also about oil, but Bush the Elder tacitly signaled that the motivation was to protect Kuwait's oil fields, which is why much of the world (including Arab neighbors) approved of the limited military action. "No-fly" zones over Iraq, continued by Bill Clinton for eight years, ultimately turned Baghdad's Bully into the mother of all empty suits.

Ah, but the son also rises.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush the Lesser held a megaphone at Ground Zero, promising that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." That should have meant al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, but it morphed, at least publicly, into Saddam's mythical mushroom clouds and WMDs. Then it became freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and finally it arrived at the fantastical notion of remaking the Middle East, at all cost and with our blood.

Remaking it for whom, exactly? Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon-Mobil, our Chevron shining bright?

Oliver Willis: Liberal Elitism? No. Some People Are, Sadly, Stupid

2009-11-12T20:07:20Z

Mike Elk takes "liberal elitism" to task for not taking the Tea Party people seriously, and that that will lead to the election of Sarah Palin and other such ilk.

To quote our vice president, malarkey.

While I have long argued that there is too much elitism on the left for my tastes, there's a wide gulf between holding your nose in the air for no good reason and dumbing yourself down in order to appeal to the lowest common idiotic denominator. Such is the case with the Tea Party group and their leaders like Palin.

Far from the liberals in the '70s who were clearly not responsive enough to the middle class, leading to the rise of Nixon and resentment politics, today's left has gone to great lengths to be a big tent. So much so that some of our biggest fault lines are internal and don't involve the Republicans at all. But far from the pre-Clinton great society types, today's liberals understand that without blue collar people on our side we don't advance as a movement.

The problem is that the vast majority of the issues brought up by the tea party types and Palin are idiotic. These aren't people with the traditional lower-middle class concerns of Americans (which is my family background) but instead these are people who largely believe the conspiracy du jour, whether that involves secret armies, the president's "true" nationality, or Nancy Pelosi's "death panels" that are set up to pull the plug on Grandma.

While the concerns of many white, middle-class people are worthy causes and should be addressed by liberals (and are), it is not elitism to treat this roving band of conspiracy nuts for the cretins they are or associate with. This would be akin to President Johnson in 1964 undertaking a federal committee to study the mind control powers of fluoridated water. That would be asinine.

Liberals have in the past allowed the ivory tower set to exert too much control over the Democratic party. That resulted in a narrow focus and deserved electoral losses. But the idea that the tea party movement represents any sort of rational discourse deserving of recognition and outreach is absurd. These are, by and large, the same band of stupid people we have always had in this country, whether they were in favor of submission to the British empire, secession from the union, alliance with Hitler, or decrying the president a "half breed Muslim terrorist", we owe them no recognition or inclusion in the important discussion about the direction of American society.

Read more from Oliver Willis at OliverWillis.com.

Secret Service Motorcade Strikes, Kills Pedestrian

2009-11-11T16:52:10Z

According to news reports, two cars that normally make up Vice President Biden's motorcade were involved in a fatal accident early Wednesday morning.

The Washington Post traffic report states that the incident happened at 3:07 a.m, in Temple Hills, Md., at the intersection of Suitland Parkway and Naylor Road. (Though The Hill places the time of the crash at 2:27 a.m.). A pedestrian was struck by two Secret Service employees driving vehicles that were designated for Biden's use. Biden was not in either vehicle at the time of the crash. The victim was rushed to the hospital but declared dead Wednesday morning. The victim's name has not yet been released, and the incident is still under investigation. Read more details here.

Biden Blasts "Cowboys on Wall Street"

2009-11-09T13:56:24Z

Vice President Joe Biden blasted the "cowboys on Wall Street" Monday, squarely placing blame on the nation's financial center for "an economy built on a bubble."

Biden's remarks came during a campaign event in Detroit for a pair of Michigan Democrats in Congress, as reported by Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press.

Discussing the economy, Biden said it was easy to forget "just how horrible things were back in January." But now, as a largely jobless recovery begins to take shape, Biden told the crowd that the administration's measure of success will be whether the nation's middle class emerges from the recession in better shape.

It's the second time this month Biden has referred to the "cowboys" on Wall Street.

During a Nov. 2 campaign event for then-Congressional candidate Bill Owens, Biden said:

Ladies and gentlemen, derivatives, gambling with your money, taking risks that exceed anything reasonable, leveraging things 30 to 1 is still permissible if we do not and if you wondered whether or not they'd go back to their same old ways, I just ask you to pick up the paper. What will -- what will Bill's opponent do about that? I know what he'll do; support reasonable, rational means by which we can get banks starting lending money again. We can make sure that people have a fighting chance and that we do not leave our future in the hands of a bunch of gamblers and cowboys on Wall Street.

Owens, a Democrat, won the race to represent New York's 23rd Congressional District. Meanwhile, various reform proposals for the financial services industry are making their way through Congress.

Ali A. Rizvi: Is the United States Gearing Up to Go Into Pakistan?

2009-11-07T11:22:15Z

In 2007, Barack Obama attracted controversy during his campaign by declaring that if elected, he would be willing to go into Pakistan if there is "actionable intelligence about high-value targets" in the country, and if the Pakistani government "won't act" against them.

During her three-day visit to Pakistan this week, Hillary Clinton seemed to indicate that those two criteria may now have been fulfilled.

On actionable intelligence about high-value targets, Clinton seemed confident that Al Qaeda's leadership is present in Pakistan: "Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002 ... it is just a fact that Al Qaeda had sought refuge in Pakistan after the US and our allies went after them because of the attack on 9/11 ... Our best information is that Al Qaeda leadership is somewhere in Pakistan."

