Limited funds, limited choices

Today’s New York Times chronicles the deliberations that led President Barack Obama to escalate U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.

On the theme of limited resources, the article describes how Obama was reluctant to commit to an expensive escalation because it would threaten funding for his policies at home.

Mr. Obama was leery. He had received a memo the day before from the Office of Management and Budget projecting that General McChrystal’s full 40,000-troop request on top of the existing deployment and reconstruction efforts would cost $1 trillion from 2010 to 2020, an adviser said. The president seemed in sticker shock, watching his domestic agenda vanishing in front of him. “This is a 10-year, trillion-dollar effort and does not match up with our interests,” he said.

Despite these reservations, there’s no indication that Obama ever seriously considered drawing down American forces. The article confirms that withdrawal – an option that enjoys massive domestic and international support – was discounted by the president at least two months ago. Not just major withdrawal. Any withdrawal.


  1. Ian

    Yeah, no withdrawal ever! He won’t stop until every US citizen lives over there!

  2. Clint

    Non sequitur?

  3. Ian

    Sure, why not?

  4. Chris

    You’re losing it Ian… I think if we just keep posting about Afghanistan, your brain will explode.

  5. Ian

    Feels like a never-ending fever dream. “No, same post again! and again!”