Barack Obama

What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?

Will now leave almost 6,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2017.

|

Squadronposters.com

Remember back when Candidate Obama used to talk about being against "dumb wars"? Then he became president and started to realize how much more fun it is to run them, I guess. He ended up tripling troop strength in Afghanistan, all as part of a "surge" that even the U.S. military says accomplished nothing.

Via CNN, here's his latest plan regarding of the Graveyard of Empires, a country we've been in for 14 years now and counting.

The decision to maintain 9,800 troops in Afghanistan until nearly the end of Obama's time in office comes after months of discussions with Afghanistan's president, Ashraf Ghani, and the nation's CEO, Abdullah Abdullah, senior administration officials said Wednesday night. Obama also consulted with U.S. military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan as well as his entire national security team, officials added.

According to the new White House plan, the number of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan would drop to 5,500 by early 2017, as Obama prepares to leave office. At that point, U.S. forces would be based in the Afghan capital of Kabul, as well as in military installations in Bagram, Jalalabad and Kandahar.

Note that Obama had originally pledged to pull all American forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

During the financial crisis, there was a lot of fear of creating "zombie businesses," or dead firms that were essentially barely alive because of constant infusions of tax dollars. It turns out that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we've effectively created zombie countries who cannot maintain their existence without a constant infusion not just of cash but of young American soldiers. The United States has bases in over 70 countries and the Pentagon considers "small installations" to be those that cost as much as $900 million a year to staff and operate.

Just a week or so ago, the U.S. military destroyed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, a town that is now slugging it out with the Taliban, the repressive government we booted from power way back in 2001.

Get your hippie on and listen to Mick Softley's "The War Drags On":

NEXT: Carly Fiorina Slams Donald Trump for His Crony Capitalism and Eminent Domain Abuse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?

    Maybe he should have had the Pope explain it to him when he was in town.

    1. To hell with The Dumbest President Ever mantel. This guy’s competing for The Dumbest Human Ever prize.

    2. Ah, you folks are being too hard on him.

      Like lots of guys, he’s willing to pull out most of the way, but just wants to leave the tip in.

      1. I’m more concerned with what part of “Pulling Out” Obama’s father didn’t understand. That was the start of America’s biggest problem since W Bush.

    3. Dark,

      Whether for STD protection, birth control, or keeping Afghanland from burning to the ground, pulling out is truly bad advice. That is, if you want STD protection, choice on yes/no giving birth, and don’t want Afghanland to burn to the ground. Il Poppa no savvy any of these issues, so it was just as well he wasn’t consulted.

    4. Pulling out is something Obama’s father should have done 54 years ago.

    5. He also promised not to cum in our mouths.

    6. I wish his dead-beat Kenyan daddy would of pulled out of his dumb cunt mother’s dumb cunt

  2. Then he became president and started to realize how much more fun it is to run them, I guess.

    More likely he had people arrayed around him informing him of the different kind of mess that would surely follow the removal of his military presence and who would be blamed. (And by people I mean probably just Valerie Jarrett, because who else is he going to listen to?)

  3. INTERCEPT has a major story on the drone war at Drone Papers: The Assassination Complex.

  4. Obama had originally pledged to pull all American forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

    Just image the fun were this to be treated as perjury.

    1. Read my lips…

      1. Mission Accomplished!

        *salutes*

        1. Closing Gitmo on my first day in office!

          1. I would have been for that as long as we executed all the detainees.

  5. Because he’s like totally different than Bush.

    1. He is. Bush didn’t come anywhere near Obama’s kill count with drones.

      1. no boots on the ground, so doesn’t even classify as ‘hostilities’ that eventually need congressional approval.

        1. Wait until the military gets hover boots. Then no more ‘boots on the ground (Goddamn how I hate that trite overused slang term. Seriously, just fuckg call them ‘ground troops’).

          I can just picture Josh Ernest giving the press conference on that one.

  6. What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?

    Pure class, Nick. Pure. Class.

  7. Gillespie’s revisionism is only further evidence of which tank’s depths he’s plumbing.

    Obama never called Afghanistan a “dumb war.” It was he and his won party who came up with the notion that Afghanistan was the ‘good war’ and that Iraq was the distraction. He’s the one who told us of the need to shift emphasis and win Afghanistan.

    Is this the winning we were promised?

    If only the actual outcome could have been foreseen…

    http://tinyurl.com/q8hn4wr

    1. Obama never called Afghanistan a “dumb war.”

      That wasn’t Nick’s point. The point is that Afghanistan now is indisputably a dumb war. And Obama supports it.