On unwillingness to act, she suggested that Pakistani officials know where these terrorists are, but are hesitant to go after them: "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to. Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."

Even while commending Pakistan's military efforts in Swat and South Waziristan, she said that it was "not sufficient."

Meanwhile, President Obama has been "dithering" (as Dick Cheney put it) on a decision about how many more troops to send to Afghanistan, if any.

He may be listening closely to his vice president. Newsweek's recent cover story on Joe Biden started off highlighting the veep's concerns about resources and strategy in the region: "So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?"

The question is a good one, and Biden's observations are shared by others, notably National Security Adviser Retd. Gen. James Jones, who said of Afghanistan earlier this month: "The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

On Friday, the White House stood behind Clinton's blunt comments, calling them "completely appropriate."

While it may be too early to tell whether Obama will follow through on his 2007 campaign pledge, it does seem like his administration is setting the stage.

Charles Butler: Happy Election Day, Mr. President

2009-11-05T12:17:15Z

November 2, 2009

Here we are one year since the first Black American President was elected to office. I must be honest with you all and proclaim it was a relief not to have Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency.

The Republican ticket of McCain/Palin left a lot to be desired for many Americans. So, it became the adage "Which ticket is the least worst of a two poor choices." We have found ourselves in this position more often than not in the last 40 years. The American people spoke by voting in Barack Hussein Obama and "Poor Joe" Biden.

After I got over the initial shock, I immediately sensed the relief of not having to defend Republican policies and remarks. The focus was on the new team of "Yes We Can" and knowing what I know about politics, I knew they couldn't achieved their promises in the best economic and political climate. However, I hoped for the best and wished them well, for the sake of the country.

My wife and I attended the Presidential Inauguration, the Obama Lovefest, and enjoyed seeing old friends and making new ones on a beautiful day in Washington, D.C. We saw many people that we know walk onto the swearing-in platform behind President-elect Obama. I could not help but think as I was standing there on the Mall with 3 million other people, what is Obama really going to accomplish in office. Knowing that his previous political accomplishments were light by any measure, I was concerned for the country. I thought to myself, will these people be disappointed again by a charismatic politician making big promises: "If the CEO can be wealthy, why can't the janitor, and if I am elected, I will give the janitor and secretary a path to that wealth." The visions of the Senator Obama jumping up on stages and rallying the people around the country with popularist phases played over and over in my mind. I thought how is the President of the United States going to regulate the pay of a CEO of a private corporation? What would give him that authority?

Then the fun began with the selection of the first cabinet members. I can only say that the President promised to find the best qualified people to serve in his administration. Going in I surmised that Black people would see their plight change if we got the slots of Commerce, Education, Attorney General, or Labor at the very least. Many folks were shocked and disappointed that he could only find one Black American that fit those qualifications, Eric Holder the Attorney General. When questioned about the appointment of SECDOE Arnie Duncan, Mr. Obama replied he is the best basketball player in the cabinet. Let's just ignore the fact he ran one of the worst school systems in the country during his tenure. Only 45 students died and 398 were wounded for the school year of 2008/2009. The President of hope and change found plenty of Hispanics, and Asians to fill key roles in the administration. The pay-off for 96% Black voter support.

The Incoming President promised "Hope and Change" for all Americans and an unparalleled level of transparency. Well, the facts are the White House has been very secretive about visitors and policies. Mr. Obama promised to post bills online before he signed them to get Americans comments. Not one as been posted before he signed it into law.

I think President Obama's lack of experience in executive decision making is beginning to show. As the CEO of the country, he has to make decisions that effect a great number of people. He has waffled on Afghanistan troop build up, closing Gitmo, and a host of other issues. The experts are saying the Stimulus monies were a bust and the economic recovery is jobless, instead of the thousands of jobs the President predicted.

I think last year's vote proved people voted against Bush, and not for Obama. Today's votes are about the economy and jobs in the respective areas, not Obama policies. However, people are angry and frustrated over the tax hikes, health care, troops in the war, and the jobless economy recovery.

I have never heard a President and his people lay blame the previous administration so frequently. One of President Obama's supporters said it best. Bill Maher said, "I never thought I would long for the days of George W. Bush and decisions." Please stop campaigning and start governing, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is your country to run now, and you need to stop blaming Bush and Cheney and make some decisions. You can not make everyone happy!

Peace, Charles

Obama Faces Revolt From Generals Over Strategy In Afghanistan

2009-11-04T14:52:23Z

In early October, as President Obama huddled with top administration officials in the White House situation room to rethink America's failing strategy in Afghanistan, the Pentagon and top military brass were trying to make the president an offer he couldn't refuse. They wanted the president to escalate the war -- go all in by committing 40,000 more troops and another trillion dollars to a Vietnam-like quagmire -- or face a full-scale mutiny by his generals.

Obama knew that if he rebuffed the military's pressure, several senior officers -- including Gen. David Petraeus, the ambitious head of U.S. Central Command, who is rumored to be eyeing a presidential bid of his own in 2012 -- could break ranks and join forces with hawks in the Republican Party...

Glynnis MacNicol: A Year of Obama: Top Ten Highs and Lows of the Last Twelve Months

2009-11-03T13:36:31Z

A year ago tomorrow the nation went to polls and elected Barack Hussein Obama the 44th President of the United States. It was a joyful occasion, celebrated the world over, and variously compared to New Years Eve, the Yankees winning the World Series, the opposite of 9/11, and the proper beginning of the 21st Century.

