I read up on the speech (I was away at the time and missed it) and I am undecided about the Afghanistan strategy. I think that if the timetable is adhered to as close as possible, then I'll be generally supportive (although I have yet to fully make up my mind, so that may change). The Vietnam War had no timetable and neither did Iraq until roughly a year ago. I will still stand against war and protest it, but if only to make sure our government knows that we want war to cease ASAP.
The same thing goes for the prison at Guantanamo. I believe that it is certain that the January deadline will not be met and it will take several more months to transfer out all remaining prisoners, but it will be done. If no deadline was set, little or no action would have taken place and the prisoners (e.g. KSM) wouldn't start getting fair trials and the Uyghurs would still be wrongly imprisoned.
Anyway, I was exploring Talkingpointsmemo to see the response there and I was pleased to see the responses of two fairly infamous Republicans that detested the idea of a timetable.
Read them below the fold.
Although McCain was supportive of the planned escalation (surprise, surprise), he was against a timetable (again I say: surprise, surprise). He said it would disenchant the support amongst the Afghans and the Pakistanis and embolden Al Qaeda and the Taliban (didn't mention support for a 100 year occupation, oddly enough).
From the article:
"Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines."
Benchmarks are a very nebulous notion, Mr. McCain, since it is hard to determine what exactly entails success in a situation as complex as this. Also, timetables put the officers' feet to the fire in achieving more faster. Finally, McCain is calling for "victory with honor", a mantra that Nixon had with Vietnam in the late 60's. Nixon's victory with honor was "achieved" by bombing and napalming the North Vietnamese, the Laotians, and the Cambodians. Really, McCain, you're going to echo Nixon on this? Then again, you did joke about bombing Iran a couple years back.
Now for Steele's reaction:
"Although this decision took far too long and it should not have, I am glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs. However, tonight's speech must be the beginning, not the end, of the case President Obama makes to the American people as to why this is, as he said during the campaign, 'a war we have to win.' If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans - and the American people - will stand with him. But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed."
Yet another canned GOP response. Need I say more?
In conclusion, I believe that what the president is pursuing is the least of several evils. He is escalating, but not in an open-ended way as the Vietnam and Iraq Wars were governed. In the end, we must all stand together to make sure that the timetable is honored and that these wars are ended. I long for the day when the US is no longer an invader, it's been so long I've almost forgotten what it feels like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
UPDATE: Senator Arlen Specter's twitter response is pleasantly surprising.
This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.
about 2 hours ago from web
I oppose sending 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. I am not persuaded it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda.
about 2 hours ago from web
Is it time we re-evaluated him?