Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis post was researched and co-written by Fernanda Diaz.
(Click here to skip to a guide to antiwar protest activities this week.)
The 9th year of the war in Afghanistan begins today with fears that it could be even more deadly than the previous eight--despite public opinion polls showing a majority of Americans opposing the conflict.
Popular opposition to escalation is fueling a spate of national protests today and for the rest of this week calling for an exit plan and imploring President Obama and leaders in Congress to reject a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of troops in Afghanistan, for as many as 40,000 new troops to bolster the app. 68,000 US soldiers currently serving in the region.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, joined by 21 lawmakers, presented an alternative direction with the recent introduction of H.R. 3699 in Congress -- a bill that prohibits funding for any increase in the number of members of the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
So far, the Democratic leadership and the White House have rebuffed the legislation with Senator Harry Reid even remarking that everyone present at President Obama's latest private forum on Afghanistan, Republican or Democrat, agreed to support whatever decision he made . The real issue, as John Nichols writes in his Nation blog, is that none of the "outspoken advocates for a rethink of the occupation…and an exit strategy" such as Senators Russell Feingold and Bernie Sanders were invited to this strategy session in a more-than-symbolic move.
Join The Nation in making sure that President Obama also hears what concerned progressives think about the future of US involvement in Afghanistan. If we're not invited behind closed doors, we can nevertheless make our voices heard by loudly urging Congress to consider the limits on troop increases proposed in H.R. 3699.
In Congresswoman Lee's words, "As we consider the possibility of further entrenching United States Armed Forces by sending significantly more brave men and women in uniform into harm's way, this legislation sends a clear message in opposition to this course of action."
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"...agreed to support whatever decision he made"
posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/07/2009 @ 2:10pm
well, there you go.
Do you not suppose that were you privy to the intelligence the President sees, that you might reach a different conclusion?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 2:46pm
I thought Afghanistan was a NATO gig, and that the Atlantic alliance was oh so important to us...blah...blah...blah...
Well, where's all the other NATO combat troops that oughta be just pouring in?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/07/2009 @ 2:59pm
Peter, am I wrong? I thought this was the start of the 9th year in Afghanistan?
and
Do you not suppose that were you privy to the intelligence the President sees, that you might reach a different conclusion?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Benchrest, the intelligence reports that Presidents get have often, in the past, been far more wrong than what we ordinary citizens learn from press reports and our relations in the military. And the beliefs of Presidents have frequently been contrary to what common sense tells us. Remember, the President is more isolated than just about any other person on the planet. So don't assume the President knows more than you, or me, or the guy next door. Truth is they often know less due to the nature of secrecy & the methods of the intelligence community which tend towards compartmentalization, bureaucratic infighting and even fabrication of fact and analysis (al la "weapons of mass destruction"). And just look at what happened to poor old LBJ who thought he knew what was happening in Vietnam, when he didn't know squat. Obama is beginning to look a lot like him.
OBAMA. HEY! HEY! HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
Posted by dont_know at 10/07/2009 @ 3:22pm
Hmmm. I consider myself fairly progressive, but I am not sold on backing a bill that maintains the status quo in Afghanistan. That just seems stupid.
I would like us to withdraw from Iraq. Move those forces to Afghanistan, Afghanistan has been Bush's little never endind expenditure for the miliraty industrial complex, with no goal of ever leaving, just spending money under the auspice of "fighting terror" creating nice meaning less soundbites. We have been their 8 years with no real strategy. At least none that was supported. I would rather see us, examine the conditions, especially political realities, is it even feasible to use surge tactics to stabilize the country or do the warlords still have too much power negating the potential for centralized government to truly control the area. If that is the case lets just leave. If not, we should for our sake and the rest of the world attempt to leave the country with at least a stable regime.
I think Barbara Lee's bill is shortsighted, in that it would only continue the quagmire were in. In reality it will only result in a continuation of Bush's strategy, or lack thereof. She has no alternative to the surge. She has no new ideas. Something new would be a bill to cut the funding of the Afghan war.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/07/2009 @ 3:23pm
Thank you DON'T. My counting skills are challenged!
