Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTeam Obama will be holding a war council of sorts this week, as top Pakistani and Afghan officials come to Washington as part of Obama's ongoing review of the conflict. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta will meet with, among others, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Richard Holbrooke, and Bruce Riedel, who's coordinating the administration's rethink. A whole passel of military officials from the region will be here, too.
But what's troubling so far about the administration's signals on Afghanistan and Pakistan is that it's all tilted toward war and "counterinsurgency," and there's precious little being said about negotiations, deal-making with the Taliban, and diplomacy.
It's not only that Obama has ordered the deployment of 17,000 more US troops. The administration is escalating Predator and Reaper air strikes against targets in both countries, and, according to both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times the air strikes are being quietly supported by Pakistan, even as Pakistan's top officials criticize them in public. The Times reported that Obama has expanded the air strikes to attacks on the Pakistani Taliban, who are gaining momentum in that country, even as they continue to hit Al Qaeda and Taliban targets inside Pakistan who use the tribal areas there as a base for the Afghan insurgency. An important story in the Journal last week, entitled, "Pakistan Lends Support for U.S. Military Strikes," said:
"Pakistan's leaders have publicly denounced U.S. missile strikes as an attack on the country's sovereignty, but privately Pakistani military and intelligence officers are aiding these attacks and have given significant support to recent U.S. missions, say officials from both countries."
The cat's out of the bag as far as US-Pakistani cooperation goes now, with Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate intelligence committee, blurting out at a recent hearing that US air strikes are flown from military bases in Pakistan, not elsewhere. "As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.
Meanwhile, as the Times reports today, a team of 70 US Special Forces troops and others has been in Pakistan for nearly a year "training Pakistani Army and paramilitary troops [and] providing them with intelligence and advising on combat tactics." And:
"They make up a secret task force, overseen by the United States Central Command and Special Operations Command. It started last summer, with the support of Pakistan's government and military, in an effort to root out Qaeda and Taliban operations that threaten American troops in Afghanistan and are increasingly destabilizing Pakistan. It is a much larger and more ambitious effort than either country has acknowledged."
It's clear that Obama is intent on a significant escalation of the war in Afghanistan itself along with a much more overt relationship with Pakistan's armed forces and its intelligence services, including the ISI. It looks as if it's all aimed at something called "victory," even though more and more analysts say that victory -- whatever that means -- isn't likely and the only real exit strategy is a negotiated deal with the insurgency, in both countries.
It's troubling, therefore, to read all the criticism of efforts by Pakistan and Afghanistan to offer peace feelers to the other side. Top US officials are critical of Pakistan's latest attempt at working out a deal with Taliban-related fighters in the Swat Valley, a settled area outside Pakistan's lawless tribal areas that has largely been overrun by the Taliban. They are also quick to disparage President Hamid Karzai's repeated feelers to the Taliban in Afghanistan, too. And, while it's true that Obama's Afghan-Pakistan review is still underway, the president himself isn't saying much about involving India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China in bolstering both Pakistan's and Afghanistan's feeble overtures for a deal.
An intelligent piece today in the Los Angeles Times by Julian Barnes describes the challenges facing Obama in Afghanistan thusly:
"President Obama's war strategy began to take shape with his announcement last week that 17,000 additional U.S. troops are headed to Afghanistan. But the thorniest problems still await him: persuading militants to lay down their arms, coaxing help from allies and eliminating extremist havens on the Afghan-Pakistan border."
But America's allies in NATO aren't likely to step up support for the war. (Obama will make a pitch to them directly during a high-stakes NATO summit in April.) The real solution lies in getting the vast majority of Afghanistan's pro-Taliban and Taliban-leaning warlords, tribal chiefs, village leaders, and others, along with a hefty chunk of the Taliban leadership, to make a deal. As I reported in mt Nation feature last December, "Obama's Afghan Dilemma" , the core of Obama's strategy is based on the conviction that the Taliban won't negotiate now because they think they're winning. So, Obama believes, first the United States has to regain the military advantage and then start talking. My question is: why not test the reverse idea? Why not start talking now, and put an offer on the table of a US withdrawal, and see what happens?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
17,000 more troops and no Code Pink in sight. Funny how when the "right" group does the same thing every this us fine.
Today the NYT endangered yet more Americans lives by exposing a program where the US trains Pakis to help fight the Taliban. I wonder why the Times is going broke. It can't happen soon enough.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 09:22am
" the core of Obama's strategy is based on the conviction that the Taliban won't negotiate now because they think they're winning. So, Obama believes, first the United States has to regain the military advantage and then start talking."
Yep, and that's probably the plan.
So he's going to disappoint "The Nation" AND he's going to disappoint the neo-cons who both want (and would feel "vindicated") "Surge II: The Wrath of Taliban"...
by knocking the Taliban back on their heels a bit and THEN opening up negotiations from a position of strength, rather than one of obvious weakness.
He (like most Americans) wants out of Afghanistan, but allowing a full re-installment of the Taliban, with no means of containing a renewal of their human rights abuses is the naive advice of the Left.
Simply going, hat in hand, to the Taliban would give them NO incentive to "play nice". But it won't be the elusive "victory" that the Right wants either. It WILL be negotiated and it WILL involve all parties...including the Taliban.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 09:23am
Sorry, correction...should have said the "EVER elusive 'victory' that the Right wants."
