Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

It didn't go from 1 to 2. 16000 troops is not a negligible number of troops. The point is that substantial escalation was well underway before Johnson.

you're arguing 1000 to 16000 is the same as 16000 to 500000.

Context.

 

[empty vessel]

you're arguing 1000 to 16000 is the same as 16000 to 500000.

Context.

I'm arguing an escalation from 900 to 16000 is roughly equal to an escalation from 23000 to 500000, yes. The context is precisely that the escalation was consistent over time. There is no reason to believe that escalation wouldn't have happened regardless of who was in power.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm arguing an escalation from 900 to 16000 is roughly equal to an escalation from 23000 to 500000, yes. The context is precisely that the escalation was consistent over time. There is no reason to believe that escalation wouldn't have happened regardless of who was in power.

 

[Chichikov]

Focusing on numbers misses the big picture.
Before Kennedy, the US mostly had advisers there, he's the first president who decided to commit a serious fighting force for that stupid ass conflict.
The moment he did, there were only two options - double down and try to win and withdraw and admit defeat.

Sure, LBJ should've done the latter, but I again, I think this is on the same level as Obama and Afghanistan (and Obama has more historical precedents to draw from).

 

[ElectricThunder]

Again folks, any reckoning on Best Presidents, with the past 50~ years in mind, would be GREATLY enriched by folks sitting down to watch Stone's Untold History mini-series docu

http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home Even if it should've been longer and went into greater detail, it hits all manner of uncomfortable high points and low points.

In short: We've had bad presidents in various respects for quite some time now, and perhaps Obama could be considered tops on some fronts, in the end---he's squandered his chance to move us past the "status quo" that has been destroying us for decades by embracing, to say nothing of not punching out publicly, those interests and whatnot that seek nothing but fear, exploitation, and control.

Bad president.

 

[empty vessel]

The escalation in Vietnam was consistently paced from 1960 to 1968. I don't know what about this mathematical assertion is difficult for you to comprehend. I already said that I don't care about apportioning blame onto specific individuals as I tend to attribute blame to centers of institutional power and classes rather than individuals. Although I certainly think it's far easier for an individual to maintain a policy of escalation than it is for an individual to reverse one or start one in the first place.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Focusing on numbers misses the big picture.
Before Kennedy, the US mostly had advisers there, he's the first president who decided to commit a serious fighting force for that stupid ass conflict.
The moment he did, there were only two options - double down and try to win and withdraw and admit defeat.

Sure, LBJ should've done the latter, but I again, I think this is on the same level as Obama and Afghanistan (and Obama has more historical precedents to draw from).

... Obama increased troop levels from ~38k in 2009 to a peak of 101k in 2011. Since then, there has been a gradual draw down, with the WSJ estimating ~60.5k troops will remain by the end of this month.


Obama plans to draw down troop levels further to 34,000 by February of next year.

Our Iraq troop levels were basically always 130k-180k until mid-late 2010. What Obama did was withdraw from Iraq and focus on strengthening our presence in the east/southeast front of Afghanistan after dragging our feet around with little progress in that area since 2001. And it was a 1-2 year ramp up with the purpose of cleaning things up, then getting out over the next few years (Which we are seeing now)


really, It was cleaning up the mess left by Bush.

It certainly wasn't anywhere near the scale of Vietnam, which at once point contained over 500k US troops, roughly half of all actively deployed US troops (including domestic) at the time, and had no end in sight. It was just " throw more troops.... wait, we still aren't winning? Throw more!" Throw more until we defeat "the enemy."

 

[speculawyer]

democrats should really be pushing spending on veterans programs, and jobs programs specifically for veterans. seems like an easy political winner that republicans would be forced to oppose due to their obstinance. and taking care of veterans and putting people to work would also have real social and economic benefits.

This is a good idea. But didn't they already pass such a program?

 

[speculawyer]

Impeachment is pointless because you need 67 votes in the Senate to outst the President.

