Obama's three Afghan mistakes

Noa Zrk

"..This is part of the reason why Brown’s speech yesterday was so confused..".
Interesting analysis James. Whilst Obama obviously finds the real world harder to deal with than a student seminar. Should we cut him a little slack on the matter? I think not. His dithering results in adverse political and human consequences.
As for Brown, the last time I looked he was the PM (albeit) unelected, of a sovereign nation. His decisions should be made on the basis of the primacy of the UK's, and not the US's, sovereign interests. Unfortunately though I can't think of any that he's made that fit that requirement.
People

Marbury

In what sense can a piece by Tim Montgomerie about Barack Obama be said to be "important"? Discuss.

Vulture

When I heard a soundbite of Bruin talking about a Government being a 'by-word for corruption' I thought it the most extraordinary 'mea culpa'; akin to Richard Dawkins applying to the CofE for a parish.

Then I realised that he was talking abt Afghanistan.

The big difference between Bruin and Oh Bummer is that the former will be gone in six months, while America will have to bear the pain of the Blessed One for another three years.

Signs are, however, that they are belatedly awakening to the fact that they have elected a Bozo of awesome proportions whose dithering over Afghanistan while more American boys die daily says it all.

And yesterday's events prove that you don't have to go as far as Afghanistan to be murdered by a mad Muslim. Texas will do.

jon ryan

Why do people keep banging on about `elected` prime ministers? This country has NEVER elected a prime minister. Not once.

Augustus

You can't call Afghanistan a nation in any real sense, just a collection of divided peoples. Trying to rule, or even protect its people as a whole, borders on the misguided. For an acceptably governed state to emerge the US will have to maintain and back up a strong Afghan army, particularly on the borders with Pakistan, for many years into the future. But that resolve depends upon strong political leadership, not the military professionals. Morale and performance will undoubtedly suffer over time if the leading politicians do not lead.

Noa Zrk

"...Why do people keep banging on about `elected` prime ministers?..".

Absolutely right though inapposite to the main point and pedantic, Jon Ryan,to identify my textual inexactitude. Equally my view is that Bloggies who post in capitals display a patronising arrogance to their fellow bloggers. But I do feel that its generally reasonable to assume Speccie bloggers understand the vote 'Blair get Brown' conundrum that highlights how badly our system of constitutional government operates in comparison to the balanced structure of the US, not least because of the 'reforms' perpetrated upon it by Labour. This could be part of the long promised and eagerly awaited 'Neatherworld" discussion perhaps?

jon ryan

The capitals are sometimes necessary, Noa Zrk, to gain the attention of those with a tendency to repeat errors. A junior school technique. Seems to have worked, doesn't it?

Now, this `balanced structure` they have in the US is the one that allowed Bush to steal an election and more recently elected a man you feel `finds the real world harder to deal with than a student seminar.` Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Co0uld you clarify, please?

Oh, and England is a constitutional monarchy, but not a constitutional government. This is because such constitution as we have is uncodified. Our system is based on a doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty combined with Rule of Law. Have a read of A V Dicey.

Paul Hughes

Two good wars badly managed and contemporaneous with the economic collapse of the West's two most muscular powers. Given Obama's lack of interest in the projection of American power, given Britain' absorbtion into an EU superstate, the paralysis of Western power is complete.

Through a collectively determined will to maintain the West's prominence on the global stage, our inevitable decline could have been managed and perhaps arrested for a spell. As it is, our weak leaders, on both sides of the Atlantic, preside over the dying embers of a geopolitical system in atrophy. Where are the Trumans, Churchills and De Gaulles of our Generation? We're screwed.

Noa Zrk

Before this discussion digresses pointlessly into the current state of the UK’s system of government, Jon Ryan, the key issues here are;
that Obama is failing to make key decisions concerning the direction of the war in Afghanistan, which materially affect its strategy and conduct.
Brown is similarly failing in the conduct of a deeply unpopular and unsuccessful war.
Brown, as PM, should make decisions based primarily on the interests of the UK as a sovereign power, especially if our major ally is likely to deem its own interests no longer compatible with those of the UK.

The issue is not the comparative constitutional structures of the US and the UK, however fascinating that may be> It is the exercise of power by those in charge of these nations, and the constraints upon it, including the opportunities available to call them to account. Unlike Obama, Brown was not elected to the position of executive power that he occupies and is not subject to the formal constitutional constraints of the US.
Do your clients experience similar difficulties in keeping you to the point?

Snowman

No comment. Cannot get through.

Snowman

James, Obama made only one mistake in Afghanistan. He opted to stay. In his pre-election addresses his insisting that the Afghan conflict was just, must be pursued and won amounted to pure electioneering in that he wanted to show his fellow Americans he can be as tough on terrorism as GWB. He may have known then, and he surely must know now, the place’s a nightmare. The Russians had almost 250,000 troops there, unimpeded by the baggage of ‘uman rights, and got kicked out. Time happens to be on the Taleban’s side. They live there.

Nobody can undo the corruption of the current set-up of governance any more than nobody can undo Karzai’s sexy baldness. It’s as permanently imbedded feature of the system as are the mountainous ranges in the inaccessible tribal areas. More funds to Karzai will only fuel more of it, and some of the Western companies involved may not be entirely blameless either. Democratisation? Well, yes, in a sense that a tribal chief says whom to vote for, and his flock follows. Not at all surprising that Obama finds it hard to make a move, hence the indecision on the deployment of more troops.

TGF UKIP

Thanks for the Tim Montgomerie link, James, and to his website America in the world which I heartily recommend to other pro US Coffee Housers.

Can I suggest this site be given rather more promotion here, I hadn't come across it before.