      1. Nuh uh Obama haz teh bestest furrin polidiocy “don’t do dumb stuff” hes teh bestist evar!#!#~!

        /shriek

        1. The worst part is that your post was more intelligible than the typical PBP one.

          1. CHRISTFAG!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

      2. No, it wasn’t Nick’s point.

        But Nick’s point was ‘pay no attention to the fact that what Obama is presently doing is the inevitable consequence of what Obama already did.’

        Or did you miss that?

        1. Reading comprehension clearly is not your strong point. You seem to have some sort of grudge against Nick. I’m guessing you use the word cosmotarian unironically.

          1. Oh, now we see the Cosmo inherent in the system!!

            HELP! HELP! I’m bein’ repressed!

            1. ^Bloody Peasant!

          2. Horseshit.

            “Remember back when Candidate Obama used to talk about being against “dumb wars”? Then he became president…”

            Obama’s line on Afghanistan did not change after he became President. His actions as President were consistent with his earlier statements as a candidate.

            My problem with Gillespie is that he wants to re-write history to suit his boyfriend.

            1. “…Afghanistan now is indisputably a…”

              Now? When -exactly- did this change?

              LOL!

        2. If Nick’s intention is to whitewash Obama’s record, he’s picked a very odd way to do it. Or do you get the super-secret cosmo-conspiracy version of Reason that reveals the true secret intent of the editors?

          1. You mean tReason?

            1. nice

            2. I thought that as Obama’s intent?

          2. It is a whitewash. Obama didn’t “end up” increasing troop numbers – as if it was some sort of thing he passively acquiesced to.

            Obama purposefully escalated our presence in Afghanistan as part of a strategy he advocated – one he promised would be successful.

            Maybe this article passes for harsh criticism of Obama among his acolytes, but to the rest of us it is weak beer.

            1. You are reading a lot into things. Saying “end up” does not necessarily mean what you assume. It just means that that is what happened. Maybe try reading things based on what is actually written rather than based on your assumptions about the author’s intent.

              1. What is “actually written” is a very passive formulation “end up.”

                Bill Clinton didn’t just ‘end up’ with his dick in Monica’s mouth and Obama didn’t just ‘end up’ tripling troop strength in Afghanistan.

                If Gillespie thinks I’m misreading what he intended to say he’s certainly free to clarify it. Maybe he can also link back to his noting what a bad idea it was at the time Obama was telling us he was going to do it, and also at the time when he was actively doing it.

                1. Come on man, Slick Willy’s willy just slipped!

      3. Really? I’m certainly not clear that’s Nick’s point. And more importantly, I’m not sure what Nick’s point is at all, other than to gripe about needing to get out of foreign wars.

        I think it’s rather hard to argue that it doesn’t make actual sense to leave a presence in Afghanistan, to maintain whatever semblance of stability currently exists there. Given what happened historically upon pullouts from Afghanistan (ours and others), and given what’s already happened in Iraq and then also in Syria…it’s a certainty that pulling out won’t lead to greater stability, and it’s highly probably that it will lead to greater threats directly relevant to the US.

        As Colin Powell warned GWB before Iraq, you break it, you bought it. And we did a damned good job of breaking the middle east generally (and that’s saying something giving how bad it was to begin with). It’s pure folly to suggest that we can just walk away and wash our hands of it, having done that.

        The real question we should be asking Obama is how the hell things are ever going to get better in Afghanistan while we continue to pretend that Pakistan is our ally, while they all but openly give aid, comfort and refuge to Taliban/Al Qaeda forces as they conduct their Afghanistan insurgency.

        1. You make good points. This shit since WW2 where we prosecute military action through half measures and political correctness is pathetic and wasteful. We owe it to our troops to give them the right resources and freedom to do their jobs and win.

          As the saying goes, go big, or go home.

        2. it’s a certainty that pulling out won’t lead to greater stability, and it’s highly probably that it will lead to greater threats directly relevant to the US.

          So how many decades does it take? Or are the two choices collapse now or collapse in the indefinite future? Fuck it, rip the bandaid off.

          1. Someone should ask him what 9k is going to do since 9k is currently watching this years fighting season unfold poorly for the Afghani government.

            Afghansitan is going to be a shithole no matter how many troop a we station there unless our plan is to have my 8 year olds future kids spending some time there.

    2. Yep – He sure did.

      What should have been a raid in 2001-02 turned into an occupation. Really dumb move by Bush – which Obama doubled down on in 2008.

      Now he can’t leave because the place will immediately implode.

      1. “Now he can’t leave because the place will immediately implode.”

        Yep, Obama implosions are all slated for the next administration.

