Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTrue enough, Barack Obama has pledged to support a "surge" in US forces in Afghanistan, as bad an idea as that might be. (See my article, "Obama's Afghan Dilemma," in The Nation.) But the latest from Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a shock, and outrageous. Mullen said, without even a nod to Obama's role as incoming commander-in-chief, that he's planning to double US forces there by adding up to 30,000 new troops.
It's hard to ready this any other way than the worst way, however: that Mullen is speaking with Obama's (unspoken) approval. During the campaign season, and since, Obama said that he'd send "at least two or three additional combat brigades" to Afghanistan, which ought to mean something like another 10,000 forces or so. But 30,000 is a huge escalation.
Currently, the US has something like 32,000 troops in that hell-hole, including 14,000 under a rickety NATO coalition. Mullen's plan would send at least four combat brigades and thousands of additional support forces.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the Bush administration is pounding away at Obama to escalate in Afghanistan, and no doubt Robert Gates is in there hammering:
"The Pentagon and national security officials are transmitting a battery of new information concerning the Afghanistan war to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team in hopes the new administration will act quickly to prevent U.S. fortunes there from eroding further. ..."Obama was briefed in person last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on details of war plans.
"Among other issues, Mullen described the size of the units the Pentagon plans to send to Afghanistan and when they would be sent, defense officials said."
So it's clear Mullen got Obama's approval first, since it's unlikely he would have announced the 30,000 figure if Obama had indicated any opposition to the idea. That's scary.
Even Karzai is skeptical, though he's under political pressure at home, telling the Tribune: "Sending more troops to the Afghan cities, to the Afghan villages, will not solve anything. Sending more troops to control the border is sensible, makes sense That is where I need help. I don't need help anywhere else." But the US seems determined, according to sources I've talked to, to use the new forces to control Afghan cities.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that among the additional forces will be lare numbers of slam-bang US Special Forces to help train the wobbly Afghan National Army:
"The deployment of the Green Berets, the independent, multifaceted force skilled at training indigenous forces, could fill critical gaps in Afghanistan almost immediately, defense officials say...."The deployment would be relatively small, probably only a few hundred individuals at first. Ultimately, other special operations forces, such as marines from Special Operations Command, Air Force special operators, and Navy Seals could be deployed under the plan."
The Special Ops surge would include a new US commander for Special Forces in Afghanistan and lots of support, like helicopters and intelligence units.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Yet more evidence that the starry-eyed left (and much of mainstream America along with it) was cruelly duped by Obama. Rather than ending BushCo's disastrous wars, the Knight in Shining Armor is actually intensifying our military commitment to what the author so aptly terms the "hellhole" of Afghanistan. Although it belies so much of what he grandiosely claimed during the campaign--and especially during the primaries--Obama represents the status quo, a terrible status quo, in terms of foreign policy and much else too. The more honest elements of the left are finally beginning to experience buyer's remorse, whereas too many continue desperately, ludicrously clinging to the fantasy of "change." One hopes that honest elements of the left, and many other Americans unburdened by fatuous leftist ideologies, will actually do something to counter Obama's betrayal.
Posted by feinfein at 12/23/2008 @ 12:50pm
No nation in history has ever brought the Afghanis to their knees.
From Alexander the Great to the USSR, Afghanistan is always the invaders' graveyard.
Obama is a fool to think the US is an exception. The Afghan quagmire could make him a one-term president, just as Vietnam undid LBJ.
Of course, Obama may fear that he wouldn't even live out his 1st term – like JFK failed to – if he opposes the MIC on Afghanistan.
Posted by sloper at 12/23/2008 @ 12:51pm
One aspect of the "surge" in Iraq, and that would presumably be important in a "surge" in Afghanistan, and that has not been treated as sufficiently controversial, is the American use of formal death squads. Mass media and official commentary on the Iraqi "surge" has exclusively focused on the added presence of "more troops", however, the Washington Post did indicate months back that a major or the major component of the "success" so far has been the use of American covert operations personnel in serious and widespread programs of deliberate "high tech" targeted assassinations. What this means on the ground is that special/covert operators are monitoring Iraqi communications and looking for any potential insurgent activity. When this activity is detected, it is investigated firsthand and people are simply killed if seen as any potential threat.
