I do think that his commitment to not only continue our mission in Afghanistan, but deepen and broaden it, is a hawkish position...
Obama initially positioned himself on the left of his party on this issue, but I would have a hard time believing anyone deduces that he continues to hold those foolish positions after looking at his appointments.
Indeed, expanding efforts in Afghanistan is certainly not dovish, though perhaps owl is a better term than hawk when it comes to Afghanistan. After all, Afghanistan has long been the "good war" while Iraq has been its more sinister twin. Certainly walking away from either would be disastrous, as Roland points out, but being smart and practical about these things is not the same as being a hawk.
Now if Obama decides to either A) invade Pakistan, or B) take a hard line with Iran or C) flex our military muscle with some other future threat, I may be willing to concede. But as it stands, I see Obama more as the practical politician (thank God!) who knows when quitting is simply the wrong, and inhumane action.
0 comments:
Post a Comment