Impeachment is pointless because there is no cause of action. Let's assume for argument that the GOP paints a scenario where the Obama administration appears utterly incompetent. So what?

Being incompetent is not illegal. They have to prove an actual law is broken. I still haven't seen anyone explain what charges would be brought.


For example, Clinton getting a BJ was not a problem. Clinton lying under oath is what got him in trouble.

 

[Chichikov]

... Obama increased troop levels from ~38k in 2009 to a peak of 101k in 2011. Since then, there has been a gradual draw down, with the WSJ estimating ~60.5k troops will remain by the end of this month.


Obama plans to draw down troop levels further to 34,000 by February of next year.

Our Iraq troop levels were basically always 130k-180k until mid-late 2010. What Obama did was withdraw from Iraq and focus on strengthening our presence in the east/southeast front of Afghanistan after dragging our feet around with little progress in that area since 2001. And it was a 1-2 year ramp up with the purpose of cleaning things up, then getting out over the next few years (Which we are seeing now)


really, It was cleaning up the mess left by Bush.

It certainly wasn't anywhere near the scale of Vietnam, which at once point contained over 500k US troops, roughly half of all actively deployed US troops (including domestic) at the time, and had no end in sight. It was just " throw more troops.... wait, we still aren't winning? Throw more!" Throw more until we defeat "the enemy."

What cleaning up are we doing in Afghanistan?
This war serves no purpose, he could and should have ended it at 2008, and the only reason he didn't is political.

What do you think was achieved in the last 4 years there?

 

[RustyNails]

What cleaning up are we doing in Afghanistan?
This war serves no purpose, he could and should have ended it at 2008, and the only reason he didn't is political.

What do you think was achieved in the last 4 years there?

I thought we were training Afghan troops on combat and farmers on how to grow sustainable crops, rebuilding schools and hospitals? Those kind of things. I think the idea is to leave Afghanistan in such a state that Taliban cannot destabilize it as soon as US leaves it's soil.

First Pakistani leader to be ousted by scissor lift rather than the ISI.

:lol

 

[cooljeanius]

I'm not one prone to hyperbole but today's Benghazi hearing is a disaster and embarrassment for the Obama Administration. No wonder Obama didn't nominate Susan Rice for Sec of State - she'd very likely have to resign, or be fired. This is all setting up well for Joe Biden, however.

I just started the #BenghaziBenghaziBenghaziBenghazi hashtag

 

[Chichikov]

I thought we were training Afghan troops on combat and farmers on how to grow sustainable crops, rebuilding schools and hospitals? Those kind of things. I think the idea is to leave Afghanistan in such a state that Taliban cannot destabilize it as soon as US leaves it's soil.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious.

 

[Jooney]

So I haven't had much time to follow the Benghazi hearings earlier today. The only report I've read is the top story on NY Times.

One of the men testifying is laying down some damning accusations: saying that he got demoted, punished for speaking out and blocked by his bosses from speaking to a congressman who visited Libya to investigate Another of those testifying says that repeated requests for additional security prior to the attack were not granted. Then there is confusion about the military's response and whether they fully deployed what capabilities they had within the area to respond.

The amount of partisan bickering that has occurred on this issue for the past eight months will make it near impossible to find out what happened (I blame Republicans for that, I have no pity for them on this) but at the very least it will be interesting to see where this story unfolds.

 

[Jooney]

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious.

I'm not a fan of the Afghan war but I think it is just as specious to say that the only reason America is still there is due to politics.

--- // ---

Gotta love people with no shame. Why the fuck is the one of the architects of the Iraq War tweeting about the Benghazi hearings?

Donald Rumsfeld
"If you don't want to believe it, there is no body of evidence that cannot be ignored." #Benghazi #RumsfeldsRules

 

[Chichikov]

I'm not a fan of the Afghan war but I think it is just as specious to say that the only reason America is still there is due to politics.