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 09:24am
I think we might be in a process to destroy Wiziristan area.... Which could use it.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 09:25am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 09:25am
Really? Every man, woman, and child in Wiziristan "could use" getting killed?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 09:30am
i wonder if you can plant corn in wiziristan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2009 @ 09:49am
Get real Mask. For once do not run to the absurd extremes of every position taken by everyone.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 09:55am
In Pakistan maize is third important cereal after wheat and rice. Maize accounts for 4.8% of the total cropped area and 3.5% of the value of agricultural output. It is planted on an estimated area of 0.9 million hectare with an annual production of 1.3 million tonnes. The bulk (97%) of the total production come from two major provinces, NWFP, accounting for 57% of the total area and 68% of total production.
hmmmmm......
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2009 @ 10:02am
my god, john.
you're contagious.
(wAziristan)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2009 @ 10:02am
sorry, mr. dreyfuss.
one becomes frustrated when confronted with so much folly......
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2009 @ 10:05am
I wonder if we will see cries for Obama to be tried for war crimes as we did with Bush?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:07am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 09:55am
What "extremes", JOHN? I'm simply taking you at your word, to wit-
"to destroy Wiziristan area.... Which could use it."
Or are they going to go in and bulldoze down the mountains, fill in the valleys, and dam up the streams??!!???
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:10am
I can only hope I am contagious politicaly.
Small keyboard on iPhone +no glasses+ public school = mid spelet wurds.
You will be happy to know I return to Choia in 60 days.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 10:10am
See?
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 10:12am
"to destroy Wiziristan area.... Which could use it."
Or are they going to go in and bulldoze down the mountains, fill in the valleys, and dam up the streams??!!???
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:10am
15-20 Bunker Busters would be a nice start. This is one of the most lawless places on earth.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:14am
And like MAASCH, anybody, even kids, who get in the way of those bunker busters... "could use it"?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:17am
And like MAASCH, anybody, even kids, who get in the way of those bunker busters... "could use it"?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:17am
Of course for anti-Americans like yourself, the only responsibility lies with our troops, not the enemy who exposes women and children because of them.
Sometimes, tragically innocent life is lost when an enemy refuses to stop hiding behind women and children. This is the common tactic of Muslim jihadists. They love using the pictures of dead women and children that they put in harms way to further their propaganda. And people like you just eat it up.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:21am
DREYFUSS: "As I reported in mt Nation feature last December, "Obama's Afghan Dilemma" , the core of Obama's strategy is based on the conviction that the Taliban won't negotiate now because they think they're winning."
That maybe what you OPINED as to Magic's "strategy", but let's not call it "reported".....BIG DIFFERENCE! But, then, I understand how lowly journalism has sunk and its practioners don't know the DIFFERENCE anymore! My advice to journo flunkie-U, in Journo 101, is to drill in the differences between opinion and facts!
Now, after my morning lecture......
IMO, "the core of Obama's strategy is based" on beefing up his willowy stature as a CIC, for "special effects" if nothing else......he's got time to sort out Afghanistan, after all, it's now in its 8th year....what's another 4 more,......back burner issue...throw some troops at it!
Oh, did I mention, he campaigned badly on wanting to make this his `good war'!
Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 10:29am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:21am
You mentioned "bunker busters", Larry....what's the "kill radius" on one of those?
If a terrorist is 200-500 yards away from the school, is that technically "hiding behind" the kids?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:56am
Re: Happy's comment and etc. It's easy when hiding behind anonymous postings here and elsewhere to name call and say things one might not say face to face or on the record. But Happy, I didn't "opine" about Obama's Afghan plans. I actually spent many hours interviewing many of his advisers. It was, indeed, reporting.
Posted by dreyfuss at 02/23/2009 @ 11:02am
Posted by dreyfuss at 02/23/2009 @ 11:02am
Ah, yes, Mr Dreyfuss, but HAPPY....
listened to Rush and checked out Drudge!
So there!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 11:05am
Ah, yes, Mr Dreyfuss, but HAPPY....
listened to Rush and checked out Drudge!
So there!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 11:05am
So does the WH and Congress...count on it...why else would they raise Rush to their level?
It is the smell of fear....
heheh
so there!!
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 11:10am
I'm a Republican and Rush doesn't speak for me.
Posted by abell12ct at 02/23/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:14am
And like MAASCH, anybody, even kids, who get in the way of those bunker busters... "could use it"?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Sometimes, tragically innocent life is lost when an enemy refuses to stop hiding behind women and children.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
My 'arrogant-right-wing-jackass'-to-English dictionary translates that answer as...
..."yes of course...kill them all".
Posted by Lillian at 02/23/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 11:10am
Or you aren't a very strategic thinker, MAASCH.
Like say, tying the Republicans to one of the key images of their Hard Right base (aka Oxy-rush) and making him the "face" of the Party going forward into 2010 and 2012.
And thus further isolating them from the mainstream of America.
While guys like you cheer it on!
Rather brilliant on Obama's part I'd say.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 12:02pm
I asm not sure what you describe is the deal...
..at the current rate, there may be enough pissed off people at Obamas socialisation of the US to not need Rush.
