World

Afghanistan surge: Obama's JFK or LBJ moment?

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | November 30, 2009 at 03:04 pm

134 views | 8 Recommendations | 8 comments

With a narrow margin for error, and high stakes, Obama's troop surge will none the less save the Democrats from appearing weak on National Security, argues a journalist for the Kansas City Star.

"I’m skeptical, but here’s hoping this is indeed his Kennedy moment. That our military leaders have learned enough after eight long years in this arena, and have given him the right mix of counter-insurgency, anti-terrorism, nation-building and whatever other strategies are necessary to lead to a plausible exit strategy somewhere down the line. One that doesn’t involve helicopters on embassy rooftops, preferably. Or perhaps worse, more and seemingly endless surges, LBJ and Nixon-style." ~ Arturo Moro, Midwest Voices

If advance reports are true, President Obama will be taking the advice of his military leaders Tuesday, for the most part, and creating a troop surge of his own in Afghanistan. This, after criticizing President Bush's Iraq surge during the presidential campaign. He'll have a tough time selling his plans to both Democrats and a war-weary nation.
Depending on how you look at it, this is either a Kennedymoment or an LBJ moment. Kennedy moment, as in the mythical and pseudo-revisionist histories that say JFK was looking for a way out of Vietnam when he was assassinated.

In this thinking, Obama's long and hard search for an Afghanistan policy is indicative of a thinking president who doesn't want to abandon Afghanistan, but who is also earnestly looking for a plausible exit strategy that will not endanger our national security.

The "LBJ moment" represents a president who feels boxed in by a seemingly hopeless military situation that he nevertheless cannot—or will not—abandon. On top of that, it depicts a president intent on costly domestic reforms, setting up a classic guns vs. butter conundrum that could lead to a (more) stressed out economy.

All such metaphors are stretches, of course. Even comparing the Obama surge to the Bush surge is problematical. This is 2009, not 1969 or even 2007, and Afghanistan has its own complicating factors different than Vietnam or Iraq.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Hugh Askew

at 16:04 on November 30th, 2009

There is another possibility, somewhat remote, that the additional troops will prove to be the difference.

Are there voices telling him that he can pull this off, become not only the valiant protector of liberty, but the one who wears the victors laurels? Fits his ego, perhaps?

77 (not verified)

at 16:10 on November 30th, 2009

One of the users named Hugh Askew says that he is a confirmed Marxist. It also says that he is living in an extremely red state which he says is Nebraska. I am sure he is not an offical Marxist rather, he is like me: an American who has some aspects of a Communist. Atleast, I hope that is the case.

Hugh Askew

at 02:42 on December 1st, 2009

One of the users named Hugh Askew says that he enjoys tweaking folks to who wrong assumptions based on preconceived notions. Especially those that are smarter than he. He also allows that he has done the same.

marianmo

at 21:26 on November 30th, 2009

hope these tactics work

nanute

at 03:41 on December 1st, 2009

Unfortunately, I think escalating the troop levels and the "counterinsurgency" strategy will end up being an LBJ moment for Obama. All the focus is on Afghanistan right now, and yet it appears that the same strategy model in Iraq is showing signs of unraveling. Factional infighting between Sunni and Shia members of Iraq's government has led to the postponement of mandatory elections in January 2010. Shiite Vice President Nuri al- Malaki vetoed the election law in November. Concern is growing that if the Sunni are marginalized further, supporters could defect to the insurgency and resume attacks on Shiite and coalition forces.

Afghanistan's tribal make up is similar in nature, and a bit more complicated than Iraq, making counterinsurgency effectiveness questionable. Buying off the low level forces of the Taliban might work in the short term, but long term the cost can't be sustained. Has the cost of the buy out even been estimated? Recent reports estimate that sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan are in the range of 500,000 to 1 million per troop per year. The low figure is Pentagon estimates and the higher number is from OMB estimates.

I realize that some will dismiss Keith Olbermann as a polemicist, but his commentary on last nights countdown merits a listen:

Countdown Special Comment: Declare Victory in Afghanistan and Get Out

snuffysmith

at 09:02 on December 1st, 2009

Normon Solomon : The Hollow Politics of Escalation

snuffysmith

at 14:31 on December 1st, 2009

“I hate war.”

-- Dwight Eisenhower; image from

"Ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan."

--Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.)

snuffysmith

at 14:32 on December 1st, 2009

A Tragic Mistake - Bob Herbert, New York Times: President Obama will go on TV Tuesday night to announce that he plans to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan to fight in a war that has lasted most of the decade and has long since failed.

After going through an extended period of highly ritualized consultations and deliberations, the president has arrived at a decision that never was much in doubt, and that will prove to be a tragic mistake. Image from