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/07/2009 @ 3:47pm
I think Barbara Lee's bill is shortsighted, in that it would only continue the quagmire were in. In reality it will only result in a continuation of Bush's strategy, or lack thereof. She has no alternative to the surge. She has no new ideas. Something new would be a bill to cut the funding of the Afghan war.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/07/2009 @ 3:23pm
More than most, you seem to understand the dilemma America has in Afghanistan.
Common sense, which seems lacking on our national leaders, should tell us that when you get stuck in a quagmire, you had better get out before you sink deeper.
Congress will back anything Obama decides. The White House would prefer that Congress decide and the "best" they can come up with is Barbara Lee's bill. And Mcchrystal and the right are insane. Meanwhile more of our troops die defending an outpost scheduled for closing. A fine mess.
Posted by dont_know at 10/07/2009 @ 4:14pm
Do you not suppose that were you privy to the intelligence the President sees, that you might reach a different conclusion? Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
what you are suggesting is a secret war. in a democracy, the people must know what the pres and congress do.
that was the case in the Vietnam war. after the Pentagon papers everyone knew what the military and the gov't did. that was the beginning of the end of that war.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 4:22pm
I'm willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt at this point due to the fact that he changed his position after seeing said intelligence, and he is not predisposed or biased toward war.
It gives me pause.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 4:30pm
I agree with emile, shine a light on the reasons americans are dying in afghanistan. Can this war be justified, or is it just another way to waste resources, keep us in fear and exploit to facilitate additional growth of federal power and loss of our liberty?
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/07/2009 @ 4:31pm
I'm willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt at this point due to the fact that he changed his position after seeing said intelligence, and he is not predisposed or biased toward war.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 4:30pm
I'm w/you on supporting Magic.....on the grand assumption that he'll do his best to win this Good War he clearly wanted to fight while campaigning.
What I don't quite grasp, is your saying " he changed his position after seeing said intelligence"....huh? Guess you mean he's now, NOT sure he wants this Good War and is dealying making a decision.
Posted by Happy at 10/07/2009 @ 5:06pm
"What I don't quite grasp, is your saying " he changed his position after seeing said intelligence"....huh? Guess you mean he's now, NOT sure he wants this Good War and is dealying making a decision."
Posted by Happy at 10/07/2009 @ 5:06pm
Nice catch.
Totally bassackwards. My bad.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 5:23pm
The Fed has the right to regulate financial institutions regarding money, securities, and bonds.
The States have the right to regulate all other issues.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:20pm
Other neocons here in favor of 50 state-level regs or no regs for, oh say, civilian aircraft maintenance.
Posted by winyahn at 10/07/2009 @ 8:10pm
Cheney could finally shoot down some domestic aircraft!
Neocons / Ayn Randians here in favor of 50 state-level regs or no regs for, cars, medicine, appliances, shampoo, batteries, criteria for "organic"?
Posted by winyahn at 10/07/2009 @ 8:19pm
Swift-boaters aim! Perhaps go with 'secret-socialist, draftdodgin' injury-fakin' Bob Dole... Dole-out debt, on-the-Dole... Anyway, 2000 & 2004 Cheney-Bush lovin' Bob Dole Is Calling The GOP Obstructionists" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Posted by winyahn at 10/07/2009 @ 8:45pm
I thought the right wing believed Obama was a 21st century American reincarnation of Lord Darlington? And you want him to pull out of Afghanistan? Looks like we've got a host of wannabe butlers on our hands.
We will however take anti-war support (this one among others) anywhere we can find it.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/07/2009 @ 8:53pm
Get all the troops out now and give the Afganis their country back. Its tribal and thats the way they want it. Been that way for centuries. Leave them the hell alone. They are not a threat to us on this side of the globe. We have no national interest in being there!!!!
Posted by notsleepy at 10/07/2009 @ 10:00pm
We have no national interest in being there!!!!