Obama has just begun....and I am not conviced America voted Obama and his cabal in congress into power because the US was not liberal enough or because we did not spend enough....or left enough...I believe America voted Bush out...
So using metaphorical humor I saw on SNL, so you loons don't run off the cliff about homophob nonsense, the following paragraph is NOT about gay people...so try to stay on focus...
...So now the party is over and the band is fading into the distance,...it is time to wake up and notice who it is you took to bed last night when you were all happy and drunk...only to realize you are in SF...and you are not gay...but in the celebration activitys you drank too much and thought your were heading off to your room with a beautiful woman...only to find out things are not always what they appear or that you might not get what you bought despite the nice package the salesman sold you...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 12:14pm
We are taliking about serious buyers remorse...kinda like those who bought a house with a mortgage they couldn't pay for...
and now want a bail out, since, they were "forced" into loans they didn't understand ....America may want, and will certainly need, a bail out program when the current group finishes in 2 or 4 years ...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 12:17pm
Talk about a perfect example of a new con repub blood sucking tick-- Rump Limppaw.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/23/2009 @ 12:17pm
ANYWAY...
Where is CODE PINK, and all the other loon groups that are usually on parade protesting and the 17,000 troops for Afganistan?
Or are they on vacation until another conservative enters the WH?
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 12:19pm
Sometimes, tragically innocent life is lost when an enemy refuses to stop hiding behind women and children. This is the common tactic of Muslim jihadists. They love using the pictures of dead women and children that they put in harms way to further their propaganda. And people like you just eat it up.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 10:21am
Hmmmm...........is that why US is paying death benefits to the families on innocents we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It is called acceptable collateral damage, and it is largely preplanned and sanctioned killing with malice and knowledge aforethought.
See:
'When is an accidental civilian death not an accident?
When the Air Force asks permission first. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has rules for killing civilians. But do the rules actually save lives?
By Mark Benjamin'
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/30/collateral_damage/
Posted by OneVote at 02/23/2009 @ 12:53pm
If a terrorist is 200-500 yards away from the school, is that technically "hiding behind" the kids?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:56am
Yes, and as usual, you and the other anti-war, anti-America haters blame the US instead of the jihadists.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 12:58pm
"Yes, and as usual, you and the other anti-war, anti-America haters blame the US instead of the jihadists."
you know, antisocialist, it would probably help if you made an attempt to envision the mind-boggling complexity of the situation in the middle east, rather than calling critics of our foreign policy "america-haters."
Posted by darladoon at 02/23/2009 @ 1:08pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 12:14pm
That is...if your prediction comes true, MAASCH. Which ....well....uhmmm....?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 12:58pm
Again, not answering my question, LVLIB....
what is the "kill radius" for a bunker buster? And what is your definition of "hiding behind"...in meters/yards?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 1:34pm
what is the "kill radius" for a bunker buster? And what is your definition of "hiding behind"...in meters/yards?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 1:34pm
I don't care if the radius is 4 miles Mask. That is apparent in my answer but as I said, with you each answer brings 5 new questions restating the original question. When my kids did that, eventually you either ignore them or send them to their room.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 1:46pm
'But, as with any conflict, sometimes those occurrences are unavoidable. In those cases, said the report, the victims need to be adequately compensated in order to prevent them from turning against the international forces.
The mechanisms for such compensation already exist - payment for a lost relative is usually between 1,000 and 2,000 dollars - but the response of the international forces and community need to be drastically improved, the report noted.'
Excerpt from:
US-AFGHANISTAN: Civilian Casualties May Surge As Well
Ali Gharib
WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (IPS)
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=45804
Cost of one predator drone....about $5 million, and the more advanced Global Hawk about $15 million. Crash or loss ratio for the Predator & Global Hawk is very high, largely due to bad weather or navigation mistakes.
For the cost of one drone, we can kill well over 3,000 civilians, based on average compensation of $1,500/individual.
'The U.N. reported Tuesday that such deaths were up nearly 40 percent in 2008, to a total of 2,118 civilians killed. As a result, the popularity of the seven-year-old campaign is plummeting among Afghans.'
Cite to article above.
Unbelievable economics of warfare. Life is cheap. Military hardware dear. A perverse morality.
Posted by OneVote at 02/23/2009 @ 2:13pm
I hope when the war crimes trials for American leaders start, they find room in the dock for people like AS. You blame civilian deaths on "terrorists hiding behind women and children," when what actually happens is that these "terrorists" (who are often not terrorists but reisistance fighters) are being bombed WHERE THEY LIVE. So of course there are children there.
Posted by DavidSpero at 02/23/2009 @ 2:37pm
I hope when the war crimes trials for American leaders start, they find room in the dock for people like AS. You blame civilian deaths on "terrorists hiding behind women and children," when what actually happens is that these "terrorists" (who are often not terrorists but reisistance fighters) are being bombed WHERE THEY LIVE. So of course there are children there.
Posted by DavidSpero at 02/23/2009 @ 2:37pm
So, when these "resistance fighters" blow up school buses and markets of women and children, who are they resisting?