      2. How could anyone tell the difference in Afghanistan circa 1980, circa 2000, or ‘imploded’ circa 2020? For that matter the difference between 1020 and 2020? You could make a case for the strategic importance of Iraq, but that seems much harder for Afghanistan.

        1. Other than the loss of face, you are correct.

          Iraq was the much more important project in 2008, but we left there first.

      3. Obama tried to copy Bush’s surge tactic and failed.

        He is now leaving troops behind In Afghanistan because he failed to do so in Iraq and is getting the blame for the rise of ISIS as a result of the power vaccumm.

        He nor his advisors are brilliant strategists beyond his one proven strength which is to rabble rouse, divide groups and pit them against each other domestically.

        1. I agree this move stinks of his desperation to avoid another ISIS failure more than anything

          1. Obama is steeped in failure. He’s soaking in it. I’m surprised he didn’t just claim victory and bail on the whole thing. Just like Iraq. Then hope things don’t fall apart until it’s someone else’s watch.

            Which is the Obama way.

            1. The Obama Way would be to publicize the Complete Withdrawal of Troops Date, then glory in the inevitable decrease in fighting and casualties that would result from any and all opponents going home and resting up until the day O declares Mission Accomplished and the last troops come home…

              Which will be, like, the day before the next SHTF Day in Afghanistan.

              Nobody else can forecast this shit? I’m in awe.

      4. This can’t be emphasized enough. After UBL escaped at Tora Bora we should have packed it up. We had no business being engaged in that country from then on.

  8. Just the tip baby.

    1. Just to see what it feels like.

      1. Just this once.

        1. Ouch, ouch, you’re on my hair.

          1. Jeez, you gotta start trimming down there, it looks like a Portuguese man-o-war.

            1. People say it gives me that exotic national geographic look.

              1. By which they mean “home to poverty-stricken yet vibrant indigenous cultures as well as unusual life forms found nowhere else on Earth”?

                1. Is that Florida Tourism ad copy?

              2. Who are these ‘people’?

  9. What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?

    Well, he now understands why he has two daughters.

    1. They could have been conceived through artificial insemination.

      1. I know I wouldn’t get within 10 feet of Michelle’s snuke, so…..es possible.

        1. To be brutally honest, Michelle’s arms and hands are probably strong enough to crush Barry’s skull like a walnut.

    2. Who says they’re his? Why do you believe everything he says?

  10. What really pisses me off is that useful idiots around the world really respect Obama because they actually think he’s different from Bush. I’m in Mexico, and a well-educated business employee said yesterday that he really respects Obama because it’s the first time in a long time that U.S. foreign policy has been peaceful. I wanted to f***ing slap the guy, but I let it go because I hate getting into politics with people face to face. They also probably believe the shit about being transparent and protecting civil liberties. Aghhhhh!!!

    1. People who love Obama love Obama and anyone who challenges is simply a racist.

      1. Racist!

      2. I have idiot cousins that are like that. They are not terribly bright. From my mother’s side of the family. Most of them are barely above average.

    2. I love getting into it with people face to face. And browbeating them until they admit just how wrong they really are.

  11. One big problem with our failed “nation building” policy is that we keep on trying to impose a US type government/military on these countries when they don’t have the economy or society to support it.

    The opponents know that eventually the US will leave along with its billion dollars budgets and the government/military that is left behind will collapse under its own weight.

    1. Just read an article about this last night….can’t remember where. It was the same idea, but with trying to impose “Sweden/Denmark” social shit in the US. Without the culture and history, it don’t work.

      Same with “let’s make the middle east, etc. democratic!” Yeah, what with that regions looooooooooooong history and culture, how could that possibly fail? DO IT!

      1. And in Sweden they are bringing in large numbers of immigrants with different culture, history and yet expect them to act like Swedes

      2. Without the culture and history, it don’t work.

        MacArthur would like to have a word with you.

        1. MacArthur’s dead, baby. MacArthur’s dead….

      3. I don’t know that it can’t work. Japan, Taiwan and Korea didn’t exactly have a history or culture of liberal democracy, for example. But some places clearly aren’t ready for it, for a number of reasons.

        1. Well, they had a very well educated, homogeneous population that had a strong recent history of building advanced civilizations. That is much more than they have in Afghanistan.

  12. If you like your dumb war, you can keep your dumb war.

  13. I am reliably informed by old, retired, white US generals on Fox that if “we” leave Afghanistan ZOMFG ARMAGEDDON END TIMES DOOMSDAY SCARY!!11!!

    Cause that’s clearly the only thing that could happen if Team Murca is not World Poe Lease EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME!!!!!

    They hate us for our Care Bears, don’t they?

    1. Most old generals earn huge consulting fees for defense contractors.

      http://www.ratical.org/ratvill…..et.html#c1

  14. Small price to pay for a post-racial America.

    1. ^Ba-zing!