Posted by notsleepy at 10/07/2009 @ 10:00pm
pipeline, pipeline, pipeline.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2009 @ 10:03pm
We have no national interest in being there!!!!
Posted by notsleepy at 10/07/2009 @ 10:00pm
pipeline, pipeline, pipeline.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2009 @ 10:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
more significantly, in terms of Afghan GDP,
opium, opium, opium
and withdrawal does not equal surrender except surrender to common sense.
Posted by dont_know at 10/08/2009 @ 06:17am
Well, where's all the other NATO combat troops that oughta be just pouring in? Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/07/2009 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
many NATO troops in Afghanistan are there as peace keepers, not combat troops, Germany's and Italy's soldiers for instance.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 07:00am
Like I said on the other thread, my bet is there WILL be a "Afghanistan Surge"...
and it will get a strict deadline, i.e. "McChrystal, get it stabilized 80-90% by July 2010 or we start pulling out and any neo-con or Repub whines about it in the Mid-terms, we say 'We tried it YOUR way and it didn't work!'"
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 07:17am
Wow! The most positive thing anybody has said so far about our country's military occupation of Afghanistan boils down to "I trust our President to do what's right," based on unseen evidence.
The Afghanistan war fills me with a lot of regret, because I endorsed it originally. I thought: Here's a place whose government is so bad that nothing we could replace it with could possibly be worse. But maybe unending war is worse. And I feel co-responsible for enabling our government and our military to enter the Afghan quagmire.
I wholeheartedly endorse the calls of "emile dubois" and "freiheit1" for lifting the veil of secrecy that now obscures the reasons why our president is maintaining the status quo in Afghanistan, if indeed there are any besides convenience and the avoidance of conflict with his predecessors.
I also believe we can and should use international law rather than war to pursue terrorists. I know international law is weak in many respects, because many governments are themselves criminal enterprises. But when we make terrorism a cause for war and occupy a foreign country, we actually expand the area in which conflict, lawlessness, and resentment against the occupying forces combine to increase the terrorist recruiters' appeal. This is especially true when the occupation is "light" because we use only volunteer soldiers and don't want to spend too much money.
I support the reforms that appropriate more money for the development of Pakistan's civil institutions, such as non-sectarian (or at least non-terrorist) schools. I also support the "Afghanization" of nation-building in this miserable country, and we should offer similar aid to Afghanistan's civil and perhaps even military institutions. But we need to pull our troops out.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/08/2009 @ 07:23am
I'm willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt at this point due to the fact that he changed his position after seeing said intelligence, and he is not predisposed or biased toward war.
It gives me pause.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/07/2009 @ 4:30pm
Bench, Obama said during his campaign during the democratic primary and also in the presidential election that he would focus on Afghanistan and the Taliban and pull out of Iraq.....this was before he was "privy" to all that presidential info.
This country is run backwards. The president is supposed to be the commander of the armed forces where in fact the pentagon and right wing think tanks run our military and evidently control the president as well.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 07:50am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 07:50am
Yeah, I fumbled that one.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/08/2009 @ 08:56am
Like I said on the other thread, my bet is there WILL be a "Afghanistan Surge"...
and it will get a strict deadline, i.e. "McChrystal, get it stabilized 80-90% by July 2010 or we start pulling out and any neo-con or Repub whines about it in the Mid-terms, we say 'We tried it YOUR way and it didn't work!'"
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 07:17am
Question for you Mask. Based on your projection, do believe that Obama is lying when he says that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror?
It would seem to be your conclusion if you believe that he is willing to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 09:26am
Yeah, I fumbled that one.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/08/2009 @ 08:56am
Hey, don't feel bad. Our system is set up for us to be at war at all times. I can't think of anytime in my lifetime that we haven't been at war. There's the ever going cold war where the U.S. and Russians competed to see who could make the most ICBM's and Vietnam, and a little police action here, a little there, a few wars with Iraq (Fighting against Iran with Saddam and then fighting against Saddam in Iraq), Afghanistan...fighting against the Russians and with the Taliban and now fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kind of a pattern I'd say.