And when they behead journalists, what enemy do those journalists represent?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
Obama has recently said that the US in Afghan/Pakistan is fighting "extremism." Which appears to be the Obama govt's equivalent of W&Co's "terrorism," though somewhat more theological.
at least 2 Qs are raised: what exactly is extremism & how many Pakistanis & Afghanis is the US prepared to kill in order to eliminate extremism? We killed over 2 million Vietnamese to "stop communism." Should we try for 3-4 million dead this time around?
Either term -- extremism or terrorism -- obscures the real reasons for US bombing of mainly civilian targets in these 2 countries. Real reasons that neither Obama nor the Pentagon have elucidated in public, but which intell czar Blair came close to revealing when discussing global economic instabilty caused by the US as the No. 1 threat to US global "stewardship."
Posted by sloper at 02/23/2009 @ 2:59pm
So, when these "resistance fighters" blow up school buses and markets of women and children, who are they resisting?---Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
Oh, that's easy. They say "Sometimes, tragically innocent life is lost when an enemy refuses to stop hiding behind women and children."
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 2:59pm
So, when these "resistance fighters" blow up school buses and markets of women and children, who are they resisting?---Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
Oh, that's easy. They say "Sometimes, tragically innocent life is lost when an enemy refuses to stop hiding behind women and children."
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 2:59pm
That really shows you just as absurd as the most ardent jihadist supporter.
I keep repeating and you keep demonstrating that you have gone from being a mildly anti-war complainer to a full fledged Code Pink type. What's next Mask? Ready for War Crime trials in abstentia for Truman over the Atomic bombings of Japan?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 3:18pm
If a terrorist is 200-500 yards away from the school, is that technically "hiding behind" the kids?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:56am
Yes, and as usual, you and the other anti-war, anti-America haters blame the US instead of the jihadists.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A touch too simplistic of an argument LVL. We have had several instances in which serious targets have been hiding among civilians and collateral damage has occurred, but, we have had several instances in which fighting has occurred in and around villages and civilians are caught in the crossfire or we were negligent and killed civilians in bombings or other offensive measures. Accepting those facts and noting that we killed innocent people in error is not the same as being Anti-American. Wanting to evaluate our involvement in a region based upon risk (our own and the civilians directly effected) vs. reward (what is victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?) is not Un-American. On the contrary, holding our country to a higher standard than terrorists is very Pro-American.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/23/2009 @ 3:33pm
Accepting those facts and noting that we killed innocent people in error is not the same as being Anti-American. Wanting to evaluate our involvement in a region based upon risk (our own and the civilians directly effected) vs. reward (what is victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?) is not Un-American. On the contrary, holding our country to a higher standard than terrorists is very Pro-American.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/23/2009 @ 3:33pm
Granted; unfortunately, in attempting to answer Mask, there is no end point to the question. If I said 250 yards, he would have then asked why not 300 or 200. He then would have asked 8-10 more questions without simply accepting the premise.
This is after all a blog and I agree that basic debate can get lost in the minutiae of meaningless back and forth (I am equally guilty at times).
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 3:42pm
You gave your answer, Larry-
"I don't care if the radius is 4 miles Mask."----Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 1:46pm
Even four miles away from a school or hospital...the terrorists are "hiding behind" women and children and "sadly" those folks are just necessary collateral damage and the fault of the terrorists...not us.
A Delta team going in and actually popping the ACTUAL terrorists in the head would be too tough....naw, better to use "bunker busters" and blame the innocent dead on the fact that Al Qaeda isn't playing by Napoleonic War codes.
Keep in mind, this is from a guy who wanted to NUKE China to "win" the Korean War.
Oh, sure he says "I only meant their depots and staging grounds"....but since radioactive fallout might drift into a few neighboring Chinese villages, we'd have to blame that on the Chinese Army "hiding behind" their civilians (20-50 miles down-wind of course).
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:07pm
No Delta teams will ever go into Waziristan. Even the Pakistani Army won't go into most of that area.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:21pm
It's easy when hiding behind anonymous postings here and elsewhere to name call.....I actually spent many hours interviewing many of his advisers. It was, indeed, reporting.
Posted by dreyfuss at 02/23/2009 @ 11:02am
"name call"? I wrote it and I can't find it.....unless, poor Robert, are you taking it personal as to "My advice to journo flunkie-U, in Journo 101..."??
I will take your word as to "reporting" what the advisers had to say as to the administrations' "conviction that the Taliban won't negotiate now because they think they're winning"....
So, if true as `reported', what your Messiah is doing is, correct me if I'm wrong, mounting a huge (relative) SURGE to render the "winning" Talibans into the losing Talibans.......upping the 30k US troops in Afghanistan by 17k, or ~60%....as compared to the `BeytrayUs' Surge of 30k troops in Iraq on top of 120k, a mere 25% Surge . OK, I understand you don't agree both Surges...but surely, you can vouch for success and be more of a HOPE AND CHANGE messenger....:)
The incompetent Bush won his Surge w/25% Surge....Magic's 60% Surge ought to be able to deliver something similar in much, much shorter time (than 2 years)!
Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 4:25pm
No Delta teams will ever go into Waziristan. Even the Pakistani Army won't go into most of that area.------------Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:21pm
Are you saying OUR military CAN'T HANDLE a more surgical operation?
Why do you hate our military, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:45pm
Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 4:25pm
Again, "Messiah"?..."Magic"?....
