2
1
1
"I think that it certainly helps to know the broader strategic issues involved," Mr. Obama told Meecham. "I think that's more important than understanding the tactics involved because there are just some extraordinary commanders on the ground and a lot of good advisers who I have a lot of confidence in, but the president has to make a decision: will the application of military force in this circumstance meet the broader national-security goals of the United States?"
Well, that's the question, for sure. Those 'broader national security goals" are certainly a matter for national debate. Too bad neither the majority of Congress, nor the president, seem willing to set a clear strategy, together, to determine or accomplish those goals with measurable objectives or a clear end-point to our military forces' role in all of that.
Last week, the president's 'emergency supplemental' for the occupations passed the House with only 60 "no" votes, 51 came from Democrats, almost all of them members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who, this week, published their own findings and recommendations for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a six-part series entitled, “Afghanistan: A Road Map For Progress.”
That's not nearly enough to garner any attention from a White House so sure of it's own intentions and ability. So sure, in fact, that it seems almost effortless in its decision-making and the implementation of its policy. It certainly doesn't seem the 'hardest' thing to have decisions formulated entirely within your own appointed set of advisers, and to make those decisions virtually unchallenged by the folks who fund the militarism with our borrowed cash.
1 | 2
