"What we don't know about Obama"

Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris

Thu Jan 22, 4:44 am ET

We know a lot more about Barack Obama than we did on Election Day.

He wastes little time making big decisions.

He was serious about surrounding himself with seasoned people, even if they are outsized personalities likely to jostle one another and unlikely to salute on command.

He intends to move quickly to put his personal stamp on government and national life.

Yet much about how the 44th president will govern remains a mystery—perhaps even to Obama himself.

The stirring rhetoric witnessed on the campaign trail and in Tuesday’s inaugural address is laced with spacious language — flexible enough to support conflicting conclusions about what he really believes.

Only decisions, not words, can clarify what Obama stands for.

Those are coming soon enough.

Until then, here are the questions still left hanging as the Obama administration begins:

DOES HE REALLY THINK AFGHANISTAN IS WINNABLE?

The new president has strongly signaled that he thinks the answer is yes.

But neither his rhetoric nor his policy proposals so far have fully reckoned with the implications.

If he intends to win in Afghanistan, he is not going to be a Peacemaker President.

To the contrary, he is committing himself to being just as much of a War President as George W. Bush, certainly for the first term and very possibly for a potential second.

Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties.

In any event, the country and its unruly neighbor, Pakistan, will quite likely dominate Obama’s attention much more than Iraq.

Obama advisers say one of the biggest surprises of recent secret briefings on trouble spots around the globe was how unstable, exposed and dangerous Pakistan is.

A nuclear neighbor that harbors terrorists injects all the more danger and uncertainty to the war on the other side of its border.

Joe Biden’s first trip abroad as vice President-elect included a stop in Afghanistan.

When he returned home, he told Obama:

“The truth is that things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they’re going to get better.”

If that’s true, Obama may in the end find muddle-through more attractive than victory.

DO DEFICITS MATTER?

In the short-run, Obama and his advisers believe, just like Bush and his advisers, that pumping up the economy is the top priority —budget deficits be damned.

But when does the short-run become the long-run?

Obama has said long-term, trillion-dollar deficits are “unsustainable.”

His inaugural address warned about the need to cut programs that don’t work and make “hard choices.”

Does he really mean it?

If so, the second half of Obama’s first term likely will be marked by austerity just as much as the first half is going to be marked by massive spending in the name of economic stimulus.

Embracing balanced budgets would also mean embracing steep cuts in weapons systems and entitlement programs, as well as curbing his ambitions for new initiatives in health care and energy.

Tax hikes would also be part of the remedy.

With unpleasant medicine like this, Obama may instead find common cause with Democratic liberals and with Dick Cheney, who, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, once dismissed GOP deficit hawks by saying that Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.

HOW FAST IS TOO FAST IN IRAQ?

The president says he still wants U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

Tellingly, he always adds caveats that conditions and advice from commanders will dictate the pace.

Defense Secretary Gates recently made this clear:

“He also said he wanted to have a responsible drawdown."

"And he also said he was prepared to listen to his commanders."

"So, I think that that’s exactly the position the president-elect should be in.”

What if conditions change for the worse?

Violence is way down and many of the most troubled areas are showing signs of stability.

But this remains an extremely volatile region that could erupt in new bloodshed.

Will Obama still cling to a speedy pull-out if it means the country could implode?

Obama met with his military commanders on Wednesday.

But it’s anyone’s guess whose advice he’ll be listening to most closely, and which members of his heavyweight foreign policy team – within which there are significant disagreements over the Iraq war – will really have his ear.

WHAT’S IN THE FILES?

Any time someone criticized their policies on use of force, covert surveillance, or detention or interrogation of terrorism suspects, Bush and Cheney had an answer that was impossible for any outside critic to fully contend with:

You don’t know what we know.

What they said they knew was top-secret intelligence showing how many people with murderous designs on the United States are roaming the planet, how imminent the threats are, or how effective controversial anti-terrorist programs had been in averting another attack.

Since no one else could see the files, no one else could be on equal footing in deciding whether the administration was right or wrong.

Since Tuesday, Obama has all the same files, and all the same access to the nation’s top secrets, that Bush and Cheney ever did.

How will Obama react when he gets a constant morning diet of dire warnings?

The president today moved to shut down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and end torture – and has surrounded himself with critics of both who are unlikely to tolerate backsliding.

But it is not unfathomable that Obama has a “Few Good Men” moment and has to tell liberals and civil libertarians they can’t handle the truth – and that drastic steps sometimes need to be taken to avert disastrous consequences.

What’s more, it is hardly a given that any president—no matter his philosophy—would wish to give up the expanded executive power that Bush claimed in the name of national security.

DO UNIONS WEAR WHITE HATS?

Obama, for the entire campaign, said all the right things when it comes to keeping peace with Big Labor.

He praised the power and fairness of unions.

He expressed skepticism about free trade agreements like NAFTA.

Most of all, he proudly sponsored legislation to make it much easier for workers to unionize.

Lately, he sounds like a man rethinking his enthusiasm.

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, he suggested he would not aggressively push for legislation to free workers to easily unionize (the bill is known as the Employee Free Choice Act).

“If we are losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize.”

Even Nancy Pelosi seems inclined to cut him some slack for a while on this one – but at some point the pressure will intensify and we will learn if this is truly a pro-union White House.

CAN U.S. POWER SAVE DARFUR?

Darfur will be the first test case - but almost certainly not the last one - in which we will learn just how strongly Obama believes his stated view that the United States should act aggressively when it can use its military power to stop genocide or other humanitarian catastrophes.

There is powerful momentum inside the Democratic Party to come to the aid of the suffering people of Darfur.

Among the biggest advocates are two of Obama’s top advisers: Biden and U.N Ambassador-designate Susan Rice.

But with the military stretched thin, and with many others in his administration more skeptical about the use of force on problems that don’t directly threaten national security, nothing is likely to happen unless Obama puts his own influence and reputation strongly behind an intervention.