"HAPPOCRISY"-
"I'll repost this and let it sink in a bit.....about the state of our country and the general lack of respect toward authority and of course, BDS!"--Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/26/2008 @ 11:45am
Convention Diary posted by Katha Pollitt on 08/26/2008 @ 11:35am
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:47pm
Are you saying OUR military CAN'T HANDLE a more surgical operation?
Why do you hate our military, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:45pm
You always prove me right Mask. one question and answer always generates at least 5 more.
Fortunately Mask, our military are smarter than you and understand that technology is preferable to a suicide mission unless there is no alternative for the sake of national security.
And that is correct. No one has yet to figure a way to conduct a "surgical spec ops" in that terrain. If they had, Bin Laden would already be dead.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:48pm
This is what we should do:
1) Pull out all American and allied troops. 2) Nuke Afghanistan. 3) Nuke Pakistan.
Taking these three actions will produce the three following (strategically positive, from an American pov) results:
1) Any Taliban and AQ fighters in Afghanistan will be destroyed - sure, millions of innocent civilian Afghanis will also be killed, but hey, this is war.
2)Any Taliban and AQ fighters in Pakistan (including Bin Laden himself) will be destroyed - sure, millions of innocent civilian Pakistanis will also be killed, but hey, this is war. Plus, any future nightmare of radical Islamists taking control of the Pakistani govt (due to civil war or a coup or whatever) will be eliminated. Further (another side benefit), we won't have to worry anymore about any potential Indian-Pakistani nuclear conflict, because Pakistan will be liquidated (and who cares about India - let them have their nukes - they aren't Islamic or anti-western to any real extent anyway so who cares).
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:07pm
My plan will also benefit Israel - one less Islamic enemy to worry about (the only Islamic nation that HAS - or had, rather - nuclear weapons).
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:10pm
And that is correct. No one has yet to figure a way to conduct a "surgical spec ops" in that terrain. If they had, Bin Laden would already be dead.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I would have to disagree with on that analysis. It is not the relation to effective spec ops, but, a lack of reliable intelligence and constant, cross-border mobility from friendly villages and mountain caves that has allowed OBL to survive this long. Delta Force could perform operations with proper intelligence.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/23/2009 @ 5:11pm
Bizarro, no anti-socialist is right, we can't defeat them with surgical strikes.
That's why my "nuking them" plan is the only one that makese sense - it's the only way to eliminate the problem once and for all, with no loss of American or allied soldiers.
No fuss, no muss.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:14pm
And I'm not the only one who thinks this way: consider the following.
Bethlehem – Ma'an – Right-wing Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman proposed a "solution" to the war in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday saying, "Israel won't be secure so long as Hamas is in power, and therefore we need to come to a decision that we will break the will of Hamas to keep fighting."
"We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II," Lieberman added.
According to reports in Israeli media, he said the US nuclear strikes had rendered an "occupation of the country … unnecessary."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:21pm
See?
Nukes - no fuss, no muss.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:21pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Scary...Let's end Hamas and their murdering of innocent civilians by...killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians? Hopefully Mr. Lieberman is not in the mainstream of Isreali political thinking.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/23/2009 @ 5:24pm
While we have conducted some cross border incursions, it is far different to try because of the terrain and the number of fighters to go into either North or South Waziristan where Bin Laden is presumed to travel between.
"There are believed to be about 8,000 gunmen – a mix of foreign Al-Qaeda volunteers, Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Islamists and local Waziris whose families have for centuries fought off any attempt to impose outside rule on this area
Waziristan is not a good operational environment. I suspect the Pakistanis will run into the same problems they encountered between 2004-2006. The terrain limits movement, the population is isolationist and hostile to outsiders, the weather limits campaigning season to the summer, the insurgents have many hiding places and the Pakistani military has little experience with counterinsurgency operations
The arid mountainous terrain is very poor for military operations. There are a number of sharp cliffs, ravines, and rugged ground. The Razmak Plateau is about 10,000 feet above sea level. There are few roads. The rivers are too small for useful transportation. Any movement passes through natural "chokepoints" where are perfect places for ambushes and IEDs.
All a military can do is capture and hold the riverside communities in the valleys. The insurgents will withdraw to the highlands and reside in caves. Both sides will periodically raid each other's supply lines and try to starve out the other as winter approaches. Casualties will be low on both sides (1-2000) as neither side can make kenetic contact with the other."
http://tinyurl.com/cnarrp
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 5:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are correct, regular army would have a very difficult time patroling and holding ground in this region. That does not include a surgical strike on a known target. With the proper intelligence, Delta has the ability to take out targets in the area, including OBL (if we knew where he was).
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/23/2009 @ 5:38pm
Seriously though (if it wasn't obvious, I don't REALLY advocate mass murder as suggested in recent posts), the problem of civilian deaths in a war (even or especially a just one) is a vexing one. Arguably, with every civilian death resulting from American or allied action, we may be down in the "battle for hearts and minds" that is so essential to any such endeavor. This is one important reason why any military actions must be strongly tempered by such concerns.
Another reason would be that, taking strong steps to avoid/reduce/minimize civilian deaths is, simply put, the right thing to do.