The national political mood of Election Day 2009 would likely not be recognizable to the Obama-happy nation of 12 months ago. What a difference, etc. And yet, it's hard to believe it's only been 12 months! And a mere nine-and-a-half months of actual presidency. And truly it is only a slight exaggeration to say that in the interim it's been all Obama, all the time. With that in mind let's take a look back at the Barack Obama highlights (and some lowlights) of the last year.

Election Night - November 4, 2008

Oh that happy day. Seriously, there were a lot of happy people that day and it had very little to do with partisan politics. It was next to impossible not to be moved when President-elect Barack Obama took the stage with his family at Grant Park in Chicago, the first African American to be elected President.

>>>NEXT: Meeting the Bushes

Related:
Meeting the Bushes

The Inauguration

Barack Obama Saves Print Media

They Kill Flies, Don't They?

The Beer Summit of 2009

Of Tea Parties And Town Halls

You Lie!

Jackass!

The War Against Fox News

William Bradley: Afghanistan, Again: The Thicket Obama's Not Getting Out Of

2009-10-29T14:23:45Z

President Barack Obama is getting ready to reveal his latest strategy for Afghanistan, perhaps after the election a week from Friday. He appears to be preparing to split the difference. Perhaps he should be preparing to split the territory.

Afghanistan has a government, of a sort, but it doesn't really have a nation. It won't have a nation unless we build it. And there is hardly a guarantee that, as the saying goes, if we build it, they will come.

President Barack Obama spent early Thursday morning publicly honoring the return of fallen soldiers. Obama attended the return of 18 soldiers killed this week in Afghanistan at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. He is the first president to do this since 9/11.

In any event, we can't afford to build a nation in Afghanistan. (Not that America has ever been good at nation-building since the Marshall Plan, which involved rebuilding educated modern societies with industrial know-how in the aftermath of devastating them in World War II.) And we don't need to build a nation in Afghanistan. We have one reasonable goal there: To prevent it from again becoming a base for jihadists, as it was before 9/11. Everything else, no matter how seemingly noble it may or may not be, is a luxury. And today, it's luxury that we can't afford -- geopolitically, financially, militarily. America can't play crusader rabbit, rushing about to write all the world's wrongs.

Obama meets with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday to discuss Afghanistan.

The newest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is evidently moving to a compromise between two schools of thought on Afghanistan: the maximalist approach advocated by the new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal; and the minimalist approach advocated by Vice President Joe Biden. One would have 40,000 additional troops go there, in a counter-insurgency strategy of building up Afghanistan. The other would eschew escalation, instead focusing on counter-terrorist operations using surveillance, intelligence, high-tech weaponry, and special operations troops to disrupt potential new bases. Which presently, as it happens, do not exist.

Obama flew very early this morning on Marine One to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for a solemn movement.

Obama looks likely to split the difference. There is talk of four new combat brigades for Afghanistan. That's 14,000 troops. With support personnel, we get to the middle point between McChrystal and Biden.

As it happens, a new poll shows that this approach may fly with voters. But only barely. And perhaps only for now.

With President Obama's ratings holding steady, a brand new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is very revealing with regard to views on Afghanistan, national health care reform, and hyperpartisan fighting and gridlock in Washington. It shows that this is a country that is rather confused and contradictory, and decidedly disappointed, with regard to its politics.

A plurality of Americans now backs a troop increase, and a strong majority supports waiting on a decision until after the country conducts its presidential runoff election next month.

Also, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moves forward crafting a Senate health care bill that contains a public option -- with a state "opt out" -- the survey shows that support for a government-run insurance plan is at its highest level since the debate began and opposition is at its lowest level.

Perhaps most revealing, the poll highlights the public's disgust at Washington, with the number trusting government at its lowest level in 12 years and with nearly half of Americans favoring the creation of a new political party.

Afghan police said an attack yesterday by gunmen on a United Nations house in Kabul left 12 dead. The Taliban claimed responsibility, saying the assault was aimed at the upcoming presidential election on November 7th.

Let's take those one at a time. On Afghanistan, the message is decidedly mixed. Decidedly. While there is support for a troop increase -- which is a sharp reversal since last month -- it's at a much lower level than that advocated by General McChrystal. Think 10,000, not 40,000. And nearly as many want to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan right now.

On national health care, the public option is favored by a near majority. But most doubt the overall plan, not that they understand it. Still, most want to pass an Obama health care plan, while worrying at the same time that it might go too far. Okay then.

What is especially striking is the public disgust with Washington. (It sounds like Californians' disgust with their Capitol.) A big majority says there's too much partisan infighting. Republicans get the rap more than Democrats, but a strong plurality blames both parties. And nearly half want a new, independent party.

But asked to choose between Republicans and Democrats, the not so Grand Old Party gets the decidedly shorter end of the stick. Only 25% have a favorable view of the Republican Party, while 42% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

That ties the Republicans' all-time low. So Obama can sustain some more criticism from Republicans, considering the source.

Eight American troops were killed on Tuesday in Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, officials are scrambling to mount a November 7th run-off election for president between President Hamid Karzai and former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Half the country's local elections officials have been fired in the wake of findings of massive fraud in what was claimed at first to be a landslide win for Karzai. The Taliban say they will disrupt the election. Abdullah says he won't go into coalition with Karzai if Karzai "wins" again.

