dagblog - Comments for "David Brooks: President Obama Was Right"

Did he really "release" the

Verified Atheist — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 17:47:26 +0000

In reply to I don't read everything so

Did he really "release" the terrorist leaders, or did he turn them over to Qatar for detainment? I understand that this is obviously not an optimal idea, either, especially given that it's what the Taliban agreed to, but it is an important distinction, no?

"If the good outweighs the

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 00:50:24 +0000

In reply to "If the good outweighs the

"If the good outweighs the bad, the decision is right." - yes - we have no way of really knowing whether that's true. So it's a judgment call - not right, not wrong - just another part of that guessing game called life. Trading 1000 prisoners for 1 soldier is obviously a huge gamble and vastly unequal - i.e. almost certainly not "right" even if you're willing to live with the bad exchange just because

PS: In saying it was the right decision, I wasn't talking about outcomes, which can't be known. I mean weighing the factors and principles we DO know. Trying to gauge outcomes is only part of the exercise. The Israelis thought it was the right decision; they didn't necessarily think the swap was fair or just in that sense. They'd have preferred to get Shalit back another way, but weren't able to. I wasn't talking about the fairness or justice of the situation; I was talking about the rightness of the decision given the circumstances, etc.

So, back in the early 1990s, I had saved $50K and was thinking of buying a house with it. A friend knew someone who was founding this thing called America Online and said, "Jim Kimsey never loses money." I bought the house and doubled my money and had a nice house to live in. Had I plunked my money down on AOL's IPO and kept it through about 2000, it would've been worth about 2.5 billion. Still, buying the house was the right decision.

"If you think Gitmo should be closed, then these folks would have to have been released any way" - releasing them because we closed the facility, vs. releasing them as a negotiating PR victory for Taliban? not equal - certainly not as an exchange that could encourage more kidnappings. Will it? we don't know - I'm fine with giving the CoC the benefit of doubt, and won't be gleefully waiting for it to turn wrong to say "I told you so". But it could of course turn wrong.

PS: It's not the same as a matter of principle, but it is the same in terms of possible outcomes, which is what I thought people were afraid of and why they've questioned the decision, i.e., these guys are going to turn around and kill Americans. That could also be an outcome if we just closed the prison. They are the same in that sense.

Not sure important the PR or copycat considerations are. The Taliban kidnapped Bergdahl without knowing whether they'd be able to swap or for whom. This is the military; they have to be prepared to protect their soldiers regardless.

I must admit watching Bergdahl's face in such stress as he was released, I felt a bit emotional and was happy he was released. That still doesn't mean it's the "right" decision.

PS: It was the right decision because we don't leave our soldiers behind. That's part of the code.

For all the talk about what the Taliban thinks, I'll be more interested in what the US troops think, but probably they're getting spin from Rush - who knows.

As for the Taliban/Haqqani released: "They were the Taliban army chief of staff, a Taliban deputy minister of intelligence, a former Taliban interior minister, and two other senior Taliban figures" - doesn't seem insignificant, and it wasn't long ago that a Lockerbie terrorist was released due to "impending death" but lived 3 years more. Whether they're still useful, I don't know.

PS: What I meant was Shalit wasn't terribly important as an "asset," and neither is Bergdahl. That was the parallel I was drawing. Among the 1,000 were very important Palestinian fighters, and these Taliban are important. I was referring to the other side of the swap to show the parallel in the lengths to which we and the Israelis are willing to do to get our people back...even the "unimportant" ones.

"If the good outweighs the

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 19:28:26 +0000

In reply to Please... Almost all

I must admit watching Bergdahl's face in such stress as he was released, I felt a bit emotional and was happy he was released. That still doesn't mean it's the "right" decision.

For all the talk about what the Taliban thinks, I'll be more interested in what the US troops think, but probably they're getting spin from Rush - who knows.

Please... Almost all

Peter Schwartz — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 16:51:45 +0000

In reply to Quite the absolute statement

Please...

Almost all decisions entail ambiguities and trade-offs.

If the good outweighs the bad, the decision is right.

I can't think of any important right decision where there was no opposition to it, including, of course, the decision to free the slaves.

Or, if you like, rational reasons to question it.

In this case, he had a duty to bring the soldier home, and WH looked at alternatives over some time, I read.

This was the best of the alternatives which didn't mean there wasn't some risk involved, as Obama said, including sending terrorists back into the field.

The released prisoners don't have to win the Nobel to make this the right decision. The Taliban are homegrown, largely, or imported from next door. We can't keep them ALL off the field of battle, nor can we kill them all. It's not as though they haven't been an effective fighting force without these five guys.

If you think Gitmo should be closed, then these folks would have to have been released any way, and many more with them. The GOP is dead set against bringing them to the U.S.

The Israelis swapped 1,000 prisoners for one soldier, and not a very "important" one at that. Some 250 of those folks were jailed for direct participation in killing Israelis. I think Israel, on balance, thinks the swap was the right call.

Quite the absolute statement

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 13:04:58 +0000

In reply to What he did was right.

Quite the absolute statement - "right". What Obama did was certainly part of his prerogative, it had a number of factors supporting it, and a number of factors making it questionable. Like many decisions in war & elsewhere. You might say the good outweighed the bad, heavily or not, but it's hard to say it's an unqualified "right" decision, unless the released Gitmo prisoners win the Nobel peace prize for bringing civil society to Afghanistan.

I dunno, I mean it is the

Richard Day — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 05:19:07 +0000

In reply to Unless you become a jihadi.

I dunno, I mean it is the middle of the night but...

How might I get my head around droning the shit out of someone?

Metaphors only go so far. hahahahahah

Now, bombing the shit out of a bunch of jihads....I suppose?

I dunno.

I mean I could drone on and on about this subject, I suppose.

hahahahah

David Brooks is an elitist in an arm of the conservative movement that hates elitists.

hahahahahah

That's all I got in the middle of the night.

What he did was right.

Peter Schwartz — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 01:25:40 +0000

In reply to And I thought the objections

What he did was right.

I don't read everything so

ocean-kat — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:47:15 +0000

In reply to And I thought the objections

I don't read everything so perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone from the left criticizing Obama over the Bergdahl release. Its a bit complicated but mostly I think the left is rallying behind him. I'm from the left and while I have some discomfort about releasing so many terrorist leaders I don't have any problems with it.

It's a political pawn,

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:11:31 +0000

In reply to And I thought the objections

It's a political pawn, signifying nothing. Both sides can fight.

And I thought the objections

EmmaZahn — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:03:22 +0000

In reply to David Brooks: President Obama Was Right

And I thought the objections would be the sop to his Fox friends at the end that criticized Obama for how he did it.

You guys always end up puzzling me. So someone tell me straight from the left, why is what Obama did wrong?