We keep going into countries, propping up corrupt dictators, and then when the dictators have the balls to tell the U.S. no, we go in, kill them and reinstall a new puppet dictator. And all the while, the defense contractors make billions. Who cares if innocent civilians die as well as our soldiers. There's money to be made, and lots of it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 09:39am
'Failure to finish
"We (screwed) up the end game," Mr. Wilson said. "It would have been very easy and done for a minuscule amount of money. We should have done the basic things for a backward country that's trying to come out of (a war) and have a reasonable hope of economic success."
As President Obama considers whether to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan, Mr. Wilson worries that the war could become "another Vietnam."
"It's probably best to make a calculated withdrawl," he said. "If I were the president, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."
He says this as someone who knows as well as anyone just how fierce and tenacious the Afghan fighters are.
"I'd rather take on a chain saw," Mr. Wilson said. "They're the world's best foot soldiers, best warriors. And they're fearless.
"They're fearless, and they've got nothing to lose. And they have a pretty serious hatred for those who try to occupy their country."'
Excerpt:
Former U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson coming to Scranton to discuss war in Afghanistan By Josh McAuliffe (STAFF WRITER) Published: October 6, 2009
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 10:02am
Like I said on the other thread, my bet is there WILL be a "Afghanistan Surge"...
and it will get a strict deadline, i.e. "McChrystal, get it stabilized 80-90% by July 2010 or we start pulling out and any neo-con or Repub whines about it in the Mid-terms, we say 'We tried it YOUR way and it didn't work!'"
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 07:17am
Early on in Magic's administration, he made it known in several bi-partisan meetings in no uncertain ways, that "I won!"....which apparently lots of us DID forget! Was Magic wrong? Maybe he did NOT win?
Otherwise, why would he conduct the Good War (that he wanted so badly to fight to prove he is no anti-War softy) the Repub way? Didn't he make it clear the Repub way (in Afghanistan) wasn't working and OBL was still on the loose?
You are stuck with the Good War, however it maybe fought in YOUR/Magic's way, MASK!
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 10:06am
You are stuck with the Good War, however it maybe fought in YOUR/Magic's way, MASK!
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 10:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't forget Mask's Plan was to escalate - get the Taliban on the run, force them to the table, and have them swear allegiance to King Karzai, and agree that Islamic Law has no place in the "New Afghanistan." Then we could pull out....hehehe..........
Now he says we should get out ASAP.
Will he admit that Bama doesn't have a clue?
We have waiting and waiting for Bama's strategy since he took office. What Mask won't admit is, that this is Bama's strategy.
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am
We have waiting and waiting for Bama's strategy since he took office. What Mask won't admit is, that this is Bama's strategy.
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am
Well of course we have to wait. We have to give Halliburton time to pack up from Iraq and move into Afghanistan to set up shop for "rebuilding" Afghanistan. The soldiers are there to clear the way for more defense contract spending in Afghanistan. Healthcare for the American people is far far to expensive and must be done at an incremental rate, but nation stripping and rebuilding is something that must be done no matter what the cost to those same American's who don't deserve health insurance.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 10:47am
We have waiting and waiting for Bama's strategy since he took office. What Mask won't admit is, that this is Bama's strategy.
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am
BINGO! Now, to tire shop to replace a flat!
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 10:50am
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 10:22am
First it was "Messiah"...now "Bama"?
OV, what's next? An "independent progressive" calling Obama....
"Magic"?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 11:07am
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 10:50am
Thank goodness, you've got that "donut" spare. Us.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/08/2009 @ 11:18am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 10:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
Finally, some clarity.
The redeployment has to be accomplished in "increments," because Iraq is still not secure. Theoretically, this could go on for years and years.
No matter where you sit on the ideological fence, it all boils down to resources - resources that we don't have except via criminal debt financing of our foreign policy fiasco.