What other reason could we possibly have?
I can accept that Bush was dumb enough to think you can wins the hearts and minds with drone strikes or whatever, but Obama?

Obama made a camping promise in '08 mainly so he wouldn't look weak on national security for wanting to withdrawal from Iraq, but I seriously doubt he ever thought our mission there makes any sense.

 

[Jooney]

What other reason could we possibly have?
I can accept that Bush was dumb enough to think you can wins the hearts and minds with drone strikes or whatever, but Obama?

Obama made a camping promise in '08 mainly so he wouldn't look weak on national security for wanting to withdrawal from Iraq, but I seriously doubt he ever thought our mission there makes any sense.

For the reasons Rusty posted above, and additional criteria that you and I aren't privy too.

Given the growing lack of support for the war (courtesy of Gallup), I think the better political decision would have been to withdraw earlier in his first term, around the same time as the Iraq pullout.

If it is for political reasons, who is it for? The decision is not appeasing anybody - not his base, and certainly not republicans.

 

[speculawyer]

What other reason could we possibly have?
I can accept that Bush was dumb enough to think you can wins the hearts and minds with drone strikes or whatever, but Obama?

Obama made a camping promise in '08 mainly so he wouldn't look weak on national security for wanting to withdrawal from Iraq, but I seriously doubt he ever thought our mission there makes any sense.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he did. They took the guy who had that great 'success' in Iraq and moved him to Afghanistan hoping for the same result. Well, it didn't work. And it won't work. Iraq is easier to calm since you can just spread the oil money around. Afghanistan is mostly dirt and opium poppies.


The place is a disaster. The only choices seem to be stay forever or leave and watch it implode eventually. They need to start reducing expectations.

 

[Chichikov]

For the reasons Rusty posted above, and additional criteria that you and I aren't privy too.

Fuck that.
You want to go to war, you need to tell us why, I mean shit, we'll be the ones fighting and paying for it.

Given the growing lack of support for the war (courtesy of Gallup), I think the better political decision would have been to withdraw earlier in his first term, around the same time as the Iraq pullout.

If it is for political reasons, who is it for? The decision is not appeasing anybody - not his base, and certainly not republicans.

People still expect him to "win" it, I think a Vietnam type ending will be a huge political liability.
We'll still probably have it, but it will be when he's a lame duck.
Let me ask you this, what's were we able to achieve in the last 4 year?
What have we even tried to achieve?

Oh, I'm pretty sure he did. They took the guy who had that great 'success' in Iraq and moved him to Afghanistan hoping for the same result. Well, it didn't work. And it won't work. Iraq is easier to calm since you can just spread the oil money around. Afghanistan is mostly dirt and opium poppies.


The place is a disaster. The only choices seem to be stay forever or leave and watch it implode eventually. They need to start reducing expectations.

Maybe you're right, I don't know, I'm not a mind reader.
That doesn't make it better trough (but I don't care about motives all that much anyway).

 

[Jooney]

Fuck that.
You want to go to war, you need to tell us why, I mean shit, we'll be the ones fighting and paying for it.

I agree.

People still expect him to "win" it, I think a Vietnam type ending will be a huge political liability.
We'll still probably have it, but it will be when he's a lame duck.
Let me ask you this, what's were we able to achieve in the last 4 year?
What have we even tried to achieve?

I don't think it's true that people expect him to "win" it. The expectations for the outcome have long been put in place - that a security force will takeover and it will be up to the Afghans to police their own nation. The idea that the Al-Qaeda or The Taliban will be completely destroyed is long gone in the public's mind, at least from my reading.

I don't think the achievements are great. How can you measure success right now? That can only happen once the Afghan security force takeover and an assessment of their progress can be made.