During the campaign, he signaled a willingness to intervene, but also cautioned:

“There’s a lot of cruelty around the world."

"We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time.”

HOW MUCH DOES HE HAVE TO PLACATE THE LEFT?

In his inaugural speech, Obama spoke of tired ideologies and a time to think anew about policy and politics.

That is easy to do if he simply means rejecting Bush’s idea.

But he has suggested this rethinking will hit the left, too – that’s trickier.

Some times, Obama has been wiling to tick off the left.

He picked Rick Warren, a Christian conservative, to deliver Tuesday’s opening prayer and filled his cabinet and staff mainly with centrists.

Other times, he seems to bend to liberal frustration.

Obama nixed John Brennan’s appointment to be CIA director after anti-torture advocates expressed outrage over Brennan’s involvement in Bush-era interrogations.

Brennan’s going to be working in the White House anyway, but not in any position that requires Senate confirmation.

Obama also quickly moved to give a prime role to Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay religious leader from New Hampshire, when liberals protested the choice of Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Politically savvy liberal activists are an important reason Obama beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic nominating contest, and a big reason he blew through all fund-raising records.

It will be hard for Obama to govern without their enthusiasm, on the other hand, it will be tough to reinvent politics if Obama is forced to routinely throw bouquets to the various factions of the Democratic Party.

Can you spell...status quo?

Kind of my thought, too, Frenchy, on my first reading of it .....

Did somebody say turning this "ship" in a new direction was going to take some time?

I wonder how his more liberal supporters and fans in here will take some of these high-lighted comments, such as the IDEOLOGY of the left being quite as tired as that of the far right ....

rla won't like that, I think .....

But we'll let him speak his own piece in here on the matter .....

And I thought that it was interesting that they had Obama and Dick Cheney of all people in a sort of league with each other AND the LIBERAL democrats ....

POLITICS MAKES FOR SOME VERY STRANGE BEDFELLOWS, INDEED ...

And so ...

It's gonna take more than tweeking the "same ol', same ol'"

And then ....

There is this reality, as well ...

Like a Crack Whore, Liv.

So far I think Obama is performing his job Satisfactorily and with ample job Satisfaction...too
early to make a comprehensive assessment...

I can't argue this assessment of yours, rla ....

So I won't ....

And I kind of like the kid, myself ....

I do like what I am hearing him saying about OUR Constitution and OUR way of life with respect to closing Gitmo and stopping torture ....

Although a lot of people up this way sure would have liked to see him order Dick Cheney to undergo a DOSE of it first, before Obama outlawed it again .....

He wouldn't necessarily have had to have Cheney waterboarded ....

Having him have to stand naked for a bit with a hood over his head, and some female scanty panties on top of that, while his thumbs were held up by wire would have satisfied people, so long as a lot of photographs were taken and distributed around the world ...

And what was up with Dick Cheney in that wheelchair?

The dude looked like DR. STRANGELOVE, or some character out of a James Bond movie who was one of the bad guys trying to destroy the world ...

And so ...

Obama is already turning the wheel of the Ship of State. The Ship is so big and the damage so extensive it will take some time to alter its course towards increased prosperity and reclaiming our good name around the world. I fully expect all those who supported the last eight years to sit back and sneer as he and we struggle to right the wrongs and clean up the mess they left.

I will echo Graham in one thing. Thank God it is Obama and not someone else for several reasons. One of those being...Let's just say that those who've been either part of or cheering on the disaster should be glad it is not Rahm Immanuel instead of Obama who is president because he would be uh... less forgiving...

I also fully expect those who enriched themselves at all our expense and their shills to attempt to re-write history and blame Obama for what they have wrought.

This and more tells me all I need to know about him and those I've mentioned. Given that I think we made the right choice.

The alternative would have been John McCain dying in office and the country being left to Sarah Palin and the republicans ....

And who the hell is Rahm Immanuel?

I've never heard of him before this .....

I doubt that I would have voted for the dude ....

Was he even running?

And so ...

Obama is apparently not going to allow CONTRACTORS to carry out INTERROGATIONS on behalf of the USA ...

If so, he is going to have a DANGEROUS CROWD arrayed against him ....

BUT ....

Perhaps he is appeasing them by expanding the war in Afghanistnam ....

And so ...

Rahm is Obama's Chief of Staff and was a firebrand Dem Congressman who helped get Dems elected by confronting the Republicans on their lies and criminality. Whether McCain would have died in office or not he would have been a terrible president IMO. He's got no political gutts at all and he's an A*hole at best. Not knowing anything else about him, the way he talked to his wife told me me all I needed to know about the man. I've heard people reveal themselves with such and other comments and while none I know (including myself) are saints we don't need an angry old man after an angry young man in office now.

Some day we'll get it that all independent sentient human life is precious and not just a slogan, and the warmongers and those who just like to sit back and watch the pretty explosions are not fit for dogcatcher much less having any power over anybody but their own sorry asses. When we finally realize what's in our own collective best interests and what is not we'll start voting for people of like mind and making sure we see the red flags clearly displayed by those who want bloodshed and booty wrapped up in the Bible and the American flag. Then and only then will we have grown up as a nation and even then we'll have to study our history (including this time just past) to make sure we never go anywhere near here again.

We've been duped for decades into marching far to the right of where this country really is. Well we've tried the "Right Wing" answers to everything. That philosophy is now defunct. It cannot govern a free people. It is fit for nothing but fascism where everyone marches in lock-step. Total corruption is the result and wholesale Grand Larceny in every sector. In spite of the overwhelming proof of this, the Right Wing constantly projects its own characteristics on Dems. Saying we march in lock-step with cute phrases like "Politically Correct". Everyone knows that all we mean is to have some manners and sensitivity for the feelings of others. Something we were taught by our mothers and fathers when we were kids. I shudder to think what those who believe in rudeness and mean-spiritedness were taught but I can guess. I watched the behavior of those who set the dogs on the freedom marchers and rode them down with horses. I heard the way they spoke while ganging up on a helpless black girl trying to go to school. I don't need lectures on morality from such people or the Party they hijacked from the Eisenhower's of the world.