The controversies here should be plain to see - there is a claim being made that Iraq is a "democracy" and a free country - yet the peace that has been established, which is simply a moderate suppression of the insurgency and militias - is the result in part of a major regime of assassinations being conducted by the US military and intelligence agencies. In essence, a strongman regime has been established with the US now doing the dirty work. Another controversy is the fact that the US has not since the Pheonix program in Vietnam played so rough with basic human rights. Finally, assassinations and death squads do not engage in regular warfare but instead exist as a very negative and disturbing form of law enforcement, such as is seen in Israel or Columbia. There are real questions about this sort of police force, the morality of it and the practical accountability of a shadow penal system that uses death and fear.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/23/2008 @ 1:56pm
My point is that the Iraqi "surge" is frightening enough in its ramifications, and expanding the use of death squads and military enforcement of civilian law in Afghanistan should worry people, unless we are all comfortable with the US overtly managing occupations of two foreign nations with a state "police" mechanism - the above mentioned programs of targeted assassination - that could never legally or morally exist in the US or any developed Western nation without an outcry.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/23/2008 @ 1:59pm
Targeted killings of potential troublemakers? Assassination squads? Free fire zones for aerial bombing & artillery?
As long as the victims don't resemble our image of ourselves, most of us don't care.
The US in Nam, Israel in Palestine, Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe & the death camps ... Britain, Belgium, France, Germany in their colonies in East ... all of a piece & all in our times.
Western civilization ... that would be a good idea, as Gandhi noted.
Posted by sloper at 12/23/2008 @ 3:06pm
To say that Obama is turning into a massive disappointment probably is a massive understatement.
Best news of the day (excerpted from tinyurl.com/8h294o):
The governor of the Bank of Spain on Sunday issued a bleak assessment of the economic crisis, warning that the world faced a "total" financial meltdown unseen since the Great Depression.
"The lack of confidence is total," Miguel Angel Fernandez Ordonez said in an interview with Spain's El Pais daily.
"The inter-bank (lending) market is not functioning and this is generating vicious cycles: consumers are not consuming, businessmen are not taking on workers, investors are not investing and the banks are not lending.
"There is an almost total paralysis from which no-one is escaping," he said, adding that any recovery -- pencilled in by optimists for the end of 2009 and the start of 2010 -- could be delayed if confidence is not restored.
End quote.
Why is this horrifying news actually potentially good news?
Because the worse this mess gets, the more likely it results in a paradigm shift away from the sheer unbridled greed and unfettered capitalism that has been in vogue (in a particularly virulent form) at least since the days of Ronnie Raygun.
Imagine cultural ethic of true conservatism. The kind that actually means conserving something other than rich people's money and status --like life on the planet to name just one example.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/23/2008 @ 3:48pm
"Obama campaigned on increasing troop strength in Afghanistan and now the left is whining that you didn't think he meant it?"
the left was always whining about increasing troop strength, you dolt!
Posted by darladoon at 12/23/2008 @ 3:59pm
In other "hot" news of the day (from Yahoo!,..... "yaahoooo!"):
Obama Photos Trigger Web Delirium
Not perhaps since John F. Kennedy's own beach photos has a nation been so stirred to seek out revealing images of the incoming commander-in-chief. Searches are soaring for "obama pictures" and, in a realm normally reserved for prepubescent idols, "obama shirtless." Yes, the man so far designated to stimulate the economy, restore American dignity abroad, and save the planet from global warming, has inspired lookups more befitting a, dare we say, heartthrob......
End quote.
Gotta love the disconnect.
Is Monty Python in the house?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/23/2008 @ 3:59pm
Here we go again, more interventionist death-dealing, this time brought to you by that die-hard opponent of unnecessary wars, Barak Obama. The war in Afghanistan is lost and will be no less lost with the processing of more American lives though this AIPAC Stephin Fetchit's meatgrinder. After the experience of the last four years, with a solid outpouring of support for the Democratic Party on two occasions in no small part owing to a hatred of the war and those in government that sponsored it, Obama contemptuously spits in the face of the American people with this escalation. I find it difficult anymore to hold to an expectation that this marionette will ever come within fifty yards of the truth over the next four years. He's likely to run when decision making is called for, a hard-to-avoid-noticing characteristic of his earlier life, I'm told. We have a soft hands product of an elite education with all the amorality and lack of substance so typical of the genre. We're about to fall apart, and this schmuck takes us to war? Who is capable of getting mad anymore?
