Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAcross the left and among progressives, there is angst about President Obama's decision to add 17,000 troops to the war in Afghanistan. Among neoconservatives and the right -- judging from a session that I attended yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute -- there is angst of another kind. They're worried that Afghanistan is a "war that we may walk away from," as Danielle Pletka, AEI's vice president for foreign defense policy studies put it. And they're very worried that the Obama administration doesn't have the stomach to pursue "victory" there. Lets hope they're right.
True, Obama said he's ordering the dispatch of 17,000 troops to bolster the 36,000 US forces already in country. But there's lots of room for a new policy to emerge, since virtually every part of the US national security apparatus is conducting a review of the war, including one led at the White House by Bruce Riedel, who served as Obama's top adviser on Afghanistan-Pakistan during the campaign. There are few doves doing the reviews, but it isn't at all clear that they'll endorse the "long war" strategy pushed by General McKiernan, the US commander in Afghanistan, who's predicting that he'll need tens of thousands more troops who'll have to fight a war that might last five years or more. And, at AEI at least, there is great concern that the left and anti-war Democrats will convince Obama not to fight that war.
First to speak at AEI was Tom Donnelly, the thinktank's top defense analyst and former deputy executive director of the Project for a New American Century. (PNAS, of course, was the hawkish combine that pushed hard for the war in Iraq in the 1990s, with the backing of Dick Cheney, Doug Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz.) Donnelly complained that public opinion and "elite opinion" are rapidly shifting against the war. The notion that Afghanistan is "Obama's Vietnam" is gaining currency, spreading from the left into the mainstream media. And he noted that polls show that only 34 percent of Americans support an escalation in Afghanistan, while an equal number supports getting out. The war will be a "critical test for Barack Obama," he said, who will be "tested by the hard-core left in the Democratic Party."
Donnelly also slammed the Obama team for "the dumbing down of Afghanistan strategy." He was sharply critical of reports that the administration is planning to announce limited goals in the war, breaking with the Bush administration's plans for imposing democracy and American-style values on that ultraconservative state. He criticized Obama for the apparently unpardonable sin of wanting " to reclaim a larger role for the White House and civilian decision-making" on war, seemingly alarmed that the military, and General Petraeus in particular, won't be getting carte blanche. Donnelly also doesn't like the idea of using diplomacy, economic development, and other aspects of US influence. "This administration has a theory of smart power, which is an attempt to demilitarize policy," he said. The civilians at the Defense Department, he said, seem to have "no clear commitment to victory in Afghanistan."
Donnelly said that the 17,000 troops Obama has authorized are only a "down payment" for a much larger force needed to win.
Next up was Gary Schmitt, AEI's director of advanced strategic studies and, from 1997 to 2005, the executive director of the Project for a New American Century. Schmitt's focus was NATO, and he bemoaned that aside from the US, the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands, our allies aren't willing to fight. They're just doing their alliance duty, he said. "Most of our allies are there because they think it's a good thing to do for the alliance," he said. "They're not dedicated to the idea of Afghanistan as a key strategic mission." Still, their role is useful, he noted, since if they left they'd be hard to replace with US forces. And it is good for NATO. "Fifteen years ago, you'd get a big belly laugh if you said that today they [NATO] would be involved in a ground war in Asia."
The final speaker was Fred Kagan, one of the principal architects of the 2007-2008 surge in Iraq and a former professor of military history who is now a resident scholar at AEI. Like Donnelly, Kagan was upset at what appear to be efforts by Obama and Co. to "define success down," that is, to come up with drastically limited goals for the war. He ridiculed what he called "Holbookian hyperventilating" about how hard the task in Afghanistan is, referring to Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke's recent comments that the Afghan war is a lot harder than Iraq.
Most importantly, perhaps, Kagan slammed those who believe that solving the Afghan crisis means dealing with Pakistan and viewing the war in a regional context that includes India, Iran, and other countries. That's likely to be the core of Obama's strategy, but Kagan was having none of it. "I question the truism that success in Afghanistan is contingent on success in Pakistan," he said.
They key question, said Kagan, is whether Obama will do what Petraeus wants, or will he listen to those pesky liberals and critics. "Is President Obama going to listen to the military commander who turned one war [Iraq] around. or is he going to listen to other advice?"
To make sure that Obama does the right thing, according to AEI's catechism, next week the thinktank is bringing in none other than John McCain, according to Pletka, who will speak at AEI. It appears that McCain -- who, umm, lost decisively to Obama -- will take a strong stand for AEI-style victory in Iraq, making a frontal challenge to the Obama administration as a sort of official spokesman for the hawks.