Killing large numbers of civilians, even in a just cause, is immoral.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:41pm
Bizarro,
a few questions:
1) Do you think capturing OBL is really that important anymore? Some suggest he has little or no real power anymore, boxed in as he is (wherever he is). Of course, others suggest, even if that be the case, caputing or killing him would provide a strong symbolic and psychological lift.
2) It seems to me that the REAL problem (and why we maybe cannot "win" in Afghanistan/Pakistan) is that AQ/Taliban has real and significant support, not only among the masses, but also, to some degree, among elements of the Pakistani military and/or govt. If we pressure Pakistan too hard to crack down in Taliaban and the radical Islamists, it could mean civil war in Pakistan. The nightmare would be, if those radical Islamists ended up in power - this would of course mean they have the bomb -intolerable, of course. Further, because we HAVE been killing so many civilians (not purposely, in that that is not our immediate goal of course, rather it being "collateral damage"), we ARE in fact losing the battle for hearts and minds. That is, we may be producing terrorists and jihadists faster than we are killing them.
What a mess.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:49pm
Other problems:
1) We can't operate freely in Pakistan, and Afghani AQ/Taliban use Pakistan as a santuary.
2) Pakistan forces are not entirely cooperating with us (because they cannot, because of political reasons - they have torn loyalties).
3) Don't underestimate the geographical problems - the millions of caves and mnountains and etc make it one of the most difficult regions in the world to fight in - even for Delta forces or whoever. Ask the British and Russians.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:53pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Maybe you should send that post to Mr. Lieberman. I remember discussing 'Nuke em all' theory with a friend of mine. He could not grasp the idea that by using a nuclear weapon on Tehran, we would be killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The consequence of which would be 1.) kill tens of thousands more due to fallout, 2.) be the worlds pariah, 3.) possibly set off a nuclear policy that could bring us on the wrong side of WWIII, and so on. The response I kept getting was, "We can't let terrorists have nukes". The irony.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/23/2009 @ 5:54pm
Bizarro, reminds me of a conversation I had with a parking lot attendent, on September 11th, 2001. It was a few hours after the towers fell, and I was heading towards my car. We started discussing the events of that morning, and he suddenly says to me: "I think we should nuke them." He didn't say who "they" were. I said nothing in response - which he interpreted - correctly - as disagreement/disapproval of my (non-nuking) position. As I walked away, he yelled after me: "what do you think we should do, turn the other cheek?" I ignored him and got into my car, driving off.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 6:00pm
I meant to say, disagreement/disapproval with/of HIS advocacy of "nuking" innocent millions.
The ironies are incredible - responding to the deaths of 3,000 innocent people by murdering perhaps 3,000,000 innocent whoever (Arabs and/or Muslims, presumably). Also, as if the only choices were either a) go nuclear, or b) do nothing (as if there were no in between alternatives).
I am also guessing he wasn't a Christian, disagreeing with he does to Christ's "turn the other cheek philosophy."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 6:05pm
Of course, in a sense, there are NO real/true Christians in regards to this issue, in that virtually no Christians (I can think of, anyway) actually respond to evil by "turning the other cheek."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 6:08pm
Obama and his administration must operate from a position of strength... especially as a new crew just waiting to be 'tested'... and this escalation is a crucial part of diplomacy, in that much of what is being done now is posturing and potential.
The 'war' in Afghanistan has not been priority #1... and it has been sorrowfully evident in our poor showing there.
A speedy conclusion can only come from a position of strength, a focus on diplomacy, an acknowledgment of all the players... and a steady and determined purpose.
Though the 'left' is mighty 'trigger happy' with their worries... the new administration approaches everything differently than the last... and prejudgement is predestined to prejudice and parsimony...
So much change is hard to grasp... we tend to imagine the worst, when 'much better' is within easy reach...;^)
Posted by ttr at 02/23/2009 @ 6:41pm
A speedy conclusion can only come from a position of strength, a focus on diplomacy, an acknowledgment of all the players... and a steady and determined purpose. Posted by ttr at 02/23/2009 @ 6:41pm
Speedy conclusion? It will probably take years. What is the purpose? That is, what eexacrtly is the goal at this point? This has been part of the problem, you must admit - we aren't exactly sure what the end goal of the mission is.
I am of the view that the goal is to eliminate the hard-core jihadists (because their goal is to regroup and commit mass-murder against us), and "win over" others, in the process creating some kind of semi-functioning semi-democracy, relatively free of jihadist terrorist plotters. Worthy goal. Attainable? I have my doubts.
Of course I am also of the view that we might be considerably closer to that goal if we hadn't dropped the ball by going off to play Don Quixote in Iraq.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 7:02pm
For those idiots who sneer "Where is Code Pink now" -- I guess this is a reference to three whole days having passed since the announcement of escalation in Afghanistan, without a demonstration -- C.P and at least some of the Left will be protesting in cities across America on Saturday March 21.
Of course, Right wingers and others are invited to participate. Now that we have a Democratic president, you're against war, too, right?
Here's a link to an item about the demo planned for San Francisco http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/02/05/18568510.php
Posted by DavidSpero at 02/23/2009 @ 7:41pm
Here's what the left misses: you can be against the war in Iraq, but for the war in Afghanistan.
Here's what the right misses: you can be against the war in Iraq, but for the war in Afghanistan.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 7:45pm
Sure, the radical left will never reassess its automatic opposition to any American war.
