Obama's Thinking, So Very Reminds Me of Wilson

[Kathianne]

Wilson though, had a long history of 'high idealism', not so much so from Obama. What they did share was 'experience' that wasn't suitable for the presidency, especially in time of war, especially in dealing with European machinations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama


Obama may agree to less allied help in Afghanistan

By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writer
42 mins ago

STRASBOURG, France – He says it's a new day in U.S.-European relations, but President Barack Obama may find at NATO's 60th anniversary summit Saturday that it's the same old story of allied reluctance to send more troops to Afghanistan.

The European allies may pony up a marginal increase in forces keyed to preparations for Afghanistan's national elections in August, but the Obama administration is pinning its main hopes on getting more civilian contributions — particularly trainers for the Afghan police...

...

..."We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan," Sarkozy said a joint news conference with Obama after they met.
After her own talks with the president, Merkel said: "We have a great responsibility here. We want to carry our share of the responsibility militarily — in the area of civil reconstruction and in police training."...

[bullypulpit]

Wilson though, had a long history of 'high idealism', not so much so from Obama. What they did share was 'experience' that wasn't suitable for the presidency, especially in time of war, especially in dealing with European machinations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama

Perhaps it's because more boots on the ground aren't the solution. Thanks to the Bush administration's utter abandonment of Afghanistan in it's single-minded, wrong-headed invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan is near the bottom of the list of failed states.

Seven years of NATO involvement in Afghanistan with minimal investment by the US during its invasion and occupation of Iraq has led to a certain amount of, justifiably, skepticism on the part of our NATO allies. A recent study by the Carnegie Endowment has reached the following conclusions...

<blockquote> * Objectives in Afghanistan must be reconciled with the resources available to pursue them.
* The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban.
* The best way to weaken, and perhaps divide, the armed opposition is to reduce military confrontations.
* The main policy objective should be to leave an Afghan government that is able to survive a U.S. withdrawal.
* Strategy should differentiate three areas and allocate resources accordingly: strategic cities and transportation routes that must be under total Afghan/alliance control; buffers around strategic areas, where NATO and the Afghan Army would focus their struggle against insurgents; and opposition territory, where NATO and Afghan forces would not expend effort or resources.
* Withdrawal will allow the United States to focus on the central security problem in the region: al-Qaeda and the instability in Pakistan.</blocquote>

You can find the full report here:

<center><a href=http://carnegieendowment.org/files/afghan_war-strategy.pdf>Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War</a></blockquote>

And it is in providing civilian resources to train up Afghan security forces, rebuild infrastructure, reestablish an agricultural base (besides opium poppies) and protect civilian populations until Afghan forces are able to do so effectively.

Oh, and as for " 'experience' that wasn't suitable for the presidency, especially in time of war, especially in dealing with European machinations", that was George W. Bush throughout both terms. Obama has already shown himself more than capable at dealing with "European machinations".

[Psychoblues]

You make far too much sense, bp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Psychoblues