The healthcare debate is a splendid example of how our Congress feels obligated to be fiscally responsible with social spending, contrasted with ongoing debt financed supplemental "war" appropriations that mortgage our future, and institutionalize the gravy train of neoconservative/neoliberal vision.
We should be up in arms. For the cost of the Iraq/AfPak Wars, we could have had healthcare and a start on funding projected deficits of social security and medicare/medicaid. And what of the bailouts to WallStreet and Corporations.
It doesn't look good. We are on the outside looking in - and obviously, it has been this way for quite some time.
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
Maskie - you are from the South. If I call Bama "Messiah," a term that fits as per the dictionary, why should I share your inferred black man guilt? Quit playing the race card.
If somebody lies to me, I, like most folks, tend to lose respect. It is as simple as that.
Messiah: One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.
Look it up Maskie!
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 09:39am
You only have it half right Wolfgang. War is not just profiteering and propping up dictators. War is also the tool used by governments to solidify their own existence and keep the masses in their place, the class structure intact.
Nothing has been as good as war at achieving this. True, the big experiment now is if we can be controlled over fear of ecoligic doom, the global warming ruse. But, that's not gaining the kind of traction anticipated. More dumbing down needed for sure...
So when you wonder why Obama isn't getting us out of Afghanistan, just look no further than the truth. He's not going to let a good crisis go unused. He will milk Afghanistan for all the federal power he can gain. He's no dummy. And he is certainly not a man of God.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/08/2009 @ 12:34pm
"Magic"?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
BTW - It is very funny to see a "ardent defender" of the black man be such an "ardent defender" of Arab racism in Israel.
Which, leads me to believe, that you use racism as your Trojan Horse. I think Jewish "liberals" have some soul-searching to do.
It will take "Magic" for you not to see your own hypocrisy, but then again, that is not the issue is it? It is political expediency - and if you can play the race card for political gain and the interest of the "folks" behind your stalking horse, then you will do it.
But don't pretend to be black man's best friend. As I recall, Bama turned his back on his congregation and preacher in a flash once David Axelrod told him to. Bama is a politician first and foremost.
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 12:44pm
"Magic"?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh such fun to rub your nose in it.
Do check out Chris Hayes' story 'Tuesdays with Rahm' in today's Nation.
I thought you told us that this vicious little Zionist ganster wasn't going to making policy?
Hmmmmmmm Maskie??????
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 1:53pm
Hmmmm...did I strike a nerve, OneVote?...
or pre-empt your next "term of endearment" for Obama...directly from HAPPY and Rush Limbaugh???
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 2:44pm
Congresswoman Barbara Lee should be treated as would any other traitor and dealt with accordingly. That goes for the other 21 who joined her. Congress should not be in the business of facilitating America's defeat on the battlefield. Send them all off to Guantanamo.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/08/2009 @ 3:04pm
or pre-empt your next "term of endearment" for Obama...directly from HAPPY and Rush Limbaugh???
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Too busy to answer huh Maskie...
You must have been just positively blubbering over the NY Times piece today on Mrs. Bama's "roots."
MSM still just going gagga and tickled pink how far we've come.
Lordy Lordy.....
I rather hear about the "roots" of Penny Priztker tell ya the truth. But we aren't going to hear that story are we?
Hmmmmm......Maskie?
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 3:15pm
Send them all off to Guantanamo.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/08/2009 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Great idea Gun. I'll second that motion. "Indefinite Detention." I like that.
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 3:20pm
We're fucked-- either way.
We pack up and vacate, we leave the same conditions that put the Taliban in power after the Soviets did just that. Then the blood of innocents in on all of our hands as the Taliban lets loose its brutality.
Or we stay indefinitely as there is no national army or other such entity to take over security in our absence.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:18pm
We're fucked-- either way.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:18pm
So, that's what Hopey and Changey comes to! Neat!
Or, Change You (but not me) Can Believe In! Neater!
Finally, Magic confirmed that he's the one HE and YOU have been waiting for! Neatbulous!