Posted by john lowell at 12/23/2008 @ 4:53pm
I realize that PE Obama has suggested we need more troops in Afghanistan as they should have gone there in the first place and not even into Iraq!!!! I did not believe in the Iraq war and thought it was not necessary and it is proving to be a nightmare with no end in sight as yet. I also feel that this war in Afghanistan is a pointless war also, if Russia were there for years with no victory what makes us think we can do any better. Osama Bin Laden may be there, but who really knows for sure where he is...and with all our great intelligence why haven't we caught him by now?? That terrain is so awful and unknown by our troops they are just like sitting ducks for these fighters who know every square inch of it!!!! My answer is bring all the troops home from both countries and let the intelligence agencies do their job and let us know when they have located Osama Bin Laden and then we can act. Senseless waste of lives on both counts as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 5:40pm
Posted by Caj at 12/23/2008 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
don't believe we are in afghanistan to find Bin Laden. nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 6:52pm
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taliban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and t
Posted by GlobalWarmingIsNice at 12/23/2008 @ 7:24pm
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
Posted by GlobalWarmingIsNice at 12/23/2008 @ 7:27pm
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So
Posted by GlobalWarmingIsNice at 12/23/2008 @ 7:29pm
So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."
Gerard Baker-TimesOnline(UK)
Posted by GlobalWarmingIsNice at 12/23/2008 @ 7:30pm
Posted by GlobalWarmingIsNice at 12/23/2008 @ 7:30pm
But the Child lied and the people that had been sore afraid just got sore instead. And as the depression deepened and the war casualties multipled, they cursed him and swore vengence upon him. And on the the third day of Emanuel in the year AIPAC, they descended upon his house holding a show trial and mocking him, saying, "if you are the Child that came to change us, where's the beef"? And they smote him with a rod and banished him. And at last the people were free of the Child, the two headed beast for whom he toiled, and his constant lying.
Posted by john lowell at 12/24/2008 @ 12:02am
According to the Chicago Tribune, the Bush administration is pounding away at Obama to escalate in Afghanistan, and no doubt Robert Gates is in there hammering:
"The Pentagon and national security officials are transmitting a battery of new information concerning the Afghanistan war to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team in hopes the new administration will act quickly to prevent U.S. fortunes there from eroding further. ...
This paragraph says the Bush Administration admits they are losing the War in Afghanistan...Eight years of "mission accomplished," "bring'em on," and all of the other bullshit about how Democrats are soft or can't be trusted with national security and now they admit that they are losing. What a disgrace.
Posted by koroviev at 12/24/2008 @ 01:34am
If we want to go all realpolitik, Afghanistan is a sideshow and has been ever since Bush failed to catch Osama.
Like it or not, the real front on the "war on terror" is Pakistan. If we want to defeat the Taliban and Osama, a joint operation with India targeting Pakistan's nukes and the so-called tribal regions is probably a doable deal. Let India occupy Pakistan, if they need the sweetener.
Posted by S Thornton at 12/24/2008 @ 05:39am
FeinFein...you got it. That's why I voted for Nader. I thought Obama was a phony. Now we see he is an establishment politician all the way. Including flip-flops on most campaign issues. This is Clinton administration III, but that's not what people voted for. If so, then Hillary would have won. And ,like JFK, Obama is being drawn into a disasterous war.
Posted by philbq at 12/24/2008 @ 08:38am
don't believe we are in afghanistan to find Bin Laden. nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 6:52pm
Why do you think we are there for?