  15. If only some smart people at the foundation of this had had the prescience to warn us not to get involved in foreign entanglements!

    And it’s not like large, developed countries hadn’t already crashed upon the rocky shoals of Afghanistan. If only some smart people in the past had come up with a catchy phrase about “if you don’t understand what’s already happened and why, you just might be prone to making the same error” or something like that. Maybe then we wouldn’t have stepped into this quagmire.

    Oh well, I’m sure we’ve learned NOW not to get in between various tribes who have been at each others’ throats for a thousand years or more. We’ll certainly not repeat such errors again, and not be doomed to repeat them.

  16. I am no fan of the Afghan war, or the Iraq war, or war in general. But it seems like the only question worth asking now is: “What is the least bad way to deal with these crappy situations?” Is pulling out of Afghanistan and (potentially) letting it go the way of Iraq the least bad option? I honestly don’t know. Maybe it is. But arguing that we should leave because it was a mistake to go in, no matter the consequences of leaving, seems like shallow reasoning.

    Again, maybe leaving would be best. But I have doubts, given that Afghanistan has two nuclear-armed neighbors in Pakistan and India, and an aspiring nuclear neighbor in Iran.

    1. Er, duh. India isn’t an actual neighbor in the sense of bordering Afghanistan, I just realized. Pretty close by, though.

      1. I’m talking out of my ass here, but if we pullout and the region tears itself apart, that’s their problem. I don’t want my money being used to continuing sending Americans to a third world country to die.

        1. This^

        2. I think a lot of Americans feel like it is “our” problem because they feel some collective responsibility for the whole situation. I get that to a certain degree — I and most Americans supported the initial decision to go to war there. But at the end of the day I didn’t make the poor decisions that led to the current situation.

          It’s yet another example of people incorrectly thinking of government in the abstract sense of “the People” instead of the reality of “the individual politicians and bureaucrats that make decisions”.

          It just goes to show that you shouldn’t support going to war unless you’re prepared to live with the consequence of losing, or at least failing to achieve the stated objectives, just like you shouldn’t support a law unless you are prepared to see someone die for not following it.

          1. Agreed. I didn’t see this post when I posted my 1107 comment.

        3. “but if we pullout and the region tears itself apart”

          I think that’s called a “Pink Sock”

    2. Is pulling out of Afghanistan and (potentially) letting it go the way of Iraq the least bad option?

      I’d say no IF there was a credible plan for stabilizing it before eventually leaving. But I haven’t ever seen a plan like that, which makes it feel like staying is just delaying the inevitable, with greater long-term costs.

      Which sucks for the Afghan on the street who has to actually live with the consequences. That guy probably didn’t ask for any of this. It’s hard to think of more frustrating proof that life isn’t fair, but I really don’t know what else to say.

      1. You and Florida Man may well be right. I guess my reservation is the unknown factor, as in we don’t know how bad things could get in a worst-case scenario. When ISIS overran Iraq, it was pretty bad. Lots of death, people being beheaded on Twitter, an intensification of the already horrible Syrian situation. That’s not to say we definitely should have stayed, but I think an argument can be made that we should have.

        But clearly you are right that if we’re going to stay, we need a solid idea of what we want to achieve and how to achieve it. Just holding on to delay the inevitable is no plan at all.

        1. The worst case scenario is always a risk, but two thoughts:

          1) Staying doesn’t necessarily prevent the worst case scenario, it may just delay it, and in doing so could actually make it worse. The longer we stay, the more resentment it could breed, which makes the region a more fertile ground for extremists. That’s at least a possibility.

          2) ISIS is bad, I do think US action in the ME contributed to the conditions that have allowed it to thrive, but at the end of the day, the responsibility for the death and suffering causes by ISIS falls on ISIS.

          1. A big part of ISIS’s rise is our arming of Syrian rebels. It’s not just us leaving the country.

    3. Or maybe you could just go back to principles and leave other countries the fuck alone.

      Why do so many so-called libertarians drop trou for foreign policy? Why are they so eager to oppress other countries who pose no threat to us?

      1. I think it is natural to be concerned for your fellow man, especially once you get involved. I think it would have been easier to ignore the atrocities in the Middle East if we never would have gotten involved. Now that we are, its hard to walk away and not feel responsible.

      2. other countries who pose no threat to us

        You couldn’t make that case post 9/11, which is when we got stuck in.

        Whether these crapholes will generate another 9/11 is an open issue. I’m surprised they haven’t already, to tell you the truth. Its not like the TSA or the FBI are going to slow them down much.