Here's AEI's breathless preview of McCain's appearance next Wednesday:
The narrative of last year's U.S. presidential election focused on two different wars: in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democratic candidates, including President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton, argued that the Iraq war had distracted from the more important fight in Afghanistan. Now in office, President Obama finds his administration at the center of a hot debate on the future of the war in Afghanistan, and the United States at a strategic crossroads.Will the Obama administration support a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan designed to achieve meaningful long-term stability, or will success be defined in much more limited terms, saving the United States from a difficult reassessment and retooling for which there is little appetite? Most importantly, can the U.S. mission--with or without additional troops--succeed without a new strategy on the ground that confronts the growing Afghan insurgency?
Three and a half years after his seminal AEI address on "Winning the War in Iraq," Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) will deliver a major policy address at AEI on the path to victory in Afghanistan.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
By all means.
Let us all heed the admonitions of a elite group of neocon armchair warriors who had two plus terms to get it right, and fell flat on their doughy faces.
My disdain for these clowns is nearly limitless.
Posted by drhammer at 02/19/2009 @ 09:39am
"a(n) elite group"
Posted by drhammer at 02/19/2009 @ 09:42am
Who cares what McCain has to say, just another one to keep hope alive for continuing both wars!! I personally think that the troops should be brought home from both places, there is a no win situation in either. McCain still wearing his POW hat and pushing forward his great wealth of knowledge on how wars are won...please!!! Obama is the President now and will do what he and the commanders on the ground agree on, if these Reps think they still know so much about everything why haven't both wars been "won" by now as they had 8 years to do it!!! They are so full of it, still want to run the show and we see what has happened with them running it...it had to pack up and leave and move back to the depression era!!!
Posted by Caj at 02/19/2009 @ 09:49am
So, if Obama continues a Bush plan, low troop levels and limited engagement with Afghani locals and Pakistan...
Afghanistan will be Obamas failure?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 09:53am
And if, like his predecessor, Obama lowers the conditions of "victory", why does that make his policy a failure while the neo-cons proclaim success in Iraq? Wouldn't a prudent outlook be to have a realistic outcome in mind and attempt to effect that, rather than to have a utopia in mind and whine about the failure of "the left" to acheive a right wing utopian dream?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 10:10am
Check Wm Pfaff for the key Qs on US policy in Afghanistan ... none of which the AEI war mongers, Petraeus or the Obama team are answering:
http://www.williampfaff.com/m odules/news/article.php?storyid=381
AEI, Petraeus, McCain et al would love to see Obama get buried in the Afghanistan quagmire ... as they hope to retake control in '12.
Posted by sloper at 02/19/2009 @ 10:24am
And they're very worried that the Obama administration doesn't have the stomach to pursue "victory" there. Lets hope they're right.
So Dreyfuss at least is honest about the wishes of the left-to see another American defeat
Thankfully, they were denied in Iraq because of the determination and perseverance of President Bush. Now we see Iraq has been a winning effort.
The last four months saw US casualties at an average of 15 per month and Feb has only seen 8 todate. That is not much higher than that experienced in monthly training exercises.
The left and the media will not display any honesty about the Iraq success anytime soon (if ever); for that would mean admitting they were wrong....and we all know that never happens.
So we are at a crossroads. We have a leftist president who has at least placed some sound advisors on military decisions, along with Hillary who somewhat echoes their views, to counter the defeatist, anti-American marxists who also bend his ear.
Hopefully Obama will listen to the military and HRC, and secure a place in history that is positive rather than as another Carter who sought defeat at every opportunity.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 10:58am
And if, like his predecessor, Obama lowers the conditions of "victory", why does that make his policy a failure while the neo-cons proclaim success in Iraq?
No victory can be achieved Iraq, we have bombed it to bits, unsettled it's people and these elections are going nowhere, plus we are still there. Where is the victory in that? It will be the same with Afghanistan and there will be no victory there either...both pointless!!
Posted by Caj at 02/19/2009 @ 11:04am
there were NO american casualties in Iraq before we invaded.
don't count your Iraq chicks before they are hatched. the surge had political goals, none of which have been met.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 10:58am
So you see Afghnistan as a victory in it's current state?
And a nation with 700,000- 1,000,000 killed and 2,000,000 displaced with ethnic cleansing of whole towns and villages, while zero wmd's were removed from the earth...with the , maybe, success of liberal secularists in a delayed election...
as victory as well?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 11:20am
The notion that the "left" wishes to see America defeated is still nothing more than room-temperature vinegar and water.
Posted by drhammer at 02/19/2009 @ 11:27am
The notion that the "left" wishes to see America defeated is still nothing more than room-temperature vinegar and water.