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 08:46am
wars have a way of becoming their own reason d'etre. I believe the afghanistan war was a stalking horse for the Iraq war. Bush had to do something to remove the stench of failure after 9/11. it was a half hearted effort. the best I can make out now, is that we are at war because we are at war.
what is there to gain there? does it affect us one way or the other whether the warlords or the taleban run that godforsaken country?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:01am
Posted by S Thornton at 12/24/2008 @ 05:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
you must be out of your mind. more and more war? grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:03am
Phil, baby, you threw away your vote. I doubt that even you would be comfortable with president Nader in charge of this failing empire. Nader has never been elected to anything. with good reason.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:07am
what is there to gain there? does it affect us one way or the other whether the warlords or the taleban run that godforsaken country?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008
I guess the only reason a lot of folks say we are there is because of Bin Laden....I happen to think if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place there wouldn't have been a Bin Laden so to speak. I too think these wars are really senseless and what do we ever really achieve in the end....just loss of unecessary life...some of these "wars" inside these countries will still be going on long after we leave anyway.
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 10:30am
To President Elect Barack Obama and the troops in Afghanistan: Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often! Find, fix, Kill!!!!!
To Nation Readers: Merry Christmas to you all...........!
Posted by Weyld1 at 12/24/2008 @ 11:03am
Hey BKOOL 66
The SHYSTER FROM REISTERSTOWN HERE.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU
:)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/24/2008 @ 1:01pm
>>>But the latest from Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a shock, and outrageous. Mullen said, without even a nod to Obama's role as incoming commander-in-chief, that he's planning to double US forces there by adding up to 30,000 new troops.<<<
This is the down-side of keeping hanger-ons from the Bush Administration.
The upside is that you get some continuity during the transition so that our "enemies" (those who are plotting to harm Americans) do not get encouraged, but people like Mullins and Gates eventually have to go.
Their "war mindset" is incompatible with an Administration that wants to reduce tensions and assert a new smarter approach to resolving conflict around the world. Their ties to an American defense industry that sees wars as "profit-making opportunities" is unacceptable, as these defense industry lobbyists will continue to use the hanger-ons to try to push Obama into more conflict that requires more troops and more of their stuff that they want to sell.
Increasing Special Forces is the answer to the on-the-ground challenges in Afghanistan, not doubling the troop presence.
I suspect that once Obama actually takes office, there will be a winding down of this "war mind-set" and a gradual replacement of those in leadership positions who are stuck on war. It is a delicate balancing act, because if Obama moves too boldly or too quickly in this regard, then those who may want to harm us may see this as a sign of weakness and attack again.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/24/2008 @ 1:26pm
When Dick Cheney says "9/11 was the high-point of my career", then this is very telling of defense industry orientation of the Bush people.
How can 9/11, a tragic event that killed 5,000 Americans, be the high-point of ANYONE'S career?
The only "winners" in 9/11 were the defense industry, and those who want to destroy what little privacy protection that is left for Americans.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/24/2008 @ 1:35pm
Number of 9/11 Deaths
At least 2,985 people died in the September 11th attacks, including: 19 terrorists 2,966 victims
your point remains the same. happy Christmas
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 1:47pm
Bird Brain has never stopped ruling the world, white, black, yellow but still Bird Brain
Posted by pachonegro at 12/24/2008 @ 3:58pm
When Dick Cheney says "9/11 was the high-point of my career", then this is very telling of defense industry orientation of the Bush people.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/24/2008 @ 1:35pm
Dick Cheney is an arrogant, evil man who has no conscience at all.... he still see's absolutely nothing wrong with what he and Bush have done regarding this war in Iraq!!! If anyone needs to be tried for war crimes it's that sad excuse for a human being and Bush was compliant in this trumped up war, all done in the name of "Democracy and Freedom",what a load of trash!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 4:18pm
This Afghan war expansion is chillingly like the beginning of the JFK administration. A Democratic president, anxious to prove his toughness, gets suckered by the Pentagon into an endless guerrilla war on terrain that is not favorable to conventional military power, supporting a corrupt government with little support from the people. After three years of quagmire, I believe JFK realized that it was a loser, and he was going to pull the plug after his re-election. That's why the military-industrial complex and the CIA assassinated him: to keep the war going. Obama is in the exact same situation. He will try to escalate, but it won't work. Then a fateful decision will loom.
Posted by philbq at 12/25/2008 @ 8:52pm
One month to go before our 44th president takes office and the arm chair quarter backing is in overdrive.
What will Obama do in Afghanistan? What is the Bush admin. is pushing? Sec'y Gates? Head of the Joint Chiefs? NSA?
We've been duped but thank God many of you guys know best.