        1. You sure as hell could make that case. We’ve been fucking around outside our borders for a long, long time. Anyone who thinks there are no repercussions is an idiot.

        2. “Whether these crapholes will generate another 9/11 is an open issue…

          these crapholes didn’t create the FIRST 9/11, so there’s low risk of a recurrence.

  17. Obama has the same problem with Afghanistan that he had with selling the last of GM’s stock. There’s a cognitive bias that makes people think losses happen when you cut them.

    If a stock goes down, people imagine you lost your money the moment you sold–but that isn’t so. You don’t lose money the day you sell. You lost money the day the price of the stock fell below what you paid for it. There is no such thing as a “paper loss”. Your stock is worth what it’s worth right now, and if there aren’t any good reasons to believe that the price will go back up above where you bought it (and, in fact, it may go lower), then selling it to cut your losses isn’t what makes you lose your money. Buying the stock is what made you lose your money. Holding the stock is what made you lose your money. Selling the stock is what makes you stop losing money–but people think that selling it at a price below what you paid for it is the reason you lost the money. They’re wrong.

    The same thing happened with Obama’s purchase of GM stock. He couldn’t bring himself to sell it for a long time–not until it was somehow worth more than what he paid for it. Finally selling the stock put a definite measure on his losses, but those losses happened the day he bought GM. Not the day he sold!

    1. Same thing in Afghanistan. Obama doesn’t want to be the guy that “lost” the war. People, history, posterity, whatever you want to call the American people, they think that if Obama pulls out without Afghanistan being a pluralistic beacon of democracy and prosperity, then he lost the war. But it isn’t leaving that makes us lose. Continuing to hold the Afghanistan stock long after the growth story is exhausted, that’s what makes us lose. Now every and any American that dies over there, long after Obama should have sold that stock short, is on Obama’s head. I guess that’s where the analogy breaks down. No one dies when you hold a stock for too long, but Obama is letting American troops suffer and die just so that people won’t blame him for losing Afghanistan.

      That is shameful behavior.

      1. What about the brokers that jumped out of windows during the stock market crash?!?

        1. There wasn’t enough of them?

        2. You know who else committed suicide?

      2. I think your analogy inapt, on multiple levels (not the least of which is that purchased equities do not require continuous infusions of more funds merely to maintain ownership) but I’ll use it anyway.

        The real problem for Obama isn’t that he ‘bought’ Afghanistan, it’s that he doubled down after we were already in and it had taken a plunge. Doing so while swearing all along that, not only was it the right move, but that it was precisely his brilliance that would turn it all around and make it a winner.

        Candidate Obama could have said “vote for me and I’ll cut our losses” but he didn’t say or do remotely that.

        1. “Candidate Obama could have said “vote for me and I’ll cut our losses” but he didn’t say or do remotely that.”

          The reason he didn’t do that is because people think that leaving is what makes you lose.

          As long as you stay, people imagine there’s a possibility that things could turn around, right? And Obama needed the voters need to believe that he would turn things around in the future–when they vote, they’re looking to the future.

          In wars (rather than stocks), we’re talking about American lives in addition to regular infusions of cash. And I believe it’s those lives spent that drive a lot of this “throwing good money after bad” kind of behavior.

          Probably the worst thing you can accuse a President of is having squandered the lives of American troops for nothing. And, like I said, people imagine that as long as there’s a future that “could be” around the corner, then–in their minds–those troops didn’t die for nothing.

          In reality, those Americans that died in the past in Afghanistan are sunk costs, and Obama isn’t making them more valuable by staying in Afghanistan. In reality, Obama is squandering the lives of American troops now and in the future by staying in Afghanistan.

          1. “The reason he didn’t do that is because people think that leaving is what makes you lose.”

            Poor Obama, he’s always the victim of other people’s misconceptions.

            1. “Poor Obama, he’s always the victim of other people’s misconceptions.”

              Yeah, that’s exactly what I wrote. …except that I didn’t write that at all.

              I wrote that Obama is mindful of people’s misconceptions and taking them into account when he makes policy decisions like whether to stay in Afghanistan. And if you think anything I wrote was somehow sympathetic towards Obama, then you have reading comprehension issues.

              In fact, you’re starting to approach willful obtuseness, which is highly correlated with Tulpa.

              Are you Tulpa?

              1. When did I claim that is what you said?

                Talk about willfully obtuse.

                And yeah, I’m the guy calling people out for their milquetoast “criticisms” of poor put upon Obama’s inability to live up to his own hype.

                Because that’s how tulpa rolls.

          2. “As long as you stay, people imagine there’s a possibility that things could turn around, right?”

            Exactly, Ken. Casinos make millions from that sort of thinking.