Posted by drhammer at 02/19/2009 @ 11:27am
no--just the truth
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:28am
I find no more Anti-American dialogue here than from the cons that post here. In the last few months they have called most americans dumb, they have publicly declared their desire to see the new president fail and their policies have not curtailed violent jihadists, they have actually had a negative impact on the alleged goal of the GWOT. Their economic policies have brought us to the edge of another depression.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by drhammer at 02/19/2009 @ 11:27am
Keep in mind what we are dealing with DOC. According to ANTI, "the left" includes
Colin Powell
Bruce Fein
Scott Ritter
Brent Scowcroft
Generals Zinni, Shinseki, Hoar and dozens of other retired military
Chuck Hagel is a lib, as is John McCain
Grover is a "moderate".
In other words, if you are left of the Taliban....
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 11:51am
I find no more Anti-American dialogue here than from the cons that post here. In the last few months they have called most americans dumb, they have publicly declared their desire to see the new president fail and their policies have not curtailed violent jihadists, they have actually had a negative impact on the alleged goal of the GWOT. Their economic policies have brought us to the edge of another depression.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 11:47am
1. Judging by survey after survey, most Americans are dumb. They know nothing about history, geography, the constitution, or even who their elected officials are.
Last year Howard Stern and others did man on the street scenes asking people if they were ok with Obama being pro life and wanting to end abortion; or that he picked Gov Palin as his running mate; they had person after person responding in the affirmative, solely because it was Obama, and obviously showing their ignorance.
Leno and others constantly do man on the street questions and "college educated" people show absolutely no knowledge of basic things.
2. We support Obama as being the president and pray for his health and that he will use wisdom. But of course we are bound by principles to hope to see any path to socialism in the US fail.
So the criticism is that we are sticking to our principles rather than adopting a one party rule.
You and others complained about being able to protest Bush but you don't want to allow it from the other side.
Your a hypocrite Crab.
Econ
Tax cuts never hurt the economy. It is not possible. Over spending and over taxation hurt the economy. Lack of enforcement on laws hurts the economy.
It was not House and Senate Republicans that pushed the bailout -it was Democrats.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:01pm
Good News from Israel
"Kerry in Gaza: No change in US policy
US Sen. John Kerry traveled to the Gaza Strip on Thursday, in the highest-level visit by a US official since Hamas seized power nearly two years ago.
Kerry did not meet with anyone from Hamas, which the US shuns as a terrorist group, and he used the visit to urge the group to end its violent campaign against Israel.
"Let me make this clear, there is no change in policy," said Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I am here to listen with the UN personnel on the ground to hear their assessment and to make personal judgment.
"Your political leadership needs to make it clear how it is willing to move to make peace and those decisions have not been made yet," Kerry responded. "Your political leadership needs to understand that any nation that has rockets hitting it for many years threatening its residents is going to respond."
http://tinyurl.com/bdgge6
And Netenyahu should be named PM today.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:14pm
"And, at AEI at least, there is great concern that the left and anti-war Democrats will convince Obama not to fight that war."
~Dreyfuss
Allelujah!!!!
Thanks for an immensely uplifting post, Robert.
Now, in addition let's leave Iraq, prosecute the Bushies for torture and illegal wiretaps, bring REAL economic reform to America --i.e. backstop the middle class with a jobs, education and singlepayer healthcare package while vigorously (if not viciously) slashing "defense" spending to a sliver of its morbidly obese self-- and put the nation on a conservation and Earth friendly energy regimen.
I feel better already.
By the way, my praise for Dreyfuss is genuine and not sarcastic.
Keep up the excellent work.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/19/2009 @ 12:32pm
Your a hypocrite Crab--
Never deny it.
"You and others complained about being able to protest Bush but you don't want to allow it from the other side. "
Never denied you the opportunity to protest anything you wish,
It is you and yours that called that dissent ANTI_AMERICAN, mainly I think because we were at war. Guess what? We are still at war. 2 wars. 2 wars you started and have left unfinished. Now you seek to lay blame elswhere.
We must be loosing the war because 3rd grade teachers let some kids color outside the lines...damn liberals!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:35pm
And Netenyahu should be named PM today.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:14
"We keep doing the same things, but the results don't change. It must be the fault of "the left""
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:37pm
Well, Larry, I guess if the "liberal media" says we are dumb...
it must be true.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:38pm
[This comment section is for the readers of Ft. Hard Knox, a place for political conservatives to share information about online activism. We are not "fair and balanced," and we aren't refereeing a "free speech zone." Intelligent, funny, and on-topic comments are welcome. Trolls, spam, and liberal propaganda are not. We may occassionally approve a comment with an obvious lefty-slant so that we can amuse ourselves by making fun of it, but most will be deleted. (Why? Because we're busy, we have lives, and when we want to talk to you we'll go visit you on Digg or the Daily KOS.)]
open minds work like parachutes.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:46pm
It was not House and Senate Republicans that pushed the bailout -it was Democrats.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 12:01pm
And President Paulson.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:52pm
If I have this correct...