Perhaps he's looking down the road. Abdullah was the spokesman for the Northern Alliance, the group that was most effective in fighting both the Soviets and the Taliban. (Abdullah, unlike Karzai, who raised money outside Afghanistan during the fighting, fought in both those wars.) The leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was assassinated by Al Qaeda operatives posing as journalists two days before 9/11. (Their camera exploded during the interview.) This was no coincidence. Osama bin Laden banked big credits with his hosts the Taliban, which feared Massoud and would now refuse to serve bin Laden up to the Americans. And both the Taliban and Al Qaeda eliminated a strong ally for America in any retaliation for 9/11.

The Taliban are strong in the south, which is also Karzai's political base, but not in the north, which is Abdullah's base and the place in which the Northern Alliance flourished. Perhaps Abdullah doesn't want to be tarnished by association with Karzai, George W. Bush's handpicked choice inherited by Obama, a figure further compromised by a brother widely linked to the drug trade and reported by the New York Times to have been on the CIA payroll since 2001.

Three helicopter crashes killed 14 Americans in Afghanistan on Monday. It was one of the deadliest days of the war for U.S. troops. Two of the helicopters collided. In the other incident, the helo was engaging Taliban fighters.

And perhaps Abdullah sees that America is very unlikely to sustain a long-term, scaled-up presence in the south. The north is much more capable of sustaining itself free of Taliban domination.

For now, however, Obama seems to be moving toward a less aggressive than McChrystal prefers yet still ongoing form of nation-building for Afghanistan as a whole. To the extent that Afghanistan can be said to be more than a failed state or, more accurately, a never-was state.

Or perhaps Obama's real aim is to buy more time, with a bid to get more European assistance through NATO in building up Afghan security forces while trying to strike a deal with elements of the Taliban. He may get more help, but probably with an exit plan in mind on the part of the Europeans.

That is, unless Tony Blair becomes the first president of the European Union and spins up more support.

We'll see soon enough what finally emerges from Obama's weeks of meetings and deliberation. I don't have a good feeling about it.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Obama Considers Smaller Afghanistan Troop Option

2009-10-28T21:42:27Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, prefers, U.S. officials said.

Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander's broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option's scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal's ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as "McChrystal Light."

Robert Naiman: "Lessons in Disaster": If Obama Caves to the Pentagon, He's No Jack Kennedy

2009-10-27T12:18:51Z

President Obama knows better than to agree to General McChrystal's proposal for military escalation in Afghanistan. He read the book.

On October 7, the Wall Street Journal reported that top officials of the Obama Administration, including President Obama himself, had recently read Gordon Goldstein's book on the path to U.S. military escalation in Vietnam: Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam.

The Journal reported that, "For opponents of a major troop increase, led by Biden and Emanuel, "'Lessons in Disaster' ... encapsulates their concerns about accepting military advice unchallenged."

Indeed, a central theme of the book is President Kennedy's willingness, on the question of ground troops in Vietnam, to do what President Obama has not yet done regarding demands for military escalation in Afghanistan: stand up to the U.S. military and say no.

Journalist Seymour Hersh, a close student of the U.S. military since he broke the story of the My Lai massacre, says the U.S. army is "in a war against the White House - and they feel they have Obama boxed in." Hersh says the only way out is for Obama to stand up to the Pentagon. "He's either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon," Hersh said. If he doesn't, "this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency." The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh says, is to negotiate with the Taliban. "It's the only way out," he said. "I know that there's a lot of discussion in the White House about this now. But Obama is going to have to take charge, and there's no evidence he's going to do that."

There's a conventional wisdom now that Obama simply can't "take charge," because it's politically impossible. According to this view, McChrystal's request sets up the Republicans to blame Obama for "losing Afghanistan" if he doesn't agree to McChrystal's request (even though, as Fareed Zakaria notes in the Washington Post, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled).

But Goldstein's book strongly argues that President Obama could say no to the U.S. military. The perceived threat to the U.S. from "international Communism" was at least as powerful a bogey in American politics in 1961 as the threat of international terrorism is today.

Goldstein notes (p. 30):

[I]n the fall of 1961, Kennedy's most senior advisers almost unanimously warned him that the odds were sharply against avoiding a catastrophic defeat in Vietnam unless the president approved the first increment of a ground combat force deployment that might ultimately reach six divisions, or more than 200,000 men.

Yet Kennedy rejected every proposal to send combat troops to Vietnam.

Kennedy also rejected U.S. military demands for U.S. military intervention in Laos (pp. 46-47) In April 1961, Admiral Arleigh Burke, chief of naval operations, argued "strongly and repeatedly" that without U.S. military intervention in Laos, "all Southeast Asia will be lost." The majority of Kennedy's advisers supported the deployment of combat troops to South Vietnam, Thailand, and government-controlled positions in Laos. If that failed to produce a cease-fire, Kennedy was advised to use tactical nuclear weapons against Laotian guerrillas. If China or North Vietnam intervened, those countries should be bombed and, if necessary, attacked with nuclear weapons.

Instead of taking any of this advice, Kennedy pressed for a diplomatic solution, bringing about a cease-fire and eventually an agreement for the neutralization of Laos.