This I know: he voted against Iraq, declared the troops will be home in 16 months and claimed Afghanistan - (read Osama Bin Laden) was the real issue.At large since 9/11, OBL is the face of terrorism only the Bush admin. failed to get him. Does anyone know how this is accomplished? Do we withdraw troops, ally/fight Pakistan, add troops, hit the cities or hit the border? Who has a handle on what Obama's strategy really is? If so, where is his failure 30 days prior to taking office?
Obama inherits the biggest financial crisis since the 30s, can anyone tell me why he would want to drain the treasury further with billions for an escalated war in Afghanistan?
I am willing to give Obama at least until he is inaugurated - maybe more.
Posted by tombesurlesderrieres at 12/25/2008 @ 9:40pm
Tomb: Obama did not vote against the Iraq war because he was not in Congress at the time. Considering his cabinet appointments who voted for the war, I believe he WOULD have voted for the war if he had to vote. He merely ran against the war to beat Hillary in the primary. (very dishonest and cynical.)
Posted by philbq at 12/25/2008 @ 10:07pm
philbq - you are right, he was not in the US Senate in '02.
But, before and during the campaign, his remarks are so anti-war: - Opposes surge - Iraq distracted US from getting Bin Laden - no WMD - iraq a blunder
I can only conclude he was sincere.
As per the bellicose cabinet & staff, you are right, Gates, Jones, Daschle & Clinton all voted, "yes." Their influence remains to be seen but ...
Posted by tombesurlesderrieres at 12/26/2008 @ 12:57am
Like Vietnam, the Afghan Karzai government is a complete failure: it has no influence outside the capital Kabul. The opium-king warlords are the provincal powers, but they are brutal drug smugglers. Hardly the preferred allies of the U.S. Several military empires have come and been successfully resisted here in this mountainous hellhole. The U.S. is next.
Posted by philbq at 12/26/2008 @ 05:25am
All decent Afghans and Iraqis have a patriotic duty to kill Americans.
How could we possibly "win" in either place?
Posted by godistwaddle at 12/26/2008 @ 1:45pm
As a frequent reader of The Nation I urge the USA: Stop your involvement in these stupid wars America is falling to pieces, adress that problem, don't get involved with wars Invest in infrastructure, health and economy
Posted by hansje at 12/26/2008 @ 2:18pm
30,000 troops sounds like a lot of troops, but it is not enough to provide any security for the people of Afghanistan. According to Gates, the number of troops in Afghanistan will not come close to those in Iraq. My impression is they are looking to form an Afghanistan version of the Iraqi "Awakening Movement" to bring things under control. Afghanistan is not Iraq, so it may be wishful thinking.There was an article about Jones in Haaretz today. I don't think he has a clue! We are looking at a slightly milder version of the Bush policies. He thinks we can prop up Fatah and make them more attractive than Hamas.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/26/2008 @ 4:36pm
et us leave off our silly preoccupation with our pathetic little puffs of gunpowder in Afghanistan. Our strengths lie not with our military, but our diplomatic skills. This will require intellectual honesty, subtlety, and deft management, things sorely missed in our foreign policy to date.
With the sounds of Kabul residents being blown to bloody pieces now echoing in Karzei's ears, he will be forced to join with the Taliban in a coalition government. Victory will soon be declared, freshly liberated school children and women will be paraded about, peace shall reign! Both "equal partners", that is until the cameras are switched off. Then, surely as night follows day, Karzei will be dumped overboard, along with his "liberated" citizens. And thus, our "mission in Afghanistan" will sink with nary a murmur, a footnote for a gravestone. Amnesia will block our ears and blind our eyes, -a mere channel flick away. Afghanistan will fall to the floor, the discarded toy of a malevolent child.
Worry not, nor envy the psychopath's sleep, for the horror we have wrought. All corpses rot to dust, and true human remains are found only in the minds of orphans and hearts of widows. And they too do soon turn to dust. And for all here who "loved" our troops, who brayed for the bombs, the air strikes, the torture and the murder, who cheered the bravery of our soldiers, will dare not brave the stares of our victims: here come the bereaved, zombied by misery, their eyes painted in pictures of their dead. They trail galleries of the thousands, hundreds of thousands killed for nothing but our policy failures. What one thousandth child would not break your faith, what one thousandth child would not now, in the candle light of your private thought, make every cheek blush?