        2. “I think your analogy inapt, on multiple levels (not the least of which is that purchased equities do not require continuous infusions of more funds merely to maintain ownership) but I’ll use it anyway.”

          The concept of margin calls says otherwise.

          1. Margin calls say you’ve borrowed, not that you’ve bought.

            1. Still, tell your broker you don’t need to be meet it because it’s only a “paper loss” and see what they do.

              1. The inaptitude continues.

                If you purchased, but didn’t borrow, there will be no margin call.

                1. Or am I to infer that any time you speak of something being paid for (“You lost money the day the price of the stock fell below what you paid for it.”) that you really mean “went into debt in order to obtain?”

                  1. Although, to be fair it is worth noting that your analogy also involved the Federal government, so assumed borrowing may be justified…

                    1. Do you understand that just because two things are alike in numerous ways–but not every way–doesn’t make it a bad analogy? It just makes it an analogy.

                      http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm

                      No two different things are alike in every way.

                      In this case, being reluctant to sell GM stock and being reluctant to withdraw troops from Afghanistan are both driven by the same faulty logic–and in that way, they are similar.

                      Being willfully obtuse and having a head made of stone are also alike in some ways, but they’re not the same thing. Still, that doesn’t mean that statues aren’t hard headed–just like someone who is being willfully obtuse.

                      That being said, this wasn’t really an analogy anyway. It was more of an illustration. But I suppose it probably works as an analogy, too.

                    2. It works better as an illustration.

                      A Rube Goldberg sort of illustration…

        3. Countries go to war for a reason, to achieve some goal. Obama has no goals in foreign policy. Once we in Afghanistan, whether we stayed or pulled out should have depended on the situation on the ground, ie had we achieved (or forsaken) our original goal. Instead, Obama simply wants to throw a dart at the calendar and state the date of the pullout.

      3. Excellent points. Very well said.

      4. Yea, but now the mess in Afghanistan will be someone else’s to clean up, much like his entire presidency.

    2. If a stock goes down, people imagine you lost your money the moment you sold–but that isn’t so. You don’t lose money the day you sell. You lost money the day the price of the stock fell below what you paid for it.

      What you are trying to get at is the “sunk cost fallacy”, people holding on to assets because they previously invested a lot in it but have incurred losses. Obama probably does suffer from that, and both his holding on to GM stock and staying in Afghanistan are likely caused by that. He probably also has rational political motives for his actions (motives that benefit him, not the country).

      However, your stock example is not an example of a “sunk cost fallacy”; you mistakenly believe it is because you implicitly assume that current stock prices represent the actual value of the stock. The only thing that matters in the decision of whether to hold a stock is what future returns you expect. That is related to what you paid for it only insofar that your original valuation was presumably based on research; if that research is still valid, the stock drop gives you little new information and it makes sense to hold on to. If new information invalidates your original research and causes you to value the stock less, you should sell. Those decisions and choices have nothing to do with the “sunk cost fallacy”.

      1. “you mistakenly believe it is because you implicitly assume that current stock prices represent the actual value of the stock.”

        Before you criticize what other people write, you should read it first.

        “Your stock is worth what it’s worth right now, and if there aren’t any good reasons to believe that the price will go back up above where you bought it (and, in fact, it may go lower), then selling it to cut your losses isn’t what makes you lose your money. Buying the stock is what made you lose your money. Holding the stock is what made you lose your money.”

        “As long as you stay, people imagine there’s a possibility that things could turn around, right? And Obama needed the voters need to believe that he would turn things around in the future–when they vote, they’re looking to the future.”

        You ignored a big chunk of what I wrote.

        1. You also may have ignored that I’m not just talking about Obama’s problem. I’m talking about the American people. The fallacy is theirs–Obama is right to presume that people will say he lost the war and our soldiers died for nothing if he pulls out now.

          He’s been preoccupied with political considerations while in office (which is also why he was reluctant to sell the last of the GM stock ahead of his reelection campaign), and he’s concerned about his legacy now. Why get blamed for withdrawing when he can leave on his desk for the next President?

          Why get blamed, that is, if you care more about your legacy than you do about American troops and their lives?

          1. So Obama lost Iraq, and Libya as well?

            1. And is that why he refuses to end the war on drugs?

              1. Yeah, we’re about to win the war on drugs any day now. Just need more military equipment in our cities and a lot more money.

                1. Doesn’t really answer the question. But I wasn’t exactly expecting more either…

            2. Aren’t plenty of people blaming Obama’s pullout for the Islamic State–as if we wouldn’t have lost it if he hadn’t drawn down?