Pardon me... got a little hot there...

Just some thoughts.

HEY!

FINE by me, TROU ...

And so ...

HOW do you see yourself reconciling this discrepancy then, TROU?

You always raise interesting points, TROU ....

I always appreciate it when you do ....

People should give some thought to these things ....

And yes, TROU ....

In America, people and schools and the government all teach young kids to be AT THE HEAD OF THE LINE ....

That means that you have to push ahead of somebody else ....

And in turn, push somebody else behind you ....

It was just such an attitude instilled in people in this country by our "values" that caused that mob on Long Island to break down the doors of that Walmart and crush that one dude to death by stampeling him in the mad rush to get to the wide-screen TV's before anybody else ....

And so ...

Afghanistan and Pakistan are real problems. I will wait to see what he does over the longer term. I'm all for getting those who attacked us on 911. Iraq did not. I do not know the answers to that region, but I would think that targeting those like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who seek the destruction of legitimate governments there seems appropriate as long as we do not harm the innocent. I expect him to emphasize building and protecting schools in Afghanistan especially for girls and helping the people there to find peace and security, but in the end even there they have to want it. Pakistan I have no idea what to do. Do you? They kill their real leaders like Benatar Bhutto and I don't think they can deal with the northwest territories. The people of Pakistan must make a choice about what they want. If they seek war on their neighbor India and want to interfere negatively in Afghanistan then they will get war. If they want peace and prosperity then that's what they'll get. If they listen to Al-Qaeda... well Al-Qaeda believes in "glorious" death for all, so let them choose.

"Why Afghanistan may be Obama's toughest foreign challenge"

By Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers

Fri Jan 23, 8:41 pm ET

WASHINGTON — Ten days before President Barack Obama's inauguration, the Afghan government added a new wrinkle to the toughest foreign policy challenge confronting the new president by demanding a share of control over the 30,000-strong, NATO-led security force in Afghanistan.

The Afghan government's Jan. 10 plan, a copy of which was obtained by McClatchy , would give the Afghan government authority to approve an increase in International Security Assistance Force troops, which include about 19,500 Americans.

It also would limit home searches or detention of Afghans to Afghan forces and require coordination of "all phases of" NATO ground and air operations "at the highest possible level."

The deteriorating relationship between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his foreign allies, however, is only one of myriad obstacles that Obama and his just-named special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, are confronting in Afghanistan, Obama on Thursday called "the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism."

The Taliban are stronger than they've been at any time since the U.S. ousted the puritanical Islamist group in 2001.

Relying on sanctuaries in neighboring areas of Pakistan held by allied Islamic militants, they dominate huge swaths of the south and east of the Texas -sized country of sweeping deserts and towering peaks.

The insurgents are no match in set-piece battles with some 32,000 U.S. troops and 30,000 soldiers from NATO and non- NATO countries.

The insurgents, however, easily replace the casualties they suffer, and they've increased their use of suicide bombs, snipers, assassinations and other guerrilla tactics while creeping closer to Kabul, the capital.

Although the Taliban, al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups remain active along the remote border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Bush administration failed to develop a coherent strategy to coordinate security operations in Afghanistan with international efforts to improve governance and provide schools, roads and other infrastructure.

U.S. commanders, however, say they don't have enough troops to execute such a strategy, and Obama has embraced a call for another 30,000 U.S. troops.

Senior U.S. military officials, however, say that increase is probably insufficient for Afghanistan, which is twice the size of Iraq, and they say they lack answers to basic questions, such as what realistically can be achieved in the next three to five years.

"Clearly the message I'm getting is, 'What are the near-term goals going to be?" said Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday.

He said that the strategy reviews his staff and Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the region, are conducting for Obama should answer that question.

Other obstacles facing Obama include the reluctance of NATO governments to buck majorities of their publics that oppose sending more troops or funds to Afghanistan.

U.S. commanders are further frustrated by what they charge is the reluctance of their European counterparts to fight or act without clearance from their civilian masters.

"They can't do anything without getting permission," complained a U.S. defense official involved in Afghan policy, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

The official said that Obama also should insist that ISAF relinquish control over operations in the Taliban's southern heartland to the U.S.

He also said that he though that Obama shouldn't waste the international goodwill he brings into office by launching what likely would be an unsuccessful diplomatic effort to convince European allies to provide more troops, he said.

"Just send the 30,000 U.S. troops," said the U.S. defense official, adding that even more will have to go, although that will depend on whether Iraq remains stable or renewed violence there disrupts Obama's plan for a complete withdrawal by mid-2010.

The U.S. military already is suffering the strains of fighting both wars, and U.S. units in Afghanistan are finding that tanks, armored Humvees and other equipment adapted for the mostly urban battlefields of Iraq are ill-suited and prone to breakdowns in Afghanistan's rubble-strewn mountains and dusty deserts.

Ordinary Afghans, meanwhile, are losing faith in the West, angered by the unrelenting violence and grinding poverty eight years into the U.S.-led intervention, while the world's largest opium crop fuels the Taliban and feeds official corruption and enriches warlords.

Karzai has criticized NATO for military operations that have caused heavy civilian casualties.

"Afghans once welcomed the international presence," Fransesc Vendrell, the former longtime European Union representative to Kabul, told a Jan. 8 conference in Washington.

"The initial welcome is turning into impatience and even downright hostility."

U.S. and NATO officials, meanwhile, have dismissed Karzai's call late last year for peace talks with the Taliban as an election ploy and have criticized corruption and paralysis within his administration.

