(a guest post by Jarrett Harris) In this week's speech from West Point, President Obama cited - among other things - economic reasons for setting a timeline to exit Afghanistan. Certainly, no one can argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been costly. But is there really as much of a connection between the current economic crisis and the high of these conflicts as has been purported? Did these spur a culture of unsustainable borrowing by homeowners and insanely risky lending/derivative trading by "Too Big to Fail" institutions? It seems that the high price tag of these military endeavors probably falls under the same category of GDP - both are technically important economic measures but realistically have little direct impact on a 10.2% unemployment rate. Then again, most people have been fairly well trained to blame the economy for all kinds of issues over the past year, and perhaps that is what President Obama and his speechwriters were banking on. So was the economic angle of this speech really the most compelling argument or just the easiest way to sell the final decision to the American public? -Jarret Harris, New York, NY (If you would like to contribute a guest post on All Opinions Are Not Equal in order to spur debate, please e-mail me your submission and include your name and hometown)

As a marketing professional, I stress Expectations Management as one of the most vital tools in a company's communications arsenal. And strictly from this standpoint, Barack Obama is committing suicide. He ran on a peace platform, and promised to quickly end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So, that is exactly what we all expected him to do upon reaching office. So, when he gives a speech like he did the other night about increasing the troop count in Afghanistan by 30,000 and prolonging this war, we're simply left scratching our heads saying, "Really???" For those who voted for Obama primarily on his anti-war rhetoric, they feel cheated. For those who voted against Obama because they want to "win" both these wars, they're just confused. They're not cheering his turn toward their cause. They just think he's a whack-job for flip-flopping. From a pragmatic, objectivist standpoint, we should be glad that this man took the time he did to thoughtfully think through both the short- and long-term consequences of our actions, regardless of his final decision. From a marketing standpoint, he's hanging himself. (Tomorrow, we will continue this discussion with a guest post by Jarrett Harris. If you would like to contribute a post to this forum on any subject in order to spur debate, please e-mail it to me.)