That's what Politico is reporting...
The tea leaves are pointing to a decision that heads TOWARD what Gen. McChrystal wants rather than AWAY from what he wants. ... One huge clue: It would be viewed as a terrible mismanagement of the relationship with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to let him announce a troop increase for an unpopular war, as he did this week, if the U.S. were headed the other direction.
Hmm, if that's all they've got, I'm not convinced. For one thing, it was a relatively small increase (500) and it was hedged with several conditions. For another, I suspect that a decision hasn't been taken yet, or we'd have head more about it. This hasn't been a very secretive process.
i just watched Rory Stewart on Bill Moyers last night. He said undoubtedly Obama was going to send more troops. I realized he's right and we're all silly for not seeing it all along.
Smart guy. Poor Afghan people.
Posted by: kjc | October 16, 2009 at 05:48 PM
And his/your reasoning being...?
Posted by: Marbury | October 16, 2009 at 05:50 PM
The interview is here...Stewart's reasoning being that the president has boxed himself in, and can't not take his general's recommendation...http://vodpod.com/watch/2345010-bill-moyers-journal-rory-stewart-pbs
Posted by: Marbury | October 16, 2009 at 06:02 PM
it's not really a reasoning thing. of course he COULD not take his general's advice. But knowing obama as i do, and listening to stewart on the issue, i realized i agree with him that there's no way he won't. and in fact that he made the decision, to a certain degree, when he allowed the report.
Posted by: kjc | October 16, 2009 at 08:58 PM