"Afghans need a government that deserve their loyalty and trust," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer fired back at the Afghan leader in a Washington Post op-ed a week after he received Kabul's proposed military accord.

( Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)

"Obama pitches his plan to reverse economic slide"

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

24 JANUARY 2009

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Saturday laid out more pieces of an economic plan he says would add 3,000 miles of electrical lines, increase security at 90 ports and double the United States' renewable energy capacity within three years.

It was the latest appeal from the new president for a massive spending bill designed to inject almost a trillion dollars into a flailing U.S. economy and to fulfill campaign pledges.

As members of Congress consider an $825 billion plan and Obama woos them, his White House released a radio and Internet address directed at voters who want answers.

"Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four."

"And we could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future," Obama said in a five-minute address that the White House released early Saturday.

"In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."

Along with the speech, Obama's economic team released a report designed to outline tangible benefits of the plan and shore up support.

Aides said they wanted people to understand exactly what they could expect — more schools, lower electricity bills — if their members of Congress supported the proposed legislation.

The United States lost 2.6 million jobs last year, the most in any single year since World War II.

Manufacturing is at a 28-year low and even Obama's economists say unemployment could top 10 percent before the recession ends.

One in 10 homeowners are at risk of foreclosure and the dollar continues its slide in value.

That harsh reality has dominated Obama's first days in office and prompted a Saturday meeting of his economic team at the White House during their first weekend in power.

A day earlier, he invited Democratic and Republican leaders to the White House to hear their ideas on the economy, yet Obama didn't share the plan's specifics while they visited.

Many of the goals in the speech and report were familiar from Obama's two-year campaign, like shifting to electronic medical records and investing in preventive health care.

Other parts added specifics.

Obama's recovery package aims to:

• Double within three years the amount of energy that could be produced from renewable resources, an ambitious goal given the 30 years it took to reach current levels.

Advisers say that could power 6 million households.

• Upgrade 10,000 schools and improve learning for about 5 million students.

• Save $2 billion a year by making federal buildings energy efficient.

• Triple the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships in science.

The plan would spend at least 75 percent of the total cost — or more than $600 billion — within the first 18 months, providing a massive infusion of cash to the struggling economy, either through bricks-and-shovels projects favored by Democrats or tax cuts that Republicans have pushed.

Either could produce progress the administration could point to if it needs to justify a second economic package.

The broad plan puts heavy emphasis on infrastructure that crumbled as state budgets contracted.

Governors have lobbied Obama to help them patch holes in their budgets, drained by sinking tax revenues and increased need for public assistance like Medicaid and children's health insurance.

Obama's plan would increase the federal portion of those programs so no state would have to cut any of the 20 million children whose eligibility is now at risk.

Obama's plan would also provide health care coverage for 8.5 million Americans who lose their insurance when they either lose or shift jobs.

"It's a plan that will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next few years" and recognizes "there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there's so much work to be done," he said.

But he cautioned again against expecting instant results:

"No one policy or program will solve the challenges we face right now, nor will this crisis recede in a short period of time."

___

On the Net:

Obama video: http://www.whitehouse.gov.

"McCain wants a stimulus rewrite"

Erika Lovley

25 JANUARY 2009

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told "Fox News Sunday" this morning that he would not support the stimulus package as the House Democrats have written it because it includes too much wasteful spending.

The stimulus currently includes $275 billion in tax cuts and doesn't include Republican input or a spending timeline, McCain said.

"There should be an end point to all of this spending, say two years..."

"The plan was written by the Democratic majority in the House primarily."

"So yeah, I think there has to be major rewrites, if we want to stimulate the economy," McCain said.

"I am opposed to most of provisions in the bill."

"As it stands now, I would not support it."

McCain wouldn't say whether he would filibuster it.

"We need serious negotiations," he said.

"We're losing sight of what the stimulus is all about and that is job creation."

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), however, disagreed with McCain, saying he expects a number of Republicans to support the $825 billion stimulus package.

"I think you'll find large number of Republicans behind this," Schumer said.

"I regret Sen. McCain said he won't be voting for it."

Who is Barack Obama?

He is YOUR president.

Enjoy him.

Don't care what McCain likes or would allow. Don't care what he thinks or says or even what he does as long as he does it out of my sight behind some bushes or in the appropriate room.

He is THE president, graham ....

In America, we DO NOT have KINGS or CAUDILLOS ....

He is the president of the UNITED STATES ....

HE IS NOT OUR RULER!

And so ...

That's cool, TROU ....

You're certainly free to express yourself openly in here, and I am glad that you are ...

And I don't care myself ...

I just thought that was newsworthy and in keeping with the topic of this thread, which is all of what is stated in that news article which starts this thread ...

American History 101 for next semester in the making in here, HOWEVER IT COMES OUT ....

And so ...

"U.S. Marines find Iraq tactics don't work in Afghanistan"

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

Sunday, January 11, 2009

DELARAM, Afghanistan — On a sunset patrol here in late December, U.S. Marines spotted a Taliban unit trying to steal Afghan police vehicles at a checkpoint.

In a flash, the Marines turned to pursue, driving off the main road and toward the gunfire coming from the mountain a half mile away.

But their six-ton vehicles were no match for the Taliban pickups.

The mine-resistant vehicles and heavily armored Humvees bucked and swerved as drivers tried to maneuver them across fields that the Taliban vehicles raced across.

The Afghan police trailed behind in unarmored pick-up trucks, impatient about their allies' weighty pace.

The Marines, weighted down with 60 pounds of body armor each, struggled to climb up Saradaka Mountain.

Once at the top, it was clear to everyone that the Taliban would get away.

Second Lt. Phil Gilreath, 23, of Kingwood, La., called off the mission.

"It would be a ghost chase, and we would run the risk of the vehicles breaking down again," Gilreath said.