I am of the view that there is no perfect answer. The coalition has thrashed the country, and I am sympathetic to the view that at least some semblance of re-building, training and handover has to take place. The vacuum of power after the soviets left is a big component of how the extremist elements in the country took over in the first place. At least now that is a chance that a somewhat stable government with a trained security force will have control in some parts of the country. It's just goddamn fucking awful that it has cost so much blood and treasure to get to that point. However I squarely aim my ire at the complete mishandling of this war by the Bush administration's decision to go into Iraq.

But hey, if Obama extends his 2014 commitment then fuck him.

Let's get off this. I am not for war (even though I'm getting dangerously close to sounding like I am). I just took issue with the statement that the only reason why America are still in Afghanistan is because of politics. I'm happy to meet you halfway and say it's a part of it though.

 

[Incognito]

Again folks, any reckoning on Best Presidents, with the past 50~ years in mind, would be GREATLY enriched by folks sitting down to watch Stone's Untold History mini-series docu

http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home Even if it should've been longer and went into greater detail, it hits all manner of uncomfortable high points and low points.

In short: We've had bad presidents in various respects for quite some time now, and perhaps Obama could be considered tops on some fronts, in the end---he's squandered his chance to move us past the "status quo" that has been destroying us for decades by embracing, to say nothing of not punching out publicly, those interests and whatnot that seek nothing but fear, exploitation, and control.

Bad president.

I think any discussion on ranking presidents can only be held only when an understanding and appreciation of Stephen Skowronek's thesis of Presidential Time is had.

Given his thesis, Obama straddles the line between regime manager and preemptive president. Neither of which puts him in the best category, the regime builder. For evidence of this, we can look at his behavior during office, his accommodative policies meant to compromise on Republican terms, and rhetoric that largely mirrors or adopts conservative frames. Face it, folks, we are still living in Reagan regime and 2016 will be a big test for Obama's placement in history.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Honestly, though, a lot of what Obama wanted to get done, pretty much came to a halt when the American people decided "Hey! Things are improving! But not fast enough! Fuck the Dems! 2010 baby!"

Good fucking god the 112th Congress was a fucking shithole.

 

[Amir0x]

Worst congress of all eternity and forever, except that one time when congress was so bad we all collectively erased our memory

 

[Piecake]

Honestly, though, a lot of what Obama wanted to get done, pretty much came to a halt when the American people decided "Hey! Things are improving! But not fast enough! Fuck the Dems! 2010 baby!"

Good fucking god the 112th Congress was a fucking shithole.

James Madison, the architect of the U.S. Constitution, worried about the tyranny of the majority over the minority, but he recognized that the opposite was also disconcerting. He wrote in the Federalist Papers that supermajorities could cause "the fundamental principle of free government" to be reversed. "It would be no longer majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority," he wrote. "... An interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."

James Madison was a smart man

 

[el retorno]

James Madison was a smart man

The full quote is even more apt.

It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.

AKA crisis and economic trouble.

 

[el retorno]

I think any discussion on ranking presidents can only be held only when an understanding and appreciation of Stephen Skowronek's thesis of Presidential Time is had.

Given his thesis, Obama straddles the line between regime manager and preemptive president. Neither of which puts him in the best category, the regime builder. For evidence of this, we can look at his behavior during office, his accommodative policies meant to compromise on Republican terms, and rhetoric that largely mirrors or adopts conservative frames. Face it, folks, we are still living in Reagan regime and 2016 will be a big test for Obama's placement in history.

I don't buy that obama is living in the regan period. We have major progressive changes on social fronts (I guess this can be argued as not his fault though I think he plays a large part and he has passed new anti-discrimination laws and better pay equality), he has radicially changed health care (its now not a privilege to have insurance and we will get more progressive over time), he's done lots for climate change (mileage regulation, clean energy in the stimulus), put two women on the court, drawn the US back from initiating ground campaigns and shifted towards more covert actions (can be a positive or negative but its a radical change that will have long lasting effects), and he's still got 3 more years. I don't think we'll see much on the legislative front but Obama can still do a lot (regulate CO2, more judicial appts, military actions, gun legislation, etc).