When Bush won 2 elections, once by a couple of electoral votes, Americans "saw the light"
When Obama won, with 365 electoral votes...
Americans are dumb.
When Americans thought Saddam had wmd's and were 70% for the war, that was smart America
When it came out that there were no wmd's and 70% want troops to come home...
That is dumb America.
Am I following?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 12:56pm
The conservative view point of the LVL's is to only address reality in order to make yourself the victim. Anytime reality doesn't agree with his point of view in politics, "It must be those disgusting America hating liberals."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:22pm
In LUVVYS defense..
I had a 57 year old guy come into my office today, he did not know what an "achilles tendon" is.
He was a gun totin, Muslim hatin, Jesus lovin conservative.
Can we apply PONTIFLOGIC and ASS-U-ME that ALL cons are like this? Is this the fault of Sunday schools?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 1:41pm
Can we apply PONTIFLOGIC and ASS-U-ME that ALL cons are like this? Is this the fault of Sunday schools? Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 1:41pm
I knew they were teaching kids some BS, like finger-painting Mary and making jesus out of macaroni.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 1:41pm
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
John Stuart Mill
Posted by drhammer at 02/19/2009 @ 2:00pm
ergo, luvvy is not a gentle man?
Anybody hear/read the phrase Islamo-fascist lately?
What happened to that term? Could it have been a propaganda noun?
Nahh. It must be that the liberal media does not want us using it anymore.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 2:05pm
I did not say only liberals were dumb. I said most Americans as in liberals, conservatives, and moderates.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:18pm
actually, taken in whole, your thought process as posted here is:
Most Americans are conservative,
liberals are a fringe.
Most Americans are dumb.
you fill in the rest...
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 2:31pm
actually, taken in whole, your thought process as posted here is:
Most Americans are conservative,
liberals are a fringe.
Most Americans are dumb.
you fill in the rest...
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 2:31pm
I've never said most Americans are conservative. Every poll indicates were are a divided nation and have been for more than 3 decades.
And I've said that the primary reason we are a dumb nation is due to the public education system which has been a miserable failure for more than 40 years.
So we now have multiple generations who are functionally illiterate.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:36pm
Afganistan was so centrally important to the "war on terrorism" that NATO with primarily U.S.A. servicemen pushed out the taliban along with their Al Queada friends and effectively negated their influence in the region so much that it has taken them SEVEN years to regain any kind of a foothold in the region!
We continue to nulify their influence and exterminate their leader will little force and at will both in Afganistan and Pakistan. The real problem is Pakistan is having little success themselves and has even given them "ground" in the north!
Afganistan is the place Leftist have done a 180 degree turn on. First they say it is more important than the losing war in Iraq so that is were we SHOULD be going after Islamic Terrorist! Now that we are sending more troops and increasing our efforts the leftist want to see some kind of defeat for the U.S.A. or just leave the country to the will of extremism!
Truely this is the mindset of hypocrites and terrorist enablers and nothing more!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
"I've never said most Americans are conservative"
Bullshit.
-----
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
delusions.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/19/2009 @ 3:12pm
http://tinyurl.com/bp5nyb
Looks like Palin owes on back taxes! Looks like it's not only the Demo's.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:48pm
Dreyfuss does not mention the people who stood up at that AEI event and questioned the speakers and argued that we have no vital interests in Afghanistan and that a larger US force will multiply our logistical problems and will make us ever more dependent on Pakistan and Russian influenced south Caucasia.
Dreyfuss wants to forget that making Afghanistan the central front against terror was from the first promoted by the Left. It has always said, Iraq is the wrong, unwinable war, Afghanistan is the right war and that it is there that we should focus our military strength.
In effect Afghanistan was for the Left a distraction from Iraq, a way to seem to be doing something about 9/11, without doing anything effective. It wanted US forces huffing and puffing after a nimble Osama Bin Laden up and down Afghanistan's mountains, and giving the nightly news, for months and years a soap opera showing America's military as ineffective and foolish.
But now having lost in Iraq, the Left has turned around on Afghanistan. Now it is back to its old, anti war message, the one it chirped against helping Bosnia against Slobodan Milosevic and Britain being blitzed.