Kennedy's willingness to stand up to military and civilian advisers who seemed to automatically advocate the most militarily aggressive U.S. response to any situation was informed by the debacle of the Bay of Pigs invasion, when Kennedy was badly burned by bad advice - not just advice that was bad in the sense of being wrong in its predictions, but advice that was deceitful - bad in the sense of "bad faith" and withholding key information. The same advisers who demanded U.S. military intervention in Laos had advised Kennedy to approve the Bay of Pigs operation - the invasion of Cuba by U.S.-supported Cuban exiles. Before the invasion, Kennedy's advisers talked up the great prospects for success. In approving it, Kennedy made clear that if it failed, he would not authorize direct U.S. military intervention to save it. When - predictably - the operation failed, Kennedy's advisers demanded direct U.S. military intervention to save it. In fact, the documentary record shows that the CIA knew the operation would fail without direct U.S. military intervention, but withheld this information from Kennedy, and that their plan all along was to box Kennedy into a situation where he would be compelled to involve U.S. forces. By Kennedy's own account, the CIA and the military didn't believe that a "new president" would stand up to them. (p.40)

When you read this history, you see Vice-President Biden's prediction that President Obama would be "tested" in a new light. Yes, President Obama is being tested - but not by foreign adversaries. President Obama is being tested by the Pentagon.

President Kennedy was no dove. Kennedy was willing to violate international law and Kennedy was willing to authorize the killing of people in foreign countries who had committed no crime against the people of the United States. What Kennedy was not willing to do was commit U.S. ground troops to an unwinnable war in Vietnam. And he wasn't willing to commit U.S. ground troops - as some of his advisers were - in the belief that protecting U.S. "credibility" meant that it would be better to fight and lose than not to fight. You don't have to be a dove to understand what President Kennedy understood: putting U.S. troops on the ground somewhere doesn't automatically make you more powerful. Indeed, it could make you less powerful, because, all other things being equal, a person with more options is more powerful than a person with fewer options. And if military escalation closes off opportunities for diplomatic and political solutions, it makes you less powerful.

Some people at the top of the Obama Administration clearly get this. Indeed, the Journal reported that, "Administration officials in the Biden camp fear they too could close off the path to a more peaceful resolution of the conflict if 40,000 more troops are sent."

This is the key danger in approving McChrystal's request. Of course, in the short run, sending more troops almost surely means that more U.S. troops will die and more Afghan civilians will die, and that would be bad enough. But the even greater danger is that it might make the eventual, inevitable political resolution of the conflict more difficult, thereby prolonging it and causing many more needless deaths.

National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy believed that after the U.S. escalated and "Americanized" the Vietnam war in 1965, a diplomatic solution was "not viable." Repeating this mistake - making a diplomatic resolution "not viable" - is the great danger in McChrystal's request. Bundy said later that Congress knew perfectly well what was at stake when President Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in 1965, and deliberately chose not to be involved. That observation is even more relevant today. No one in Congress can claim ignorance of a debate that has been aired in the media much more than the 1965 escalation decision was. If Congress isn't speaking up, it must be that they're not hearing enough from their constituents.

As former Marine captain Matthew Hoh recently wrote in his letter of resignation as a top U.S. official in Afghanistan,

"I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right.' "

Now there's a great American patriot. Do what he says.

Biden On Cheney Criticism: "Who Cares?"

2009-10-23T17:21:51Z

Asked about criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney, current VP Joe Biden had a simple response: "Who cares?"

Actually, he said, "Who cares what -- " and then stopped himself.

"Yeah, yeah, I can see the headline now," Biden said. "I'm getting better, guys. I'm getting a little better, you know what I mean?"

Cheney said in a speech Wednesday night at the Center for Security Policy that President Obama is "dithering" on Afghanistan "while America's armed forces are in danger." He claimed that "signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."

The vice president did elaborate on one of Cheney's arguments -- that the last administration left Obama with a review of Afghanistan.

"A whole lot has changed in the last year," he said. "Let's assume they left us a review that was absolutely correct. Is that review relevant and totally applicable to today in light of the changes that have taken place in the region, in Afghanistan itself? So I think that is sort of irrelevant. Not sort of -- I think it's irrelevant."

Biden's rebuttal was delivered from Eastern Europe, where he has been reassuring leaders that the reconfiguring of President Bush's missile defense system does not mean the U.S. is no longer committed to the region.

The White House responded forcefully to Cheney's claims on Thursday. "What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Biden Responds To Cheney's Afghan War Criticism: "Who Cares?"

2009-10-23T17:20:06Z

PRAGUE : Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had a blunt response Friday to the latest broadsides from former Vice President Dick Cheney: "Who cares?"

Robert Naiman: NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?

2009-10-22T10:21:54Z

If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an impact, that time is now.

The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal's proposal could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can "afford" to provide every American with quality health care, but every health care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than McChrystal's endless war. A recent CNN poll says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more troops.

Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern's amendment demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. Our troops are "exhausted," Murtha says.

Top administration officials share the skepticism. Vice-President Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin, an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American people and Congress won't support it; Biden on the grounds that it would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan.

Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at home, for many years.

Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion to move policy.

National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint website noescalation.org, we're posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000 more U.S. troops. We're asking Americans to call Congressional offices and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress stands. And we're asking for that information to be reported back to the website noescalation.org.

The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal's request. Some Members of Congress are saying, "We're waiting to see what the president decides." But that nonsense is an obvious dodge. The time to affect the president's decision is obviously before he makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.

Call now. The Norwegians are counting on you.

Who's The Best-Looking Biden Boy? (PHOTOS, POLL)

2009-10-20T10:33:11Z

Vice President Joe Biden was a silver fox in the Senate, but he isn't the only Biden to catch our attention. Last week, as the veep's son Beau told GMA that he'd "absolutely" consider running for his father's Senate seat, we got a little lost in his trademark Biden Blues. And meet the rest of this genetically-blessed family: the vice president's brothers James and Frank, his sons Beau and Hunter and his grandson little Hunter. (The Biden women aren't too shabby either: see the leg-baring dress Jill Biden wore on Monday.) So who's the best-looking of the great-looking bunch? Take a look and remember to vote!