Posted by Neocynic at 12/26/2008 @ 9:18pm
Take heart, it is almost over. We still yet have a few more of our young men to sacrifice. As life's last light leaves the eyes of another dead soldier, who in the acute brilliance of their youth and innocence, set down childish things to take up our banners, and die in this wasteland, please whisper a reason. Say anything, pretend anything, give them something to hold on to.
Only you who support this war will be left alone to live with your reasons.
Posted by Neocynic at 12/26/2008 @ 9:18pm
Fashionable anti-establishment cynicism is a very thin shield against holy warriors who are determined to purge the world of disbelief and disbelievers.
Posted by chm0012001 at 12/27/2008 @ 06:02am
Fashionable anti-establishment cynicism is a very thin shield against holy warriors who are determined to purge the world of disbelief and disbelievers. Posted by chm0012001 at 12/27/2008 @ 06:02am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is bull crap. there are no religious wars going on. the wars are a result of the decline of colonialism. your view if Islam is medieval.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/27/2008 @ 11:30am
this is bull crap. there are no religious wars going on. the wars are a result of the decline of colonialism. your view if Islam is medieval.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/27/2008 @ 11:30am
If you are not joking and really believe what you have stated, then I believe you are blind and ill-informed.
While I'm disgusted that our country was thrown into a war in Iraq under false pretenses, I'm also as concerned with the threat that the bin laden organization poses.
If you actually feel that there isn't a threat to our national security from bin Laden, please share with us the facts that you base this belief on. I would welcome this as I'm sure many other would.
I've tried to learn as much as possible about supposed threats and bin Laden and his cohorts. Recently I finished Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. The book is the most comprehensive historical map of Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion to Sept. 10, 2001 that I've read.
There is one undeniable fact; we were attacked. We shouldn't need reminding and/or should it be far from our day to day reality that this was real.
Although I realize that if bin Laden is taken out, another will take his place, regardless the deeds that have been perpetrated against us demand an overwhelming response. This is an unfortunate truth.
"no religious wars"? You would have a difficult time convincing the Israeli's and Muslims of that I'm sure.
You would also be blind as a bat to not understand the hatred that is directed towards us for our blind support of Israel.
Rice's only words after Israel unloaded 100 tons of bombs on Gaza was to admonish the Hamas. It is not politically correct to criticize the Israeli's. Political suicide for politicians certainly.
Posted by Hoot at 12/28/2008 @ 04:26am
I just read an article on the spreading influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. If one travels outside of Kabul, the Taliban rule. Locals are scared and pay "tax" to the Taliban. The U.S.-installed Karzai government is weak, corrupt, and ineffective. Government police are not to be seen after dark outside Kabul. This is Obama's Vietnam. It will take a massive military force to control Afghanistan. If at all. The Soviets tried and gave up after sustaining heavy losses. I am not sure the American people are really prepared for an endless guerrilla war on moon-like harsh terrain against a fanatical local insurgency. This will lead to Obama's JFK-like decision to go in deeper or pull the plug. There are limits to the American Empire.
Posted by philbq at 12/28/2008 @ 07:17am
philbg, while I totally agree the points you make regarding an endless battle in Afghanistan, there must be diplomatic pressure and sanctions if necessary put on Pakistan and a cold evaluation regarding the Afgan government in our search and elimination of bin Laden.
We supported the Taliban when it was of use to us and we've supported numerous corrupt governments and dictators through the years.
We can not begin to contain the complicated relationships between middle east countries, nor should we try.
I still believe, as unpopular and politically incorrect as it may be, that we must evaluate our relationship with Israel.
Posted by Hoot at 12/28/2008 @ 08:18am
don't believe we are in afghanistan to find Bin Laden. nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 6:52pm
Why do you think we are there for?
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 08:46am
We are there to build pipelines to transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Construction on the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline project began in 1995, but stalled in 1998 in the wake of toxic struggles between the Taliban and the jockeying powers (primarily Bridas vs. Unocal) with the U.S. essentially sabotaging all deals that didn't grant a monopoly to U.S. interests. Repeated efforts were made through the summer of 2001 to revive the project, but all met with failure.