I understand the frustration that Obama hasn't gotten everything and he's not on a dime changed the country but looked at from afar he will be seen as a man who presided over a changing America and much of this was guided by his policies (unless this gets reversed in 2016).

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well here's a nugget of good news anyway

Massachusetts Senate

Ed Markey (D) 52
Gabriel Gomez (R) 35

 

[el retorno]

You know who I want to hear comment about Benghazi?

this guy

its

Spoiler

Olivier North

 

[Aaron Strife]

So the deficit is about half the size it was at this point last year, thanks to sequestration and tax hikes.

But yeah, those spendocrats!

 

[speculawyer]

So the deficit is about half the size it was at this point last year, thanks to sequestration and tax hikes.

But yeah, those spendocrats!

But Obama didn't want that sequester and now he's taking credit for it!

 

[Jooney]

So the deficit is about half the size it was at this point last year, thanks to sequestration and tax hikes.

But yeah, those spendocrats!

Given the deals over the past couple of years, the amount of deficit reduction is pretty much at the target set by the Simpson-Bowles commission (at least from my understanding ... happy to be corrected).

The problem with the debt is that most people (1) focus on the overall debt burden and (2) believe that there should be a balanced budget (i.e. no deficit). I credit this fully to republicans who have pivoted to debt in a time of national economic crisis (for political purposes), as well as a President who has gone along with it to show his seriousness chops.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

No. Somebody can check my math (which I admittedly did quickly and cursorily), but I figure one is about a 1700% escalation and the other is about a 2200% escalation.

I knew this was what you were talking about, but I don't think it's fair to say it's the same at all. The difference between having 16000 or half a million troops is night and day. As you've pointed out though, it's perhaps impossible to really pin the numbers on one specific president in this case. I would just strongly disagree that you can say the escalations are the same just based on percentage points.

 

[Aaron Strife]

But Obama didn't want that sequester and now he's taking credit for it!

Well sure, it was his idea.

 

[Touchdown]

This made me laugh and shake my head Xd. The college republican meme

 

[Aaron Strife]

This made me laugh and shake my head Xd. The college republican meme

My favorite

Paulists in a nutshell.

 

[The Librarian]

Well here's a nugget of good news anyway

Wait a minute...that's not close!

 

[Marvie_3]

The college republican meme

Amazing. :lol :lol

 

[codhand]

Filings for unemployment are at a five year low....

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Yes I am.
Both escalated the war at the military's request, Obama had the good fortune of inheriting a less messed up war and more reasonable military brass, but that's about it.
Also, you can argue that LBJ had a reason to believe the military that they can win that thing, but Obama should've known better, if nothing else, LBJ's failure in Vietnam should've taught him the danger of that approach.

Boggle...

In what way was Vietnam in late 63 more messed up than Iraq/Afghanistan in 2009? Seriously.

This is a false equivilency if ever there was one. LBJ essentially created the Vietnam problem as we know it, and the subsequent economic issues that resulted. Period. Love him for civil rights, but no pass on the worst military bungle in modern US history. On the other hand, Obama backed a "surge" of about 10% the size of the escallation you are comparing it to, and backed off of it relatively quickly afterwards.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Those are roughly equal escalations between 1960 and 1963 and between 1964 and 1968.

Sure, if you talk in percentages and not actual people getting killed. Sounds very Wall Street, EV.

It's a lot harder to withdraw half a million troops rather than 16,000.

 

[The Librarian]

Yes, GOP. Go ahead and kill immigration reform over gay and lesbian rights. That'll play well.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Meh. There's no question Hillary fucked up on Benghazi but this shouldn't be a political issue. There was a fuck up and people died. Did the WH lie about the video being the main culprit, despite the CIA saying otherwise? Sure. This hasn't been treated like huge news outside of the right because...it's not huge news. No, Obama didn't sit in the WH watching four Americans die, then demand the military not help them. I realize politics is ugly, but I always think a line is being crossed when someone suggests a the president of the United States let US soldiers (or diplomats) die for no reason. This isn't the Gulf of Tonkin, this is a government fuck up that also has the CIA's fingerprints all over it.