Who Is The Ultimate Game Changer In Style? VOTE NOW!

And follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebookwhile you're at it.

Alexia Parks: An Optimist on Climate Change

2009-10-20T06:50:45Z

I'm an optimist. In these days of pessimistic news about climate change, I like to surround myself with forward-thinking people. One of these is David Johnston, president of What's Working. Johnston recently received the SAM Sustainability Pioneer Award, which is considered the Nobel prize in the sustainability world.

On the same day that Vice President Joe Biden announced that the Obama administration is backing a plan to let homeowners finance the cost of energy-efficiency improvements through their property tax assessments, Johnston announced the launch of the national Home Energy Leadership Training Certification program. The goal of the certification is to create a standardized training program for people working in the field of energy-efficiency.

Like Bill McKibben (Harvard '82), author and founder of the 350.org global movement*, a worldwide energy action group that will promote demonstrations on every continent this weekend, Johnston affirms that we're at a tipping point. In this case, it's a tipping point in consciousness. "We're at a point," says Johnston, "where everything we know is out of date. What happens next is unknowable, unspeakable, and undetermined."

Can we self-organize in a state of chaos? he asks, then provides the answer. "We have to make carbon use personal, then give everyone a way to take part. We have to take the home energy audit and convert it into work."

Right now, says Johnston, fewer than 2 percent of homes in the U.S. have had energy audits. Of this group, only 10 percent have taken any action. His national certification program would take some of the $7.6 billion in stimulus money that Biden says is needed to weatherproof homes and create nearly 100 percent employment in every community.

Direct actions to reduce energy consumption will also be the focus of the U.S. delegation this December, as they head to Copenhagen and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Although I was the U.N.'s first accredited blogger at the UNFCCC conference in Bali in 2007, I don't plan to head to Copenhagen this year. Here's why:

I'm keeping my attention focused instead on the U.S. Congress. Whatever ambitious, comprehensive agreement comes out of Copenhagen, it will still require the agreement of members of the U.S. Congress for the U.S. to sign on to this international accord.

Given the partisan politics in Washington DC these days, could recalcitrant Republicans in Congress be the ones to "close the books" on the human race? If the U.S. Congress refuses to ratify the agreement that emerges from Copenhagen, will China and India also refuse to ratify it?

In spite of this pessimistic thought, I remain an optimist ... after all, the Republicans in Congress have children and grandchildren too. We're all traveling together across the cosmos on tiny spaceship Earth. The fate of the Earth is our fate too. Do you agree?

* 350.org advocates getting the world back to 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal gas associated with global warming. The 350 ppm level is what scientists last year said is the maximum at which civilization can prosper. We're now at 390 ppm and levels are rising at the rate of 2 ppm each year.

Beau Biden Senate Run Possible: He's "Absolutely" Thinking About It

2009-10-15T08:15:46Z

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden's son, who has returned after serving a tour with the Army National Guard in Iraq, says he'll take his time to decide whether to seek his father's Senate seat.

Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday, Beau Biden said he's "absolutely" considering running for the seat Joseph Biden held before becoming vice president.

Ben Cohen: Joe Klein and Charles Krauthammer: Two Cheeks of the Same Backside

2009-10-15T02:43:49Z

It is always good fun when beltway hacks attack each other, although at the higher end of the spectrum, the arguments are a little harder to decipher. When you boil it down though, debate generally revolves around the following topics: Is America the best country ever, or is it just the best? Is American healthcare really amazing, or does it need a little fixing, and was the war in Iraq a brilliant success, or was it a bit too costly?

Laced with DC vernacular, 'Leftist' columnist Joe Klein ripped into neo hawk megalomaniac Charles Krauthammer for his overt American cheerleading:

Charles Krauthammer has disgorged a magnum opussy sort of rant
on the cover of the week's Weekly Standard, based on a lecture he gave
to the Manhattan Institute, a neoconservative think tank that has
actually done some creative thinking about urban issues over the years. Nothing creative about Krauthammer's thinking, though, which stands as
an anti-Nobel exegesis, blaming Barack Obama for choosing a foreign
policy that will lead, inexorably, to American decline.

Krauthammer's article is, of course, completely insane and ridiculous. He writes:

There is a reason that we are the only hegemon in modern history to
have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a massive
counter-hegemonic alliance....And that reason is simple: We are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen.

However, Klein then goes on to make pretty much the same argument, albeit a little less arrogantly:

Our reputation in the world, now being regained after the Bush debacle,
is a result of the fact that we've always been half-hearted
imperialists, pathetic in our occasional attempts at oppression--and,
more often, from the Bosnian accord to the Indonesian p0st-Tsunami
airlift, willing to act selflessly to benefit humanity. All you need to
do is compare the Russians' utter brutality in Afghanistan with our
real, if ineffective so far, attempts to bring education and economic
development to the people so that we can leave a more stable country.

It's a clever trick Klein is playing, and one straight out of the Democratic Party playbook. You slam your conservative opponent, then make a very similar argument but with prettier words. (Joe Biden is a particular expert at this. During the election, he would rip George Bush for the botched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- which he voted for -- then differ ever so slightly on strategy.)