Obama has been willing to reverse course on everything from NAFTA, lobbyists, negotiating with tyrants, non-partisanship, rendition, detaining terror suspects without trials, protecting sensitive national security information, loophole interrogation methods in emergencies. But he seems not to have gotten the word yet on Afghanistan. There he is sticking to the central front on terror drumbeat.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/19/2009 @ 4:37pm
I'm not against wars in an absolute sense. I have family members who fought in them. I am, though, against stupid and unnecessary wars.
I have a friend who has been a general surgeon at the VA hospital for more than 20 years. The other day, in a discussion on medical error, he said "wishful thinking is the invitation to disaster" for surgeons. If you have a feeling that something could go wrong, as a surgeon, you need to heed it, because it will.
It occurs to me that "wishful thinking" was pretty much the operating principle of US foreign policy during the Bush years. Let's "close our eyes" and "roll the dice" (may g-d DAMN that execrable phrase, by the way) even though we know we are putting tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, and millions of civilians, in harms' way. What a disaster.
Now that Obama has inherited this near-apocalypse from his predecessor, let's hope he has the good sense to exert some proximal control, the way any good surgeon would, stop the bleeding, and come up with a sound and viable plan B.
In a rare moment of agreement with Piruvano, I have to say that it is indeed ludicrous, to think that military force alone will ever bring Osama Bin Laden to trial. Let's do what we should have done all along, use the power of good, real-world intelligence, to ensnare him, and recognize that the use of force needs to undertaken, if ever it must, with a fierce commitment to the complete lack of wishful thinking.
Posted by canaro71 at 02/19/2009 @ 4:59pm
Pirovano. sorry for mispelling.
Posted by canaro71 at 02/19/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/19/2009 @ 12:32pm Well, you have certainly figured out the formula for utter failure and disaster for the American people. Fortunately you are stuck in blogs on the Nation.
Posted by pyeatte at 02/19/2009 @ 5:36pm
BTW,
I wonder which Dreyfuss we should listen to?
Is it the one that write here:
It appears that McCain -- who, umm, lost decisively to Obama -- will take a strong stand for AEI-style victory in Iraq, making a frontal challenge to the Obama administration as a sort of official spokesman for the hawks
or the one who posts on the Nation
For the first time in six years, it's possible to see the light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq. Despite all their flaws--and there were many--the January 31 elections in fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces ratified the resurgence of secular nationalism.
So do we not want to see success in Afghanistan like Iraq? Just what is your view Mr Dreyfuss?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 8:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 8:09pm
Weren't we told for ALL of those six years that.."it's possible to see the light at the end of the tunnel"?
Posted by Mask at 02/19/2009 @ 9:49pm
Weren't we told for ALL of those six years that.."it's possible to see the light at the end of the tunnel"?
Posted by Mask at 02/19/2009 @ 9:49pm
Are you calling Dreyfuss a liar Mask?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 11:41am
Did Lee Raymond have a chance to speak?
Lee Raymond was CEO of Exxon AND co-chairman of AEI during the critical invasion years of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Surely he has some interest in all this.
Posted by Jag Pop at 02/21/2009 @ 09:47am
I am a combat veteran of Viet Nam and a 16 yr veteran of the US Army. I spent 13 yrs as a military brat over seas and all over the US. Only REMF's would support this disaster in Afghanistan. REMF stands for rear echelon MF'ers. I am surprised at Petraeus. He recommended all troops read T.E. Lawrence's 7 Pillars of Heaven and Pressman's Gates of Fire and then promptly forgot what he read. I served as a medic with the 23rd inf at Chu Lai. I have seen and felt the waste and that is what Afghanistan is. dave ionno
Posted by ravendave at 02/21/2009 @ 09:55am
Some very intelligent and interesting posts here today,especially enjoyed coments by canoro71. Of interest would be the work being done in Afghanistan by Canadian attorney Norine MacDonald, and the Senlis Council. MacDoanld is considering the possiblities of legalizing poppy harvesting and the local village manufacturing of much needed pain medicines which are largely unavailable in third world nations. Seems a very sensible and valid alternative that offers alternatives to the common Afghan man being controlled by the Taliban or ruled by foreign occupiers. Odd,, how our "best and the brightest" never mention these alternative solutions in Afghanistan. Beware the advice of the "experts." And be especially aware of who the chickenhawks are and who they are speaking to. So Ray Leonard,,Exxon CEO, was co-chair of AEI? Does it get any more clear? We should all avoid the conservative/liberal labeling process. Let's just concentrate on the players who just simply do not tell the truth. We can all quite easily agree that these are the real scoundrels!
Posted by Sheabrown at 02/21/2009 @ 1:37pm