The Marines spent the next hour trying to find their way back to the paved road.

The men of the 3rd Batallion, 8th Marine Regiment, based at Camp Lejeune, are discovering in their first two months in Afghanistan that the tactics they learned in nearly six years of combat in Iraq are of little value here — and may even inhibit their ability to fight their Taliban foes.

Their MRAP mine-resistant vehicles, which cost $1 million each, were specially developed to combat the terrible effects of roadside bombs, the single biggest killer of Americans in Iraq.

But Iraq is a country of highways and paved roads, and the heavily armored vehicles are cumbersome on Afghanistan's unpaved roads and rough terrain where roadside bombs are much less of a threat.

Body armor is critical to warding off snipers in Iraq, where Sunni Muslim insurgents once made video of American soldiers falling to well-placed sniper shots a staple of recruiting efforts.

But the added weight makes Marines awkward and slow when they have to dismount to chase after Taliban gunmen in Afghanistan's rough terrain.

Even the Humvees, finally carrying heavy armor after years of complaints that they did little to mitigate the impact of roadside explosives in Iraq, are proving a liability.

Marines say the heavy armor added for protection in Iraq is too rough on the vehicles' transmissions in Afghanistan's much hillier terrain, and the vehicles frequently break down — so often in fact that before every patrol Marine units here designate one Humvee as the tow vehicle.

The Marines have found other differences:

In Iraq, American forces could win over remote farmlands by swaying urban centers.

In Afghanistan, there's little connection between the farmlands and the mudhut villages that pass for towns.

In Iraq, armored vehicles could travel on both the roads and the desert.

Here, the paved roads are mostly for outsiders - travelers, truckers and foreign troops; to reach the populace, American forces must find unmapped caravan routes that run through treacherous terrain, routes not designed for their modern military vehicles.

In Iraq, a half-hour firefight was considered a long engagement; here, Marines have fought battles that have lasted as long as eight hours against an enemy whose attacking forces have grown from platoon-size to company-size.

U.S. military leaders recognize that they need to make adjustments.

During a Christmas Eve visit here, Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway told the troops that the Defense Department is studying how to reconfigure the bottom of its MRAPs to handle Afghanistan's rougher terrain.

And Col. Duffy White, the commander of the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, said he anticipates that Marines will be wearing less armor by spring, when fighting season begins again.

The next Marine battalion arriving here will need more troops and more helicopters.

And because of terrain, patrols will change.

"Hopefully we have not become wedded to the vehicles," White said, a reference to the MRAPs, which currently are required for every patrol.

"We have to set the standard operation procedure for how to do this."

"This not Iraq."

Just how quickly the U.S. military can shift its weapons, tactics and mindset to Afghanistan after nearly seven years of training almost exclusively for Iraq is a major question as President-elect Barack Obama takes office promising to transfer combat units out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

Students of the Iraq war know that change came slowly and only after years of casualties made worse by inadequate equipment.

As in Iraq, where the U.S. didn't increase the number of troops, despite the growing insurgency and violence until 2007, U.S. forces Afghanistan fear they are undermanned, despite the Pentagon's plan to double the U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 60,000.

The 3,000 troops here are in charge of an area with few city centers that is roughly the size of Vermont.

In Washir, the neighboring district, the Taliban operates freely because there are not enough troops.

"They tell me that Afghanistan is Iraq on steroids," said Gilreath, who is on his first deployment and hasn't served in Iraq.

But 40 percent of the 3-8 has served previously in Iraq's Anbar province.

Indeed, the 3-8 was originally scheduled to deploy to the Iraqi/Syrian border and learned just two months before it shipped out that it was headed to Afghanistan instead.

By then they had finished most of their training, all of it geared toward Iraq.

So they are learning on the ground.

At times, Afghanistan can feel deceptively like Iraq, they say.

During a patrol that found the Marines surrounded by poppy fields, they spotted two men on a motorcycle trailing them.

It was the only other vehicle on an otherwise unused paved road.

"You see that."

"They're watching us," Gilreath radioed to his fellow Marines.

In Iraq, such trailing often meant an attack was imminent.

But not here.

Marines said it could be months before the Taliban turns that information into an attack.

"The lack of attacks has me asking: Are we doing something right or wrong?" asked company commander Capt. Sven Gosnell, 36, of Torrance, Calif., an Iraqi veteran.

When the Taliban does take on the Marines, it's a different kind of fight, Marines said.

For one, the Taliban'll wait until they're ready, not just when an opportunity appears.

They'll clear the area of women and children, not use them as shields.

And when the attack comes, it's often a full-scale attack, with flanks, trenches and a plan, said one Marine captain and Iraq veteran who asked not to be identified because he wasn't sure he was allowed to discuss tactics.

Afghans "are willing to fight to the death."

"They recover their wounded, just like we do," said the captain.

"When I am fighting here, I am fighting a professional army."

"If direct fighting does not work, they will go to an IED."

"They plan their ammunition around poppy season."

"To fight them, you are pulling every play out of the playbook."

U.S. troops also are frustrated by the different rules of engagement they must operate under in Afghanistan.

Until Jan. 1, U.S. forces in Iraq operated under their own rules of engagement.

If they saw something suspicious, they could kick down a door, search a home or detain a suspicious person.

But in Afghanistan, they operate under the rules of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, of which U.S. troops are part.

Under those regulations, only Afghans can search buildings and detain people.

Gilreath felt that frustration shortly after he spotted the trailing motorcycle.

Radio chatter mentioned a local bomb-making factory, though it didn't say where.

Gilreath decided to investigate two nearby homes.

Trailing behind was one Afghan police truck, the only one available that day.

The Marines secured the perimeter and the handful of Afghan police officers searched one clay structure, then the other.

But they moved slowly.

