President Barack Obama?s plan to escalate the Afghanistan war goes against her pacifist inclinations, but Ellen O?Malley of Windsor is standing by the man she greatly admires.
?I really feel that at some point we have to trust our leaders to do what is best for us,? O?Malley said Tuesday night after watching the president?s 34-minute speech while baby-sitting her 11-month-old grandson.
A 63-year-old retired school nurse, O?Malley said she was swayed by Obama?s contention that terrorism still poses a threat to America, eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks.
?I believe that,? she said. ?He convinced me that we need to do something.? O?Malley, who voted Republican for decades before backing Obama last year, said he is now her favorite president.
But opinions were mixed following Obama?s speech before a military audience at West Point outlining his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at an added cost of $30 billion in the first year.
?I don?t think he will have changed many minds,? said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war.
Obama ?gives a great speech,? Woolsey said, but there was ?no news in it.?
Contending that there is no military solution to the Afghanistan situation, Woolsey said, ?we need a surge of civilians, not combat troops? to provide humanitarian and economic assistance to the impoverished and long-embattled nation.
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, also expressed reservations over the plan, noting that Obama has already doubled U.S. forces in Afghanistan since taking office in January.
?I don?t see that we?re making any great progress,? Thompson said.
Thompson, a Vietnam combat veteran, said he worries about the 68,000 U.S. troops already in Afghanistan, but also cited statements by some Afghan officials who say more foreign forces won?t help.
?I?ve got some very serious concerns with what he?s (Obama) talking about,? Thompson said.
Rena Wang, a 17-year-old senior at Montgomery High School, said Obama?s address may have been persuasive ?for people who were on the borderline? but she thinks most people have ?made up their mind? about the Afghan war.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday found a virtually even split between people who support sending 40,000 more troops (37 percent) and those favoring a reduction in U.S. troops (39 percent).
Wang, who worked on Obama?s campaign in Nevada and attended his inauguration, said she?s setting aside her own doubts about the escalation.
?I feel like our country needs to be unified,? she said. ?We all want Afghanistan to succeed and it would really hurt our morale if it doesn?t.?
And for the Obama administration, the war is a ?make it or break it? proposition, Wang said. ?I really don?t want to see this fail.?
Like O?Malley and other critics of the war, Wang said that Afghanistan needs to be rebuilt. She?s concerned that billions of American dollars will go to Hamid Karzai?s government, not to the Afghan people.
Mike Harris of Petaluma, a former Republican Party chairman in Sonoma County, said the president ?made a case tonight? but ?it?s the beginning, not the end.?
?He needs to continue to be a leader, to clearly outline plans and to support the troops.?
Harris echoed the sentiment of GOP congressional leaders who faulted the new president?s performance as commander-in-chief.
?His delay and dithering wasn?t decisive,? Harris said, adding that ?everyone knew he lacked experience.?
Asked if the Afghan war is the only major issue on which Republicans back the president, Harris said that when the commander-in-chief is correct ?you embrace it.?
?Since we?re over there we need to have a plan in place to win,? he said.
Doug Bosco, a Santa Rosa lawyer and former Democratic congressman, said that Obama?s rhetoric ?was very much the same as George Bush? regarding the need to strike back at the forces behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
?But he (Obama) got the target right. The weapons of mass destruction are in Pakistan. The whole effort is to prevent the radicals from taking over Pakistan.?
Thompson and Woolsey both expressed qualms over the proposals by some Democrats to enact a new tax to pay for the war.
?I?d rather work to get our troops home as quickly as we can,? Thompson said.
Woolsey said she understands the rationale for a tax, but wouldn?t support it ? or the war itself.
Congress could conceivably thwart Obama?s proposed surge by cutting off the funding, Woolsey said. But a Democratic minority would join with Republicans to protect the funding, if it came to a vote, she said.
However, the public is unlikely to support a prolonged campaign in Afghanistan, Bosco said.
?That is going to be a very tough sell,? he said. ?Americans have always despised any sort of foreign involvement.?
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: