Obama, Afghanistan and Hypocrisy at The New York Times

Notwithstanding the doubts being voiced by op-ed writers Herbert, Friedman and Kristof, the editorial board of The New York Times, in yesterday's editorial "The Afghanistan Speech", was quick to paint Obama's decision to expand U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in rosy colors. The Times praised Obama's "political courage", labeled his strategy "ambitious", and "found the president’s military arguments persuasive".

Concerning his exit strategy, the editorial board wrote:

"We are eager to see American troops come home. We don’t know whether Mr. Obama will be able to meet his July 2011 deadline to start drawing down forces.

For that to happen, there will have to be a lot more success at training Afghan forces and improving the government’s effectiveness.

Still, setting a deadline — so long as it is not set in stone — is a sound idea. Mr. Karzai and his aides need to know that America’s commitment is not open-ended. Mr. Obama’s generals and diplomats also need to know that their work will be closely monitored and reviewed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02wed1.html

"Not set in stone"? What does this mean? Is this a tacit acknowledgment that to go to war with a time limit known to allies and enemies alike is sheer idiocy? Or is the ground already being prepared via Obama's favorite newspaper to extend this war indefinitely?

Noting the price tag for escalation of this war, i.e. $30 billion, the editorial board again sought to justify Obama's actions:

"At this late date, we don’t know if even 100,000 American troops plus 40,000 from NATO will be enough to turn the war around. But we are sure that continuing President Bush’s strategy of fighting on the cheap (in January 2008, the start of Mr. Bush’s last year in office and more than six years after the war began, there were only 27,000 American troops in Afghanistan) is a guarantee of defeat."

The editorial board, quick to pin the blame on Bush, "doesn't know" if these higher troop levels can "turn the war around"? If so, $30 billion is one helluva gamble.

My questions:

How many of the added American troops will actually end up on patrol in one of Afghanistan's hotspots, e.g., the Helmand Province?

If for every infantryman on patrol there are seven support soldiers, does this mean that of the 30,000 additional troops, less than 4,000 are going to be deployed in combat?

In a country with a total area of 652,230 square kilometers and a population of some 30 million, can less than 4,000 additional combat troops make a difference?

Why this subservience from The New York Times editorial board? Actually, it should come as no surprise. The Times was quick to laud the ridiculous award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. In addition, on August 15 The Times published an op-ed, entitled "Why We Need Health Care Reform", written by or for President Obama, soon after The Times editorial staff sought to bolster Obama following a derisive editorial in the Washington Post concerning his failed foreign policy.

How long will this "partnership" between a near bankrupt newspaper and a novice president, which it helped to elect, continue? When the body bags begin to appear more regularly on the nightly news, we will have our answer.