Some Marines started peeking the windows, doing their best to honor ISAF rules and still satisfy their urge to search.

As the burka-clad women huddled with their children outside, and the men tried to assure the Marines they were law abiding, a single Afghan man began walking off through a nearby field.

There weren't enough Afghan police to both search the homes and stop the man.

"We just need more everything," Gilreath said afterward.

"Guardsman would rather face Taliban than U.S. economy"

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

DELARAM, Afghanistan — Around the barren military base, which sits at the crossroads of the Taliban's poppy trade route, news arrives slowly.

A single issue of the U.S. military's newspaper arrives by airlift about every two weeks.

While on patrol in remote villages, Afghans sometime shout at the Marines in Russian to go away, unaware that the troops are promoting democracy.

Most Marines here said that they didn't know about President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet picks, including his decision to keep Robert Gates as their secretary of defense.

However, the domestic economic meltdown has reached even here.

The National Guardsmen who serve with the Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Corps Regiment, based here, say they fear that their jobs won't be there when they return.

With uncertainty at home, some are doing what they once considered unthinkable: extending their tours.

They say that they'd rather tackle a resurging Taliban than a struggling economy.

Among them is Sgt 1st Class John Russell, 45, of Royal Oak, Mich., who works alongside the Marines who are based here.

Russell, a 22-year National Guard veteran, has extended his tour of duty here, hoping that the economy will turn around while he serves.

He left his job as a manager at a car dealership in Carmel, N.Y., where he sold General Motors, Ford and Chrysler cars.

This is his fourth deployment, but the first one that he fears will leave him with no job to return to.

When he finishes in May, he'll have served 17 months.

"By May, how much more will it change?"

"What will I come home to?" Russell asked.

Russell trains soldiers of the Afghan national army.

Daily, he walks to the Afghan side of the base, an even more barren section that the troops often call "the dark side."

From within its confines, Russell trains the soldiers in everything from how to shoot to how to run a base.

U.S. officials have said that the Afghan army will double to more than 120,000 soldiers by next year, a tacit acknowledgment that foreign troops alone can't assure the country's security.

So it falls to the coalition forces here to build an army as quickly as possible.

That was never Russell's goal.

Married and with sons aged 15 and 7, he deployed last January in part, he said, because the economy was getting worse.

Car sales were down, and he was having trouble making his mortgage payments.

He extended his tour in the fall, just as financial institutions were begging for a $700 billion bailout.

"It was a lot of scary talk about a lot of companies breaking down. . . ."

"At the dealership, they said things were slow," down to 60 cars a month from a peak 110.

"Everything convinced me extending was the right thing to do."

With 20 years of service, Russell gets a base pay of $47,830 a year as a sergeant first class — and no bonuses.

These days, what little news he hears is bad.

Curious, he once looked at a news site on the Internet and learned that GM was on the verge of bankruptcy.

He thinks that Chrysler might not make it.

His wife sends him updates as well as hints about his future career.

"I think a lot of it is her telling me, 'You need to find something else.' "

Until he does, he keeps serving.

Next month, he'll begin training police officers.

"I do it for my country."

"I believe it's for the good of my country, but I miss out on a lot of good times with my kids and wife," Russell said.

Russell, of the Army National Guard's 427 Brigade Support Battalion in its Logistics Task Force, joined the Army National Guard out of college, in part because he didn't know what he wanted to do.

He started selling cars in 1994.

For seven years, he sold 20 cars a month on average at a dealership that sold about 110 a month; for five of those years, he was the salesman of the year.

He was called up just once, for nine months in Bosnia, but he was confident that his job would be there when he got back.

In 2001, when he became a sales manager, sales were down slightly.

"Leading up to 9-11, it looked like there would be problems."

"Afterwards, there was a tremendous boost."

He was called up again, this time to protect New York's subway system in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

In 2004, he deployed to Iraq for 15 months.

As he left, he worried:

"How was I going to come back to work?"

"Would they be understanding?"

They weren't.

On returning to work in May 2005, he was put in charge of used cars and worked as a finance manager.

He turned in his retirement papers to the Army in late 2007.

However, he changed his mind as sales kept falling.

By last January, he was getting ready for a deployment to Afghanistan.

Serving at Bagram Air Field, a major military installation, he could monitor the economic downturn over the Internet.

He e-mailed friends in search of a job in government or the police, but they always wanted him before his deployment was over.

By the fall, he was sent to Delaram, which borders Afghanistan's restive Helmand province, to train the Afghan army.

Not hearing the news about the economy is perhaps a blessing, he said, because he can't focus on what's happening back home.

For now, he's stopped looking for work.

He said he'd try again when he got home.

He hears from his friends at the dealership occasionally, and they try to shield him from the news.

"I don't think they want to give me depressing information."

"They think I am in a worse place," Russell said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/59087.html

In a more perfect world, troops could come home and find jobs rebuilding American infrastructure instead of bouncing rubble in Afghanistan.

Gee, it hasn't been a quite a week yet. Too early to make a comprehensive assessment? Ya think?

Sorry if I appear to be mocking you. I just capitalized on your straight line. (I post tons of them myself.)

Every new President is a mystery to some extent, even, I would think, to themselves. What will really happen when the rubber meets the road?

Now I do think that Obama is going to disappoint many on the Left, but then I always thought he was more of a left-leaning centrist than strongly on the Left (to the extent those labels are meaningful, I realize that there is a lot they don't tell), despite so many of the ridiculous ideas entertained by many, primarily his critics and skeptics, including a few on this forum.

I just have to respond to this one!

I think I would prefer the modern-day version of the first vs. the second, as one of my sig lines suggests.

But all in all I think what this country has is the best. No king, caudillo, or anyone to whom we must pledge fealty. Just a government whose laws we are expected to obey, and the government is expected to obey the laws as well.