I think republicans know of the CIA involvement, the fact that the embassy was also a front for an operation, that the White House can't really openly talk about it...so they've decided to capitalize on that by spreading some pretty dangerous FUD. I could understand using this as a hail mary during the election - granted I didn't think it would work, but I at least knew what they were trying to achieve (win the election). But what motive is there now, other than to smear the president in the eyes of the military? Obama isn't going to get impeached over this, his approval won't sink due to it, etc. The only intent I see here is to demonize the president and accuse him of treason. And as I said, when you start sending that message to our troops that can be a very dangerous thing.

(On Hillary: does anyone honestly think this will matter in three years when she's running against another GOP candidate, be it Rubio or Paul or Christie, with absolutely no foreign policy experience? She's going to trounce whoever challenges her on these topics)

Simpler reason that's also true:

Republicans honestly believe Obama will be impeached over this issue.

You aren't dealing with rational people. The Republican Party has kicked out its reasonably rational members like Posner & Huntsman. To be blunt, most republican message boards resemble the likes of Opa-Age in content and language.

 

[The Librarian]

Couple of links:
1. Chait's story on Obama's energy and environmental history. cc: @Speculawyer
2. Norm Ornstein tells Green Lanternites to knock it off.

 

[tekumseh]

I know a lot of you are young, but Viet Nam was a really, really bad thing. Not only was it a magnitude larger than our Middle East wars, the economic impact it had lasted to the end of the 70s.

But 5 days ahead of the '68 election, the Johnson administration had a deal in place to end the war in Viet Nam, which both North and South had agreed to, but a Nixon operative convinced the South that LBJ was selling them out to the North and that, when elected, Nixon would get them a fair deal. So 2 days before the election, the South backed out of the agreement, Nixon won a very close election over Humphrey, due to the leeching of Democratic votes in the South by George Wallace, and the war continued on for 6 more years. The Johnson administration knew of this truly treasonous action by Nixon, but were powerless to ultimately expose it, because they had come by the information based on an illegal wiretapping program...

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

But 5 days ahead of the '68 election, the Johnson administration had a deal in place to end the war in Viet Nam, which both North and South had agreed to, but a Nixon operative convinced the South that LBJ was selling them out to the North and that, when elected, Nixon would get them a fair deal. So 2 days before the election, the South backed out of the agreement, Nixon won a very close election over Humphrey, due to the leeching of Democratic votes in the South by George Wallace, and the war continued on for 6 more years. The Johnson administration knew of this truly treasonous action by Nixon, but were powerless to ultimately expose it, because they had come by the information based on an illegal wiretapping program...

Well, Nixon is a horrorshow of an entirely different sort. But even if the war had ended quickly thereafter, it still would have been a bigger mess with a bigger impact than Iraq/Afghanistan has been.

 

[tekumseh]

Well, Nixon is a horrorshow of an entirely different sort. But even if the war had ended quickly thereafter, it still would have been a bigger mess with a bigger impact than Iraq/Afghanistan has been.

You may be right, but the way we, as a country, responded to it may have been significantly different. Public opinion about whether we should have sent troops there didn't become negative until the summer of '68. If we'd actually gotten our troops out in early '69, 20,000 plus would not have been killed, and the subsequent treatment of those who did return home would have likely been far less contentious, because the way we treated those soldiers as a nation when they came back was reprehensible...

 

[The Librarian]

In your daily LOL edition: After his sister's loss, Stephen Colbert declares himself a Tar Heel.