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 5:22pm
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm not sure I follow whatever point you're trying to make there, but I'm pretty sure "Magic" wasn't the guy to start the situation in Afghanistan, was he? Oh, that's right, he inherited it from the guy (group of guys really) who neglected it, let Bin Laden slip away, and made the ridiculous detour into Iraq-all of which I'm sure was done with your full support!
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:28pm
One could only IMAGINE what state Afghanistan would be in now, had we simply taken care of it first. But no, the URGE was too strong to live out the wet dream of toppling Saddam.
One could only IMAGINE how much better Bush's legacy may have been perceived, had he only finished the job in Afghanistan! Bummer.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:35pm
Or we stay indefinitely as there is no national army or other such entity to take over security in our absence. Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
actually there is a national army in Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 5:49pm
actually there is a national army in Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 5:49pm
The Taliban?
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/08/2009 @ 5:53pm
actually there is a national army in Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You may be technically correct Emile, but do you really think they'd be at all effective at protecting the people in our sudden absence? I realize you're against war, as am I, but I think leaving Afghanistan at this point would put a lot of people in harm's way, in a really bad way.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 6:31pm
Anybody think McCain wouldn't be facing the same problem, had he been elected? Hell, how about Nader, or Paul, or McKinney?
Of course not! It's all "Magic's" doing!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 6:33pm
protecting the people from what?
the Taleban are the people too.
let's say that Afghanistan defies easy explanation and categorization.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 6:48pm
but I think leaving Afghanistan at this point would put a lot of people in harm's way, in a really bad way.
this was also the story in Vietnam. yet, we left, ignominiously, but we left.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 6:50pm
Droopy is just a critic of anything that doesn't benefit him. Afghanistan is a mess to be rid of. What is our real role there?Humanitarian rights? Infrastructure builders?Please don't tell me Afghan patrolman. Poppie cultivator? Alpine crop developer? Northern defender of India? Meanwhile Communist China is buying our bonds and real estate. I hope I am not the only one watching.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:01pm
I'm pretty sure "Magic" wasn't the guy to start the situation in Afghanistan, was he?....
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:28pm
How many US Presidents get to start w/a `clean' country? How about just one, George Washington...and even he didn't start debt-free and trouble-free now, did he?
I'll cut you some slack, if you want to believe the country is still being run by Bush, fine, hope it makes you HAPPY!
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 7:26pm
Droopy is just a critic of anything that doesn't benefit him.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:01pm
I'm guessing "Droopy" refers to me?
I glance thru comments by the established `regulars' (and you're NOT in that circle) and scan the rest of the comments. I do stay alert to my nic........ I don't see "HAPPY" in capital letters, I generally don't read the comments, comprende?
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 7:31pm
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
These are excellent points. I recommend either of you to read Khaled Hosseini's "A Thousand Splendid Suns". Subjective, yes, but an account nonetheless of the Taliban's brutality.
"protecting the people from what?
the Taleban are the people too."
They have also shown themselves to be as humanitarian as the Nazis were.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 7:33pm
Droop- You are an unabashed righty and thats o.k. How you arrive at your conclusions puzzle me so I figure it must be the neighborhood you live in. The hispanics are coming so maybe you are an ethnic food guy. Afghanistan is much different than Vietnam ,the power brokers in America shoved that down the throats of the people.It has parallels with the Civil War though. We had GWB and Dick sneaking out of Vietnam.The Civil War had Rockefeller,Carnegie,J.P.Morgan,and Jay Gould amongst others who avoided war service by buying substitutes. Both groups profited off of war. We as a country have a shameful history of "elites" shirking their obligations while the lower classes fight the wars. Trust me it will be a business decision that ends our involvement in Afghanistan.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 8:25pm
They have also shown themselves to be as humanitarian as the Nazis were. Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 7:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
nonsense. I'll say it again, nonsense.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 8:44pm
I'm sorry M, I don't mean to be curt.
the nazis were pretty much sui generis. they used the apparatus of the modern state to commit genocide on an unimagined scale.
the Taleban are a brutal bunch to be sure, but there are many regimes in the world that are brutal, perhaps even most. but genocide? not the Taleban.