My only problem is I guess that Livyjr -- seems to offer this article as evidence -- of some more sinister or questionable resume of Obama -- and his opporunity for success -- that it is diminished because of these question marks...when this is nothing new --- all Presidents at this stage of their presidency are question marks -- men of mystery...

But if you look at the seasoned persons that have been appointed...if you look at what Obama has done already in his first week --

-Closing Guantanamo in a year
-Appointing envoys to the Middle East and Palestine
-Revoking Bush secrecy Executive Orders
-Renouncing torture
-issuing an outline for economic stimulus
-having the Pentagon prepare a plan for withdrawal of Iraq in 16 months before he even was sworn in as President

It is more than most presidents do in their first 100 days...

And many of these question have been answered...or seem rhetorical in nature...

Does he believe we can win in Afghanistan?

No. I do not think he does. However, I do believe that he thinks we can establish much better security than presently exists -- that we can create a better social, poltiical and economic environment in Afghanistan so that when we leave....

Iraq withdrawal timetable -- well - Livyjr and Frenchy have both been urging a rapid withdrawal from Iraq...so I should think that you both would support strongly his standing by his commitment to get out in 16 months via a plan the Pentagon has already developed that is very workable...but I think you would also support his prudence...of leaving his options open depending upon what happens on the ground...so long as that is not viewed as a blank check...

I think Barack has often voiced his opposition to deficits -- but he has also acknowledged the economic reality that we have three choices - none of them good ones - we do nothing -- we do something else -- or we do what he is proposing...well he was elected president...and at least Livyjr voted for him -- so he should be allowed to put his plan into effect IMHO...

I think he will examine Bush policies and actions and determine if further investigation or reference to a prosecutor is necessary...

As far as unions go -- we will see -- but I think that he is not as beholden as one might think...

And as far as being beholden to the left -- I think you will see he is not...he is governing for the nation and what he believes is best for them...now he believes in securing the interests of workers - no doub t - but this will not translate into a pro union all the time policy IMHO...

And the left will see he is no liberal despite what Hannity and the MSM report...this Administration is his legacy -- he knows that -- he knows that his effectiveness depends on being perceived as bipartisan...he has already reached out to Republcians...

He should tell the nation what his priorities are - and if the Republicans have a better plan than the Dems to achieve it -- I will not only listen...I will advance it...to challenge the Dems on health care and other issues...

I agree with most of this except I see no taint with being Liberal and I believe he is a Liberal. To hell with Hannity and the rest of the Right Wing and for that matter the Republican Party. They represent nothing but fraud and corruption.

What "better" ideas of theirs would you advocate Taz? Privatizing Social Security? Maintaining the present fiasco with Healthcare and Prescription drugs? Undermining Medicare? Further De-Regulating the Financial and Banking Industries? Giving more Tax Breaks to Millionaires and Billionaires? Victory in Iraq? Cheering on Torture (to keep us safe)? Privatizing the Military? Fixing Elections? Disenfrancishing millions of Black and Hispanic voters? Selling Ports to Dubai? Criminalizing Abortion? Keeping Gays as second class citizens? Lowering American wages and standards of living to compete with slave labor abroad? Elevating Dobson and Huckabee to the status of American Pope? Enshrining Corporate Rule?

Which one of the above Republican "Values and Ideas" should we compromise with in order to win the approval of people who believe in such?

Those are Bush policies in my mind...Bush was not a Republican...the Republican party went along because they saw him as the best means to propigate their species...well -- they saw just how far he took them -- from a strong majority to a minority in both houses...

Actually -- what I would hope that the Republicans could offer is ideas involving public-private partnerships...no privatization per se -- efforts to promote the private sector and government coming together --- and the innovatiove uses of tax policy -- not merely cutting taxes for the wealthy -- but creating programs to finance economic growth - and health care policy reforms that are economically feasible...and constructive...

I would probably examine most closely Republican and Democratic governors...because they are the most practical persons...and there have been some good Republican governors in the past...

QUIT THE NEGATIVE CRAP IN HERE. tazvil04 .....

I OFFER THE NEWS ARTICLE FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT IS - AN ANALYSIS OF ISSUES FACING US AS A NATION .....

THIS IS NOT OBAMA'S NATION, Tazvil04 ....

He is merely the president of OUR nation, and let us not lose sight of that in here, thank you very much ...

And as usual, HERE YOU COME, flying though the door FINDING FAULT WITH ME BY CREATING IT OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH!

RATHER THAN DEALING CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH WHAT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, WHICH IS ALL THOSE ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED IN THAT ARTICLE, TO WIT:

* DOES HE REALLY THINK AFGHANISTAN IS WINNABLE?

* DO DEFICITS MATTER?

* HOW FAST IS TOO FAST IN IRAQ?

* WHAT’S IN THE FILES?

* DO UNIONS WEAR WHITE HATS?

* CAN U.S. POWER SAVE DARFUR?

* HOW MUCH DOES HE HAVE TO PLACATE THE LEFT?

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT DAY ONE - FACED WITH THESE QUESTIONS OR ISSUES ...

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU FIND WRONG IN THAT ARTICLE THAT SHOWS BIAS TOWARDS OBAMA ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORS?

If so, then DON'T ATTACK ME ...

State what it is that you find wrong ....

CAN OBAMA WIN IN AFGHANISTNAM, tazvil04?

Why don't you start by lecturing us on that ....

I have already myself ....

So debunk this stuff for us in here, tazvil04 .....

Show us HOW you are right and DEMONSTRATE with facts how it is that you think that I am wrong ....

And so ....

We as a nation are in a bit of a PERVERSE CATCH-22 here, IS4U, as I see it, anyway ....

Obama thinks or believes that we can win in Afghanistnam ....

But based on what?

And HOW?

And for HOW MUCH?

Obama DOESN'T KNOW!