 

[Jackson50]

I don't think it's true that people expect him to "win" it. The expectations for the outcome have long been put in place - that a security force will takeover and it will be up to the Afghans to police their own nation. The idea that the Al-Qaeda or The Taliban will be completely destroyed is long gone in the public's mind, at least from my reading.

I don't think the achievements are great. How can you measure success right now? That can only happen once the Afghan security force takeover and an assessment of their progress can be made.

I am of the view that there is no perfect answer. The coalition has thrashed the country, and I am sympathetic to the view that at least some semblance of re-building, training and handover has to take place. The vacuum of power after the soviets left is a big component of how the extremist elements in the country took over in the first place. At least now that is a chance that a somewhat stable government with a trained security force will have control in some parts of the country. It's just goddamn fucking awful that it has cost so much blood and treasure to get to that point. However I squarely aim my ire at the complete mishandling of this war by the Bush administration's decision to go into Iraq.

But hey, if Obama extends his 2014 commitment then fuck him.

Let's get off this. I am not for war (even though I'm getting dangerously close to sounding like I am). I just took issue with the statement that the only reason why America are still in Afghanistan is because of politics. I'm happy to meet you halfway and say it's a part of it though.

How can we measure success? We can evaluate the performance of the Afghan government, security forces, and the overall level of violence. Afghanistan is not going to gain full autonomy for years. Foreign donors effectively subsidize their government. If performance is poor now, there's no need to wait. The present is the crucible for Afghanistan, and the results are dismal. Honestly, I am uncertain where to begin.

Foremost, the civilian government is incompetent, impotent, and corrupt. There's a tendency to inordinately focus on the performance of the ANSF. But the civilian government is the linchpin to success. Ultimate authority resides in Kabul. As I've noted over the years in PoliGAF, Afghanistan suffers from a governance problem. And that might be irremediably broken. Moreover, pestilential corruption pervades Afghanistan. This is not only endogenous to the governance problem, it inhibits development. It is an albatross with few solutions.

Regarding the security of Afghanistan, violence remains high. Although that measures attacks on NGOs, it correlates highly with overall levels of violence. The elevated level of violence is troublesome for two reasons. First, it indicates that ANSF and international forces are not effectively inhibiting violence. And as the burden shifts to Afghan forces, it seems unlikely to improve. This is compounded both by the budget problems of the security forces, this should only intensify once international intention wanes, and the devastating attrition of security forces. Second, it highlights the resiliency of insurgent groups. They are primed for combat, and I fear this year's fighting season could be devastating.

Couple of links:
1. Chait's story on Obama's energy and environmental history. cc: @Speculawyer
2. Norm Ornstein tells Green Lanternites to knock it off.

A valid point by Norm. The failure of leadership is a tortured narrative that ignores reality.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

In your daily LOL edition: After his sister's loss, Stephen Colbert declares himself a Tar Heel.

...She lost against he dude who cheated on his wife and wanted Clinton impeached?

 

[speculawyer]

Couple of links:
1. Chait's story on Obama's energy and environmental history. cc: @Speculawyer

They certainly could tighten up the regulations on CO2. And right now could be good time to do it . . . make it hard to build a new coal CO2 intensive because no one wants to build one anyway due to cheap natural gas. When gas prices eventually rise, the regulations will prevent new CO2 intensive plants.

However, that might not be very effective. Such a regulation could just as easily be removed and when the there is money to be made, lobbyists are effective at changing things so the money can be made.

I think Obama has done good with other stealth climate change things like raise CAFE standards, keep the wind PTC alive, solar tax-credits, keep the EV incentive programs going, etc.

More to do though. I think they need to draft a set of 'model rules' for PV installation that would provide a simplified and nation-wide set of regulations for installing PV that would reduce installation costs. Installation costs are the biggest thing slowing PV right now.

2. Norm Ornstein tells Green Lanternites to knock it off.

I still can't figure out how he has not been kicked out of the AEI. He must have compromising photos of the people that run the place.