Ironically juxtaposed alongside President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, the American war in Afghanistan is going to be taking a turn in one of several directions in the coming week. General McChrystal has put forward several different requests, each with an increase in troop presence on the ground. New York Times article here.
What always displeases me is how the issue of military strategy, already convoluted, is so politicized. I haven't read or heard any coverage of the potential troop increase without seeing it paired with analysis of what this will do for President Obama's popularity or sway among Democrats.
We've discussed in class how American political campaigns are often candidate-centered, influenced by parties but that politicians can divorce from their party to an extent. But especially now, as Congress is polarized over a multitude of issues, the pulls from either side strengthen. There are always going to be strong reactions across the political spectrum to decisions made about war, but doesn't it seem wrong that it always goes straight to what it will mean politically for the president? That always seems to come first, rather than assessments of potential successes or problems that will come with the military change. When it is a matter of putting the lives of men and women on the line, in particular, I think that the party skirmishing is particularly shameful. I understand that war elicits the most passionate of debates, but too-often the feel I get from it is more like squabbling/jockeying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well this post reminded me of an SNL sketch about Obama doing nothing so far in his presidency. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5Kl38fSVY
I find the whole sketch in general quite funny and satirical, but what particularly relates to this post is at 1:26-1:35
"I said I would make improvements in the war in Afghanistan. Is it better? No, I think it's actually worse"
I don't know if it completely relates to the point you're trying to make here, but overall I find the sketch quite satirical and entertaining, especially with President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize recently.
Ari, thank you so much for this post. I found it very ironic that on the same day I heard about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I also heard about the potential increase in troops sent to Afghanistan. I'm sure that most TRUE pacifists out there are completely opposed to the increase of troops sent to war. Putting more lives at risk is anything but peaceful.
You also make a valid note that the media focuses more on the effects this will have on Obama's popularity instead of the effects it will have on the thousands of troops and civilians whose lives are put at stake by this on-going war. I find that this can also be related back to Catherine's post about the Sh*t in the News (i don't remember the exact blog title). It's appalling that the popularity of one politician is written about more than the potential negative effects an increase in troops will have on the lives of thousands of people.
Also, I have yet to see or hear about any article that points out the glaring irony of his Nobel Peace Prize being awarded around the same time that he and his administration started talking about increasing the troop presence. I guess I'll just have to keep and eye out for that one...
I totally agree with you Ari. Our political parties are too focused on their popularity and public support instead of doing what is necessary to win our wars overseas. As for Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I can honestly say he has not truly earned it. Although I believe future policies and actions of his may help him earn this, his current record does not qualify him to earn this award.
-Derek White
Name one thing that is not politicized.
Virtually everything is all about conjuring up good images about the president or his party - war is no exception.
It's hard for the president to carry out anything if he or his proposed plans for action are unpopular and/or lack credibility.
Obama probably doesn't want the GOP to call him soft on terrorism, so he is escalating the troop level.
Of course, I agree with Ari about doing what's best for the situation, not necessarily for the president's image. But, in practical terms, that's not how it works.
The latest poll has Americans pretty evenly divided on whether we should increase or decrease troops in Afghanistan with "37 percent backing an increase and 38 percent favoring a decrease."
This is pretty ideal if you want the administration to make an apolitical decision. However, support for an increase of troops has been steadily mounting, from 25% of Americans in August, to 29% in September just after the McChrystal memo leak, to 37% now.
Additionally, the Obama administration has to look at the situation in the long term. They have to get reelected in 3 years, and they don't want Afghanistan to become another Vietnam.
I know what you mean Ari, it does seem that there is a lot of focus on the political positives/negatives instead of on the actual costs and outcomes of the war.
I found an intresting article about the publics view of the war... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5363777.shtml
I totally agree with all of you, I also feel that candidates are too focused on increasing their own popularity that they do not care much about what happens in the war.
This is relates to what we have been learning in class because Mr Silton has be lecturning about how political parties are focused on increasing their own popularity.
Post a Comment