Exactly. Of course, the way things work we'll end up with a SOFA in which our puppets pretend to ask us to stay in exchange for cash, which they will consume. Eventually the government will be addicted to the cash, and we'll be there 100 years. Nothing will be built but bases. Got to keep an eye on Tadjikistan ...

Hmmmmmm.

I look at this kind of issue (what to do about Afghanistan?) from 2 perspectives. There is the ideal policy - get out but offer them whatever aid they will accept to clean up our mess, and otherwise go home.

Then there is the more realistic stance - just get the hell out. Because I'm not in control, and the folks who are in control will never implement the ideal policy. If the US gets involved, then real policymakers can be counted on to make sure US intervention is violent and does not respect the locals.

Think back to 2003 and the Iraq mess. Anyone who supported the Iraq invasion but said Bush screwed up the war/occupation should have their head examined. Did they expect Bush to take their advice? The only options were to oppose the war/occupation, or support BUSH'S HANDLING OF IT, since he was the "decider" at the time.

Since Obama is in the White House now, and I don't trust him to even come close to doing the right thing, I support immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan.

What the Left ... hell the country ... needs is reasoned debate, not just about Obama and whether he, personally, is good or bad or right or wrong but about actual policies and why they are positive or negative or what our priorities should be.

Good luck with that.

That role is supposed to be played by the media. But the media is part of the establishment, and therefore filters content in a way that furthers the interests of the establishment, and of the media itself.

So it won't happen. In order for it to happen, we need to radically alter our institutions, and institutional incentives, a herculean labour.

When I said I would campaign against him for spite

I understand the impulse, but besides being cathartic (never a bad thing), how will that advance policies you support?

Glenn's post is about consistency, being true to your convictions, and avoiding leadership cults. It has nothing to do with holding Obama accountable.

When debates break out over Afghanistan, the world quickly divides into two sides, the pro-war and the anti-war. And anyone who thinks neither are right is hooted by both.

As someone who is firmly in the anti-war camp, I'm wondering what you think the moderate, or middle position is. I'm serious - I'd like to know your take, or why pro- and anti- US involvement is the wrong way to look at it.

Now we have the debate over U.S. detainees. There are the civil libertarians...There are the national security hawks...I think both sides had better look to this form of "justice". The justice dispensed to "terrorists" is Kafkaesque in the U.S. right now, and arguments over citizenship are easily rebutted by the treatment Ms. Bartosiewicz describes of an American citizen.

I'd put myself in the civil libertarian camp. But you seem to be saying nobody is looking at this issue the right way - if that is accurate, then what is everyone missing? Are you just lamenting the fact that nobody really knows how awful things are? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thank you for the detailed response.

Perhaps we'll be able to discuss this further at some point (I hope so!), but as this thread is near extinction, I'll leave it to later.

Suffice it to say I mostly agree. And thanks again for taking the time.

Here is what Glenn says about his 6 points:

But those who do choose to do these things are acting as nothing than more than rational citizens, all of which is vital for avoiding the behaviors that turned the Right into a dissent-stifling cult of personality erected around George W. Bush

He's not talking about holding Obama accountable. Glenn is holding up the GOP as an example of what happens when people become blindly loyal to their leaders.

There is an important corollary regarding accountability, you could say. If everyone acted like the GOP, blindly supporting their leaders no matter what they do, then accountability is impossible. In fact, there is nothing to be accountable to, since by definition everything the leader does is correct!

However, just because people follow the 6 principles Glenn has laid out does not mean that accountability will follow. I admit that if the citizenry as a whole were to act that way, then politicians (and others) would be more likely to be held accountable, either via prosecutions (for law breaking) or lost elections (for promise breaking) or whatever other mechanism. But that would be an ancillary benefit of the citizenry acting this way as SOP.

This whole tiff seems to be a difference in defining what "accountability" means. My sense is out positions are actually pretty close.

They stuffed their pockets and tried to drive up the price of oil to win back their losses - and the basic problem is still unaddressed.

Driving up the price of oil does not help America - it hurts America. We import something like 12-14 million barrels of oil per day. Therefore, if the price of oil goes up, that represents an increase in the payments we make to others to get the stuff.

The amount of money we pay exporting nations is quite staggering, actually. Currently about $800 million a day.