There is some understandable gnashing and wailing going on about the "team" that Obama has put together. It certainly doesn't look like the "change" we'd hoped for, "we" being those free thinkers who are looking at results first instead of justifying "belief" by rationalizing uncomfortable and highly inconsistent facts.
We see Geithner and Summers in key positions regarding the economy, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and the Bush family insider, Senator Judd Greg (R-NH) as the new secretary of commerce. Our health policy almost came under the heavy influence of mega lobbyist and tax evader former Senator Tom Daschle.
I maintain that there's no point in being disappointed in Obama. That implies that there might be a point in "believing" in or having "faith" in Obama or any other major politician from Eisenhower on.
If you don't "believe" then you're not disappointed. Bypassing disappointment moves you directly to analysis. Each issue should be judged on its own merits and then put into interpretive categories after the initial analysis. Inductive reasoning is far superior to deductive in today's political arena. Aristotle trumps Plato, decisively.
So what do we think of this? What's really happening here.
The TimesOnline London just ran this article on Obama putting the "break on" the "Afghan surge."
February 8, 2009 Link
Obama puts the break on Afghan surge
Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith
"PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defense chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.
"There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy."
(Any emphasis in the TimesOnline article is the author's)
Why would he do that now? The believe/disbelieve thinkers say that Obama's been co-opted and enlisted as an establishment tool. But this type of move isn't consistent with the "captive Obama" viewpoint.
Obama may have two motives here. First of all, we simply can't afford another war and the president knows it. We're broke. We pretend as though we actually have options but we don't. There are over 700 military installations overseas with nearly 10% of those major installations. We can't even afford those, let alone another major war.
But why did Obama get right up in the face of the military. He "demanded" a "strategy" is pretty tough language. That means that the military lacks a strategy. He won't send "troops without a coherent plan ..." Again, emphasizing that the military wants a commitment but has no plan to get out, just like they didn't in Iraq.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).