In theory, the post-9-11 overthrow of the Taliban government should have paved the way for U.S. control of the pipeline, but the interests of Pakistan, India and Iran continue to be impediments to this pipe dream.
To learn more about our reasons for going to war in Afghanistan (as well as the raison d'être of American foreign policy, in general), try googling oil + any of the following: Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Iran, Russian, Georgia, South Ossetia -- paying special attention to how their politics have intersected with other pipeline projects and such players as Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Bush Sr., Henry Kissinger, Carlos Bulgheroni, Hamid Karzai, Benazir Bhutto,the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Out of this maze emerges the roster of energy giants who have spent the past 13 years jockeying for position in the feeding frenzy for Caspian oil and gas (e.g. Unocal, Enron, Kellogg-Brown & Root, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Chevron, Amoco, Delta Oil, CentGas, Bridas).
Posted by mantis at 12/28/2008 @ 08:23am
"philbg, while I totally agree the points you make regarding an endless battle in Afghanistan, there must be diplomatic pressure and sanctions if necessary put on Pakistan and a cold evaluation regarding the Afgan government in our search and elimination of bin Laden." Posted by Hoot at 12/28/2008 @ 08:18am
First, we should make a cold evaluation (via an authentic, legitimate investigation into 9-11)to determine if Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 9-11. That has yet to be determined. Beyond the propaganda we've been fed about 9-11 and Osama bin Laden (no different than the cooked intelligence that took us to war in Iraq) we have nothing but questionable proof fed to us by questionable sources.
Even the FBI acknowledges there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" and has yet to add that crime to its "Most Wanted" poster. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Posted by mantis at 12/28/2008 @ 08:45am
Obama never campaigned as someone that was going to change US foreign policy. He specifically argued about pursuing war in Afghanistan.
This is why Robert Dreyfuss is taking the approach that the size of the deployment is somehow news - because he cannot argue that Obama didn't say he would do exactly what he is doing.
And the thing is that there are mainstream Democrats and the so -called "left" that are just fine with making Afghanistan the new Iraq.
Read your history. Afghanistan and the adjacent regions of Pakistan have resisted colonial powers for centuries, and they will continue to do so without a sizable increase of troops - much more than a handful of combat brigades.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/28/2008 @ 4:31pm
And the thing is that there are mainstream Democrats and the so -called "left" that are just fine with making Afghanistan the new Iraq
Posted by srjenkins at 12/28/2008 @ 4:31pm
I'm not fine at all making Afghanistan anything remotely like Iraq....both wars to me are not winnable. Iraq was a trumped up war to start with and we should never have gone in the first place. Afghanistan is another lost cause as well, we've been there for years and what have we achieved really!!! We removed Saddam but who was that really for...not the Iraqi's, it was for Bush and Cheney's ego. We think we can "win" the war in Afghanistan, I don't think so....if the Russian's were there for years and they left with no victory, we think we can topple that regime...that is highly unlikely.
Posted by Caj at 12/28/2008 @ 9:17pm
Posted by Caj at 12/28/2008 @ 9:17pm
There are a lot of people that are fine with it - see darladoon above as a case in point.
The problem is that occupying and pacifying Afghanistan would require a draft, training a sizable occupation force of several hundred thousand and a several year commitment to change - and even then it might not work.
Unlike Japan, Afghanistan is not an island country with a history of strong central government. Quite the opposite in fact. So, there are many more challenges involved which will require more resources and more time.
To make the kind of changes people that advocate conflict in that region, you are going to need more boots on the ground, to rebuild more infrastructure and conduct massive social reorganization that Americans sold on the pipe dream of spreading "democracy" around the world won't want to reach for their checkbooks for or make the personal sacrfices to accomplish.
For my part, I don't think the US government or its citizenry should be spreading "democracy". If we must, perhaps we should start here first and show other countries how it is done by example rather than by pointing our weapons at them.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/28/2008 @ 10:51pm
Providing training and weapons to Afghans is an extremely risky business.They can change sides at the drop of a hat -- or at the drop of a bomb -- and probably with very good reason, since their interest is not the Empire but their own people.
Posted by mcleave at 12/29/2008 @ 09:42am