              The American causalities we lost in Iraq were because we invaded and stayed. Not because we pulled out. ISIS is there because we invaded Iraq and occupied the country. Not because we pulled out.

              How many American troops did we lose because of the Libyan Civil War? We didn’t commit any during the war. The ones we lost with our diplomat in Benghazi, we lost because we sent them there–not because we pulled out.

              1. ISIS is there because we invaded Iraq and occupied the country. Not because we pulled out.

                If we hadn’t pulled out, I don’t believe ISIS would control nearly as much, if any, of Iraq as they do, and wouldn’t have the presence in Syria that they do (which is built on their presence in Iraq).

                1. ISIS is just a brand name. Before that name change, they were Al Qaeda in Iraq. Before that, they were “the insurgency”.

                  http://www.nybooks.com/article…..tery-isis/

                  There would be no ISIS if we hadn’t invaded, and our persistent occupation made them continuously stronger. Oppression breeds revolt and so does occupation.

                  Unless we go Nagasaki/Hiroshima on their asses (or Dresden/Hamburg), staying there wasn’t going to change their impetus, and reoccupying wouldn’t change anything either. At best, they flourished despite the occupation (if not because of it), and there isn’t any reason to think they wouldn’t do so again if we occupied Iraq again.

                  1. We had two paths to avoid ISIS:

                    1) Never invade, but we did, and we managed to stabilize the situation before Obama took office. Isis would have never risen had a military force of US been present in Iraq to keep the peace. It sucks, especially for me, but it is what it is.

                    2) Don’t pull out of Iraq with no plan, while supporting a corrupt Shiia who would drive the Sunni’s to revolution mixed with the Obama’s support of the Arab Spring, while failing to understand what the fuck it actually was. We had a chance to keep the peace and Iraq was doing better, but for purely political reelection crap Obama pulled all troops out and said “fuck you” to Iraq. He owns a great deal of the results for that.

                    When you sit in the big boy chair, you make the big boy decisions and often you are not given a perfect hand to start with. Obama always chooses the worst possible outcome, pretty impressive really to be that incompetent, and now genocide of non-muslims is occurring. Rough shit.

                  2. We had two paths to avoid ISIS:

                    1) Never invade, but we did, and we managed to stabilize the situation before Obama took office. Isis would have never risen had a military force of US been present in Iraq to keep the peace. It sucks, especially for me, but it is what it is.

                    2) Don’t pull out of Iraq with no plan, while supporting a corrupt Shiia who would drive the Sunni’s to revolution mixed with the Obama’s support of the Arab Spring, while failing to understand what the fuck it actually was. We had a chance to keep the peace and Iraq was doing better, but for purely political reelection crap Obama pulled all troops out and said “fuck you” to Iraq. He owns a great deal of the results for that.

                    When you sit in the big boy chair, you make the big boy decisions and often you are not given a perfect hand to start with. Obama always chooses the worst possible outcome, pretty impressive really to be that incompetent, and now genocide of non-muslims is occurring. Rough shit.

                    1. 3) invade, kick ass, not disband the military, leave.

                    2. There’s no guarantee that would have worked, but at least it’d have been a hell of a lot cheaper.

        2. Buying the stock is what made you lose your money.

          Smart traders know that money is made or lost on the entry to the trade, not the exit from the trade.

          1. It works that way in commercial real estate, too.

            Buying something at market in the hope that the market will go higher is basically the greater fool theory. Why build new stuff when you can buy relatively new buildings below replacement cost?

            If I can’t get a discount to market on the way in, then forget it. Even in stocks, I always give myself a discount on the way in by way of selling a covered call (at least).

        3. You ignored a big chunk of what I wrote.

          Yes I did. I pointed out that what Obama suffers from, and what you seem to be trying to get at, is simply the “sunk cost fallacy”.

          Your stock example is just not a very good illustration (and your explanation is actually inconsistent). People should Google the term if they want a better explanation.

    3. Loss over GM stock? Nonsense. Obama got his money’s worth. It was a UAW bailout. Not a GM bailout. Obama broke the law and illegally circumvented US bankruptcy laws and stole from GM’s bondholders to illegal reward the union. Payback for helping get him elected.

      One of the many things Obama should be prosecuted for. Along with high treason.

      1. Not a big fan of Obama, but high treason?

        1. I’m a big fan of convicting Obama of high treason.

  18. When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
    And the women come out to cut up what remains
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier

    1. “The border of Islam is bloody”

  19. ‘Remember back when Candidate Obama … Then he became president and started to realize how much more fun it is to run them, I guess …’

    He actually campaigned on the idea that Iraq was the bad war-of-choice and Afghanistan was the good war all smart people agreed should have been our priority from the start.