Klein's assertion that the U.S. is somehow a benevolent empire is atypical of elitist commentators throughout history. The British Empire viewed itself as a benevolent force for its colonies, despite the enormous death toll and destruction of indigenous culture, as did the French, the Spanish and the Romans.

You can read a list of the many war crimes the United States has committed in the last 40 years here. It isn't a pretty record, and for Joe Klein to say something so brazenly false is a testament to his abilities as a journalist. Millions of people lost their lives in an illegal war started by the U.S in Vietnam. The U.S also invaded Korea, funded the coup of the democratically elected government in Iran, invaded Cuba, Grenada, propped up countless dictatorships in South America, funded genocide in East Timor, illegally invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, destroyed the infrastructure of their countries, and have yet to pay a single dollar in reparations.

To defend that record is inexcusable, and Klein is just as bad as Krauthammer.

Ben Cohen is the editor of TheDailyBanter.com and founder of BanterMediaGroup.com

Pardon The Interruption: CNN Drops Afghanistan Discussion For Serious Breaking News About Rush Limbaugh

2009-10-14T20:42:16Z

So, it's half past six or so on a Wednesday evening and I am watching that evening's edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer and the Chamber of Situations, where my boss (full disclosure: Arianna Huffington is the co-founder of The Huffington Post) is discussing her provocative op-ed, which calls for Vice President Joe Biden to resign if he cannot reconcile his opposition to escalating the war in Afghanistan with an administration decision to proceed with such an escalation.

Arianna was discussing the matter with a panel of guests that included Gloria Borger and Kevin Madden, both of whom -- while skeptical -- asked very tough-minded but fair questions about the prospect of Biden resigning under protest, and what of value could be gained by such an act. Everyone involved approached the topic with a commendable level of seriousness. Arianna had highlighted the issue of the Afghanistan war by saying "there is nothing more important than a matter of war and peace" and had literally just got finished saying, "We are spending $65 billion this year in Afghanistan, and $2.5 billion in Pakistan. There's a huge disconnect between the reality on the ground and the illusions that are currently guiding our foreign policy in Afghanistan," when suddenly, Wolf Blitzer interjected, saying: "I want everybody to stand by just for a moment." Whereupon, CNN's super-serious "BREAKING NEWS" animation swooshed by the screen.

For a brief, mad moment, I sat forward in my seat, convinced that I was about to hear of some fearful news development! As it turns out, though, no:

[WATCH]

News instincts!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Arianna Huffington: Why Joe Biden Should Resign

2009-10-14T14:32:00Z

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan -- an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

The centerpiece of Newsweek's story is how Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there.

The piece, by Holly Bailey and Evan Thomas, opens with details of a September 13th national security meeting at the White House. Biden speaks up:

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.

Being Greek, I'm partial to Biden's classic use of the Socratic method -- skillfully eliciting facts in a way that lets people connect the dots that show how misguided our involvement in Afghanistan has become.

It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there -- the New York Times reported last month that he has "deep reservations" about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time -- when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security -- and what issue is more important than that? -- it's simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.

Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.

The number of those on both sides of the political spectrum who share Biden's skepticism is growing. In August, George Will called for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan and "do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units."

Former Bush State Department official and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas argued in the New York Times that Afghanistan is not, as Obama insists, a war of necessity. "If Afghanistan were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of effort," writes Haas. "It is not and does not. It is not certain that doing more will achieve more. And no one should forget that doing more in Afghanistan lessens our ability to act elsewhere."

In Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald's powerful look at the war (and a film Joe Biden should see right away), Robert Baer, a former CIA field operative says, "The notion that we're in Afghanistan to make our country safer is just complete bullshit... what it's doing is causing us greater danger, no question about it. Because the more we fight in Afghanistan, the more the conflict is pushed across the border into Pakistan, the more we destabilize Pakistan, the more likely it is that a fundamentalist government will take over the army -- and we'll have Al-Qaeda like groups with nuclear weapons."

And former Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet and Biden confidant, told Newsweek that, while "there are a lot of differences" between Vietnam and Afghanistan, "one of the similarities is how easily and quickly a nation can get bogged down in a very dangerous part of the world. It's easy to get into but not easy to get out. The more troops you throw in places, the more difficult it is to work it out because you have an investment to protect."

And doing so, as we've seen, usually means losing more and more of that "investment": each of the last six years of the Afghanistan war has been more deadly than the one before.

Both sides of the Afghanistan debate were represented on this Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered up a few rationales for why Obama should rubber stamp Gen. McChrystal's wishes. First, she said, "there has to be a process of finding out, which of these people can we work with and which can we not." Really? Seven years in and we still haven't checked that one off our to-do list?

Feinstein then broke out the latest trendy, new-for-fall reason why we need to up the ante in Afghanistan -- it's all about the women. " I particularly worry about women in Afghanistan," Feinstein said, "acid in the face of children, girl children who go to school, women who can't work when they're widowed, huddled on the streets, begging, women beaten and shot in stadiums, you know, Sharia law with all of its violence."

This is indeed very tragic, and I share her concern. But missing from the discussion was the fact that "Sharia law with all of its violence" has just been made the law of the land by President Karzai -- you know, our man in Kabul. The Sharia Personal Status Law, signed by Karzai, became operational in July. Among its provisions: custody rights are granted to fathers and grandfathers, women can work only with the permission of their husbands, and husbands can withhold food from wives who don't want to have sex with them. On the plus side, if a man rapes a mentally ill woman or child, he must pay a fine.