there is also no modern state in Afghanistan.
the idea that we could go in there and build roads and schools and transform the country into Belgium is patently absurd, and is based on the fallacy that everyone in the world wants what we want, or what we have.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 9:06pm
the Taleban are a brutal bunch to be sure, but there are many regimes in the world that are brutal, perhaps even most. but genocide? not the Taleban.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 9:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The problem is, at present, we're stuck in Afghanistan. Prior to our arrival, the argument that -"there are many other brutal regimes thruought the world, so why this one?"- was applicable; it no longer is. All that remains is that we are there and what to do next. Perhaps you're right that the Nazis had a different sort of brutality, but "nonsense'? I don't know, it's not my idea of a good time to go to a soccer stadium to watch women being shot. The Taliban is not some benign group just trying to get along friendly with their neighbors. They are theocratic, violent zealots who kill without conscience, and they are amongst the many of our problems right now.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 10:14pm
the idea that we could go in there and build roads and schools and transform the country into Belgium is patently absurd, and is based on the fallacy that everyone in the world wants what we want, or what we have.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009
The idea of nation building appeals to the ethnocentrism of the people of the US but what about the leaders of the US military and government?
Going into Afghanistan there was no mention of nationbuilding. So, what changed?
Did Bush et al...realize that no matter what the military accomplishes, there will be a mess left behind?
The solution was to prolong the war by appealing to the fantasy that the Afghans are really just like the American Colonials and they just need our help to be free.
9 years later and we find ourselves in the current mess with our military killing these people to prop up a corrupt government.
Posted by koroviev at 10/09/2009 @ 02:12am
Afghanistan is a mess to be rid of. What is our real role there?Humanitarian rights? Infrastructure builders?Please don't tell me Afghan patrolman. Poppie cultivator? Alpine crop developer? Northern defender of India? Meanwhile Communist China is buying our bonds and real estate. I hope I am not the only one watching.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:01pm
I vote for the poppie cultivator. A lot of us are watching the military industrial complex scramble for reasons to ratchet up the stakes so they can justify us spending unbelievable amounts of national treasure so that they can get rich while the country itself goes further into debt.
You aren't the only one watching, but unfortunately, those of us on the outside who see what's going on are powerless to stop the fiasco (what runs our country posing as a republic....certainly not a democracy) going on in D.C.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2009 @ 06:36am
A measure to cut off any increase in troop increases is nothing short of irresponsible, PETER. Feingold et al who have not been included in serious discussions because in the context of realworld geopolitics, thier alternatives can't be taken seriously.
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2009 @ 08:33am
I don't know, it's not my idea of a good time to go to a soccer stadium to watch women being shot.
this too happens in other countries. waving the bloody shirt is not addressing the problem. we need to end these wars.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 08:53am
I don't know, it's not my idea of a good time to go to a soccer stadium to watch women being shot.
there used to be quite a crowd here in the US at public hangings.not to mention lynchings, which continued into our era.
you are attempting to push emotional buttons, not making a rational argument about an eight year old war.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 09:04am
Saudi Arabia just beheaded a woman in public that was convicted of murder ... theyd have a big gathering at a soccer field and behead them. ...
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 09:05am
we have the death penalty in many states in the US. it's different only in a matter of degree. we do it nice and clean, in private. well not so clean, it turns out.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 09:07am
Saudi's crime rates are much lower that of the US due to the harsh punishments there.They are executing their own citizens for their crimes and that is their law. And what is US doing in other countries?The number of deaths in IRAQ crossed 1.3 million due to their invasion there. And the President of that nation got Nobel prize for peace.
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/09/2009 @ 10:24am
You libs voted for Obama and try to ignore that he told you he was going to make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror.
You got what you voted for.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 10:26am
And the President of that nation got Nobel prize for peace. Posted by Dastu11 at 10/09/2009 @ 10:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
Obama did not start the Iraq war, and he is extricating us from that conflict.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2009 @ 10:31am