    So he doubled down on a strategically irrelevant backwater, where GWB had already been moving out. More Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush.

    And all for a shallow domestic political calculation, to not look “weak on foreign policy”.

    Obama should be attacked much more for these strategic choices. The discussion should go beyond less or more intervention, because that is not where the problem is.

    Imho America should have stayed in Iraq and protected the fragile gains there, working with regional allies. That could have prevented the rise of ISIS.

    Going into other directions, and eventually outsourcing foreign policy to the Russians, was a strategic choice by Obama and libertarians should get a clue about that.

    1. A modest for e garrisoned in Iraq would have provided the expertise and logistical backing to keep the inexperienced Iraqi army from folding faster than Superman on laundry in the face of ISIS.

  20. OK, that poster is awesome. I might have gone with a gunship, but whatever.

    1. I clicked through to the website. They’ve got some really cool stuff, including that poster with . . . wait for it . . . a gunship!

  21. If Clinton wins the Presidency, does she blame the wars on Bush or Obama?

    (Not really a serious question. She’s TEAM BLUE after all.)

  22. Apparently, Obama needs a lesson on affirmative consent: if you say you’re going to pull out, you better do it.

    1. I am dissapoint that it took so long for someone to say this. No wonder your handle is “win” bear.

  23. Don’t worry guys, the next decade in Afghanistan will be totally different!

    1. Actually, I think it’s China’s turn to try ‘nation building’ in Afghanistan.

      Their economy does need some ‘stimulus’ after all.

      1. Actually, while i was there Chinese companies were in Afghanistan mining the trillions of dollars worth of minerals which exist there.

        1. The Chinese will actually do things to benefit their own country, unlike us.

  24. Huh, huh, huh-huh huh, pull out, huh-huh.

  25. What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?

    Phrasing!

  26. The war bureaucrats, and other government employee unions that use force to confiscate a part of the production from the producers, are the new robber barons in the USA.

  27. pot shots…Reason is really really good at those.
    It’s a mess there. we should NOT be there. Agree.
    But we have a rabid press culture here in the US of A that just won’t be REASONable.
    So what’s a POTUS to do?
    NEVER a change of mind? A ridiculous concept in this day and age.
    Even you folks MUST agree.
    pot shots.
    really bad form, but a money-maker.
    If I were publisher, I would do that same thing.
    Gotta money.

  28. The DWB thing was mostly because the enemy was using the hospital as a base.

  29. When your gun is shooting blanks, what difference does it make?

  30. “The decision to maintain 9,800 troops in Afghanistan until nearly the end of Obama’s time in office comes after months of discussions with Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, and the nation’s CEO, Abdullah Abdullah, senior administration officials said Wednesday night.”

    So it looks like the leadership there has asked Obama not to pull out yet.

    Our combat roles in that country are over (although we still honor air strike requests from AFG government?) and our troops are mainly there to provide training. But if I’m Afghan president, I’m not eager to sever all ties with the US.

  31. Pulling out is something Obama’s father should have done 54 years ago.

    1. Could have saved valuable wear and tear on my typing finger posting the same thing below had I just read the comments first.

  32. What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?

    The part where he has any policy beyond what he thinks will help his party in the next election.

    For once, he’s flopping in a useful direction, since pulling out is a bad idea in this particular case.

  33. What can you expect from a pathological, compulsive, habitual, consistent, LIAR? Has this assclown ever told anything even resembling the truth? Ever?

  34. And now I will sing a song that was popular at the progressive coffee shop when the Bush was the president.

    I had to change the words ’cause WarBama is now the president. This version by the wary, is not popular at the progressive coffee shop.

    Where have all the anti-war democrats gone, long time passing?

    Where have all the anti-war democrats gone, long time ago?

    Where have all the anti-war democrats gone?

    Gone to cheer or ignore Dear Leader’s wars or what wars – every one

    Oh, when will they ever learn?
    Oh, when will they ever learn?

  35. The “surge” in Afghanistan did not measure up to expectations because there were an insufficient number of troops authorized – way less than were requested.
    After the complete clusterfuck that a complete pull-out (against all knowledgeable advice) in Iraq resulted in, someone beat Precious over the head to convince him that if did the same thing again in Afghanistan, he would cement his place in world history – and not in a positive manner.
    Of course, following his heart (is there anything in his head to deal with problems like these?) would just demonstrate that his grasp on foreign affairs is just a little weak…..real fucking weak.
    But, I’m sure Nick could fight Putin with one hand, and the Mullah’s with the other, and everything would be fine, as long as he had paid the premiums on his life-insurance.

  36. Would’ve been great if Obama’s daddy had pulled out.

  37. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.