Of course, even with America standing guard, only 4 percent of girls in Afghanistan make it to the 10th grade, and up to 80 percent of Afghani women are subjected to domestic violence. As one of the Afghan women interviewed in Rethink Afghanistan sums up the current situation: "The cases of violence against women are more now than in the Taliban time."

So can we please put to rest the nonsensical rationalization that we're there for women's rights? And don't be surprised if that reason is soon replaced by another -- those pushing for escalation in Afghanistan seem to have learned the Bush administration's old tactic of constantly moving the goal posts. Don't like this reason? Fine, here's another one.

Countering Feinstein on Stephanopoulos was Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, who has taken the lead on this issue in Congress, introducing a bill calling for an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

"I think adding more American forces to Afghanistan would be a mistake," he said. "I think it would be counterproductive. And I think there's a strong case to be made that the larger our military footprint, the more difficult it is to achieve reconciliation."

McGovern then amplified Biden's concern that the real threat is elsewhere:

When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy.

Or, as Biden put it, "does that make strategic sense?"

In June, Gen. Jones, the president's National Security Advisor, was at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, meeting with U.S. commanders there. This was shortly after the arrival of the 21,000 additional troops President Obama had sent over. Jones raised the question of what the president's reaction would be if he were asked for even more troops. Well, Jones said, answering his own question, if that happened, the president would probably have a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." In other words, wtf?

Well, Obama has gotten that request, but it wasn't a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment" for him after all. Sadly, Newsweek reports that Obama is typically "looking for a middle way." But this isn't a negotiation for a used car, where you split the difference. It's either in our national security interest to be there or it isn't. It's either a necessary war or it isn't.

Newsweek's profile makes much of Joe Biden's loyalty. He's a "team player," one close friend says. And after he dissented on Afghanistan this spring he "quickly got on board."

I have no doubt that Joe Biden is a loyal guy -- the question is who deserves his loyalty most? His "team" isn't the White House, but the whole country. And if it becomes clear in the coming days that his loyalty to these two teams is in conflict, he should do the right thing. And quit.

Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure -- and America's national security? Now that would be a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for the McChrystal crowd -- one that would be a lot more significant than some lame, after-the-fact apology delivered in a too-late-to-matter book.

Lisa Schirch: The Costs of Drone Strikes

2009-10-13T16:59:21Z

No matter the outcome of President Obama's deliberations about US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the tactic of using unmanned drone strikes should be taken off the table. The many costs of disrupting Al Qaeda and the Taliban via drone strikes outweigh the benefits.

Some experts say drone strikes may become the weapon of choice as support for large numbers of US troops in Afghanistan decreases among the US public and policymakers. Advocates laud drones for disrupting Al Qaeda and Taliban networks and safe havens by killing nine out of 20 senior operatives from Al Qaeda and threatening key leaders without risking the lives of US troops. These measurable body counts appeal to some policymakers amidst a lack of any other tangible signs of progress in Afghanistan.

Yet the drone tactic undermines a long-term comprehensive strategy for the region. Drones kill more civilians than insurgents. The Brookings Institution estimated in July 2009 that a ratio of ten civilians die for every militant killed in a drone strike. Local authorities say the ratio is more like 50 civilians killed for every 1 insurgent. Regardless of the exact number, civilian deaths have both moral and strategic implications.

High civilian casualty rates, particularly from US unilateral military maneuvers, undermine both Pakistani and Afghan state sovereignty and legitimacy, stir political unrest, and challenge alliances. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan publically denounce drone strikes to distance themselves from public anger. While rumors posit that the government's privately consent. The expanding use of drone strikes gives the impression to an increasingly media-savvy public that these governments have little ability to influence or control external military forces.

The drone strikes draw attention away form the greater nuclear security threats in Pakistan. The threat of anti-government militants overthrowing the government of Pakistan and gaining control of its nuclear capability is a far greater danger than Al Qaeda. The weak, unpopular Pakistan government prevents the growing number of anti-American militants from gaining access to a functioning nuclear missile arsenal.

While militants themselves are unpopular, drone strikes seem to unite rather than separate civilians from militants. Drone strikes inspire frequent public protests, reproachful media coverage, and public polls showing widespread condemnation and fear of the strikes. Counterinsurgency experts claim drone strikes play into the hands of militant propaganda seeking to rally and recruit local people to their cause. Pakistani military leaders say that each drone killing of civilians brings several new recruits to Taliban leaders from drone victim's families who are required under tribal code to seek revenge.

A variety of actors challenge the legality of drone strikes. In July 2009, U.N. Human Rights Council Special Investigator Philip Alston chastised the US for failing to track, investigate, and punish low ranking soldiers for drone strikes that kill civilians, for failing to tell the public the extent of civilian deaths, and for not compensating families of victims.

Drone strikes lead to losing the 'war of ideas' as they exacerbate underlying grievances such as corruption, vast unemployment and lack of basic services. According to counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen, "using robots from the air ... looks both cowardly and weak" to local populations. Anti-American cartoons and jokes feature the drones as symbols of American impotence or cowardice. Given the importance of bravery and courage in tribal cultures, the use of drone strikes signals untrustworthiness, making it more difficult for the US to form agreements or even get information from key tribal leaders.

Relying on the short-term tactics of drone strikes postpones and undermines the development of a comprehensive strategy. A more successful strategy will center on population-centric rather than enemy-centric tactics, widespread investments in development, and robust diplomatic engagement at all levels.

Lisa Schirch is Director of the 3D Security Initiative and Professor of Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University.