However, the right will never reassess its automatic support for any American war.
Both are morally and intellectually vacuous positions.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 7:48pm
Let me add a slight adeemdum to that: the right will, on occassion, oppose a war, but ONLY if a Democratic President starts it. (Such as Kosovo, for example.)
Then dissent and opposition (which under normal circumstances is traitorous and unpatriotic) magically becomes perfectly acceptable.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 7:50pm
addendum
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 7:50pm
Of course, Right wingers and others are invited to participate. Now that we have a Democratic president, you're against war, too, right?
Posted by DavidSpero at 02/23/2009 @ 7:41pm
Nope-I support my presidents no matter the party when they send troops in harms way. I did it with Clinton all the way back to volunteering for the military under LBJ.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 8:19pm
this is just not right:
Angry villagers carted the bodies of two dead children into Kandahar city yesterday, screaming, "Death to the Canadians," and blaming the foreign troops for testing weapons near their homes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2009 @ 9:33pm
Victory in the true sense, surely implies that one is better off after the war than if one had not made war.
Victory in this sense, is only possible if the result is quickly gained or the effort economically proportioned to the national resources.
Liddell Hart
Posted by emile duBois at 02/23/2009 @ 9:46pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:07pm
If Larry was 100% honest, not just 80% (with 20% held back because he knows how it makes him sound even WORSE)?....
he'd say exactly that as his "solution" to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As I said, he already has said "Think Dresden" on how to "win" the "War on Terror"...and called for wholesale nuking of Chinese "depots" to "win" the Korean War.
Why is what you suggest that unreasonable to him then????
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:16pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
1.) Capturing OBL would be a symbolic accomplishment that would help bring close to the mythical GWOT and provide the proper political cover to disengage from some of our problematic relationships in the region (Iraq, Pakistan come to mind). Oh, lest we forget-justice for the thousands of Americans he has murdered.
2.) See the British Empire circa mid-late 19th century.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 5:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
1.) That depends on our will and diplomatic cover. If we so wanted, we could make the quasi-comfortable relationship between the Taliban and Pakistani Military/Intelligence a major issue and apply some diplomatic/economic pressure on the Civilian Government. But, do we want to undermine a somewhat moderate government in a region of fundamentalists?
2.) see #1, same issue in my opinion.
3.) That is true, if you want to hold the ground and truly defeat the enemy. But, selective targeting has proven to be affective in stopping the growth beyond specific regions. We need to focus on a policy of containment, while establishing positions of strength within the political and economic centers. Then swiftly negotiate our way the F--- out of Afghanistan (I agree with Mask, push hard with the surge-gain a position of strength and get out). Maybe one day we will start capitalizing on the "Peace Dividend" we were supposed to get with the fall of the Soviets.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/24/2009 @ 12:08am
If you don't object to the war in Afghanistan on moral grounds, surely the strategic realities can bring you around.
Not to keep banging this drum, but no military power has ever tamed Afghanistan.
If the US were to achieve a 'position of strength', is there any reason to believe that it would be anything but short lived and tenuous?
Not pretending to have any answers here, but consider the following question:
Should the US intervene to spread Western values to a country that engages in public beheadings, has virtually no women's rights, no religious or political freedom, and which treats homosexuality as a crime punishable (at times) by death?
Well if so, why not invade Saudi Arabia, which is the country described above and the country of origin of most of the 9/11 terrorists? (not advocating we do that, just trying to make a point.)
Obama said America would listen to the countries in this region. I don't see the reason to rush to escalate when clearly he has not attempted to explore all diplomatic options.
Posted by thefullaunty at 02/24/2009 @ 02:59am
Posted by thefullaunty at 02/24/2009 @ 02:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
I agree with you in principle. However, one cannot negotiate diplomatically with the Taliban if they feel no need to sit down at the table. Unfortunately, we cannot leave that country with the Taliban gaining strength (I have a lump in my throat thinking about Nixon and Vietnam). However, we will not be able to definitively defeat them due to the historical difficulties you mentioned earlier. So, the only clear options available are- 1.) batter the Taliban, frocing them to retreat and come to the table, 2.) up and leave Afghanistan to an insurgent and growing Taliban or 3.) stay indefinitely and suffer the same fate as the Soviets, British, etc.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/24/2009 @ 09:10am
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/24/2009 @ 09:10am
Exactly. #3 is the neo-con answer. #2 is the answer of naive Left, like Mr Dreyfuss.
#1 is the best option.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 09:53am
apropos Taleban, it's THEIR country.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 10:01am
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 10:01am
Yes....it's also the warlords' country and those Afghani who don't support either's country.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 10:29am
How about just keeping an eye on the itinerant tribesmen ofAf/Pak & the Taliban & SCRUTINIZE LIKE HELL the hordes (students?) of Saudi, Emirati, etc. who fell through the cracks just before & after 9/11. Drop the emotion/posturing & get smart.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/24/2009 @ 12:59pm
Whatever the make up of the "war council" at present, I do not think the president elect thinks in terms of a military solution.