The economy is wrecked in part because of these INTERMINABLE BUSHIAN WARS OF AGGRESSION that Obama wants to not only continue, but escalate, so we have NO JOBS back here for the troops that are fighting these INTERMINABLE WARS were the INTERMINABLE WARS ever to finally stop and the troops come home ....

So we have to keep the INTERMINABLE WARS going, which wrecks our economy even further ....

And so ...

An idea can be deemed ridiculous if and when it has been demonstrated to be so ....

Mere opinions of ridiculosity do not ridiculous ideas make ....

EXCELLENT, Arneoker!

I don't know when I have seen it better said ....

And I am sincere in saying that, actually ....

This too should be up on a billboard in Times Square in NYC ....

And so ....

Well of course I deem things to be ridiculous according to my own opinion, for which I do not claim infallibility.

Not all criticism of Obama is ridiculous (as I see it). Some criticism of people I don't like strikes me as ridiculous.

I think that at the moment Obama is continuing to demonstrate that many of the charges against him that he is some kind of dangerous, radical leftist are indeed ridiculous. Now saying that many of his ideas and his political ideology in general are disturbing is not ridiculous per se. (And that is a matter of someone else's opinion.)

HOW, tazvil04, do you see Obama accomplishing any of that with more American troops on the one hand ANGERING the civilian population and a corrupt American puppet government on the other hand ANGERING the civilian population?

Karzai has to be one of the weakest and most worthless in a long line of weak and worthless American puppets now ....

His alleged people hate him, and his own security guards tried to kill him ....

Outside of wringing his hands and whining a lot, what does the Karzai dude have to offer to anybody with respect to securing the future of Afghanistnam?

Do we have another Diem situation facing us here, tazvil04?

And how do you see us succeeding where Russia could not?

And so ...

If I were a Republican I would be ranting and raving against Obama yesterday, today and tomorrow... from my yacht... as I sailed to Barbados... with what loot I had stolen from the American people... and would be crying in my martini over my dashed hopes of stealing more... and the expense of replacing the chapped leather on my upholstered seats.

Very sad... What is this country coming to?

Its senses?

I can't and won't argue against you here, Arneoker ...

I won't even begin to try ...

And I guess if I were to worry, it would be that he was much more to the right than to the left, especially with respect to the use of military force in Afghanistnam, which he seems committed to doing ....

And so ...

Certainly a legitimate thing to worry about, and that issue could not be more fair game to knock him or anyone over!

I'm watching his ideas and develop in this thread, Arneoker ....

This is like a horse race at Saratoga, where tazvil04 loves to go in the summertime when the races are on ....

I myself don't say who the winning horse is when they are entering the starting gate ....

Maybe I have an idea ....

Hell, maybe a jockey has even told me the race has been fixed ....

But that don't mean nothing until all the horses have gone around the track and have crossed the finish line, or not ....

So right now, with respect to this thread, we really are in the paddock area in the early morning, long before the actual race is to be declared over, and we are comparing notes on all the horses running ....

WHO REALLY IS GOING TO WIN?

Well, we know that answer with respect to the just-concluded presidential race .....

BUT .....

That was then ....

THIS BEGINS NOW ....

And it is nice to see all the participation in here on a positive note .....

I would hope that this would be a thread to act as a clearing house perhaps ....

And who knows ....

Anyway, Obama's administration has started, and in here, we are taking notes ....

To be compared at a later date, perhaps ...

And so ...

I think that it is going to be a WAR OF APPEASEMENT, Arneoker ...

A war to appease those in America who want war, just as his bail-out or stimulus plan is appeasement, as well .....

War has made some people in America both rich and powerful ....

Obama has to either placate those people by keeping a war going for them ....

Or he has to alienate them ....

If he alienates them, then he can't fight wars, because they are his mercenary force that he has to rely upon to do so ....

So we are going to have a WAR OF APPEASEMENT, as I see it .....

And TROU wonders what the world is coming to .....

Go figure, ain't it?

And so ...

Well Livyjr, I think that we have to remained involved in Afghanistan. But they need to change strategy, from focusing on rooting out the bad guys (although I would continue to do some of that), to protecting the people and helping the Afghans to install good government. And I would say that some time before the end of Obama's first term we should start reducing our profile. Because we just cannot make an indefinite, open-ended commitment there. We cannot keep all of these troops of ours there for years and years, just waiting for the Afghans to do their part right.

That is my overall, general take, based on what little I know. I may be wrong, in either direction.

It is certainly something that no one should feel the least bit of trepidation in holding Obama to account on.

Obama learned from the expert in Triangulation...

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson--Gay and Liberal--will not use the name Jesus in the Inaugural Prayer--will pray to the God of My Understanding.

Which will it be USAians, Rick Warren and the Saddle Bag Church and a crusade to stomp out Evil
or an attitude of live and let live and encourage mutually supportive practices that supports a strong
common Idtification between and among human beings--without being confused by cultural artifacts...

No, what I find dishonest is the suggestion that Obama is more of a mystery than any other person elected to the office of the president for the first time...

He is not a mystery at all to anyone who has been paying attention...and he has already fulfilled many of his campaign promises for more transparency, closing Guantanamo, ending torture, etc. as I outlined...

And Livyjr -- IMHO you have not fairly examined Obama in the past IMHO...dissecting his inaugural address as not representing history when as we demonstrated in the other thread -- it actually did...

Livyjr -- you just had to read a little bit farther to get an answer to your questions...

What do you recommend when the government doesn't obey the law?

That the responsible and offending officials be hauled before the provided venue of justice. Of course those who would prosecute will have to build up a good case, as all responible prosecutors know.

Most of my writing on this site has been about the need for a functional Ideology and about how the
Liberal-Conservative Factor is used and abused in politics and how it breaks down in to uncordinated battles over wedge issues...so I agree with President Obama that we can transcend the tired old
arguments of the past...