Also I have yet to hear a coherent policy regarding the Taliban. No one has (as, though I think for myself such an answer at present escapes me) explained to a degree sufficient satisfy my concerns regarding them:
Such as, how does one go from beheading, bombing (female) grade school students and murdering school teachers, to being "productive members" of society? Words mean what to such "men," as these?
What happens when ... it goes to hell, do we go back?
Posted by V at 02/24/2009 @ 1:38pm
apropos Taleban, it's THEIR country.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 10:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes it is, and we went to war with them because they provided safe haven to an organization that murdered 3,000 americans. Now, we can either leave Afghanistan better than we found it, handing over the fate of the Afghan people to an elected govt. Or we can run and leave the fate of Afghanistan to the only people left with guns, who are still the same guys who provided safe haven to an organization that murdered 3,000 americans. Not much of a choice in my opinion.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/24/2009 @ 2:11pm
1.) batter the Taliban, forcing them to retreat and come to the table, 2.) up and leave Afghanistan to an insurgent and growing Taliban or 3.) stay indefinitely and suffer the same fate as the Soviets, British, etc.
Some questions for our enquiry: 1) Does option 3 necessarily have to end with defeat? That is, though "victory" may not be possible, maybe a permenent staelmate IS. Staying indefinitely does not have to necessarily mean defeat and going home - don't forget, the Soviets were fighting an insurgency backed by a superpower - we are not. Also (unlike the British and the Russians) WE have a ghreat deal of support from much of the world - half the troops there now are non-American. Plus (for what its worth) we have Yankee know-how (our great technology, etc). In short, maybe, unlike the poor Russians and Brits, WE can actualy win (or, at least, not LOSE) in Afghanistan? It's possible.
2) Aren't there terrible problems with option 1? Such as, it is logistically difficult to "batter" the Taliban (because distinction between civs and soldiers blurry, because they hide, use guerilla tactics, etc - it's hard to get AT them). Plus: if we use heavier tactics/weapons, that means more civilian causalties - a major concern (not only because it loses hearts in the battle for such and hurts our international image, but also, because killing large numbers of civilians is immoral). Also, many will slip away under any offesnive into Pakistan (which is unwilling or unable to fight them). Now, IF Pakistan was completely onboard with such, this plan would be a lot easier. Fionally, the political ramifications in Pakistan: push too hard to GET THEM to act, and it could theoretically mean civil war, and when the dust clears, radical, anti-western Islamists in
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 2:51pm
power there.
Any other options?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 2:52pm
How about this analogy: the ex Yugoslavia. Aren't there still many American and NATO troops in permenent "occupation" of parts of the ex country? Maybe, theoretically, Afghanistan could become pacified to that extent? That is, we can't leave Yugoslavia, because if we did, it would break out into civil war again. We are basically there forever. Ok, the analogy is far from perfect, but maybe staying forever/achieving semi-stability is the least bad of several bad options.
I also would like to see the entire operations become much more truly international. How about some Russian troops coming in to help? (PLus they know the area, or remember it.) Turn it from an American/NATO war into an international one. WEe need the soldiers, plus, they could help pay for it, plus, a stable and peaceful and non-radical Islamic Afghanistan is in the interest of much of the world, not just us!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 3:11pm
Also, ideally, go back in time, and not fight the war in Iraq - that would help a lot to, in several ways.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 3:13pm
Every time I sign in to here to make a post, I have to look at Ann Coulter's ugly face - very annoying.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 3:11pm
I think the "Yugoslavia" model falls apart due to the fact that that region is surrounded by relatively stable states with no interest in fomenting violence....Greece, Romania, etc.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 3:25pm
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/24/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
howzit goin' so far?
there were and are a few other countries who provided "safe haven" to the Taleban. those we call allies. there is a logical disconnect here. perhaps you can spot it.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 3:30pm
WE have a ghreat deal of support from much of the world - half the troops there now are non-American. Plus (for what its worth) we have Yankee know-how (our great technology, etc).
nonsense. we have the grudging support of NATO, not much of the world.
here it is six years later and you're talking american know how? whattacrock. it took four years to defeat two great military powers.
we're not winning in Afghanistan because nothing can be won.
we are invaders, we don't have the support of the population, while the Taleban do.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 3:40pm
most of the NATO troops are not combat soldiers, but rather peace keepers.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 3:56pm
Aren't there still many American and NATO troops in permenent "occupation" of parts of the ex country?
By the end of 2004 the only remaining American forces in the Former Yugoslavia were the 1,000 Ohio Army National Guard soldiers of the 37th Armor Brigade deployed to Kosovo as peacekeepers.
you could be better informed before you post drivel.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 4:03pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
just shocking nonsense.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 4:05pm
who provided "safe haven" to the Taleban...
sorry, Al Qaeda, my bad
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 4:22pm
FDR, et al, allow me to take back the rude part of my remarks.
I know there won't be much left, except a few facts, which I have endeavored to showcase.
facts, such as dead people. many dead people, which we aim to continue to provide, ad infinitum.
peacekeepers are not combat troops.
combat troops are not trainers, remember we are training Afghanis and Iraqis armies, and paying them too. they are not cops yet are used in that capacity to provide security.
security, the green zone, our perimeter.
what these wars are, is stale mates. reminiscent of WW1. all about that center square between the trenches. six years, ten.
the raison d'etre in Afghanistan is purely punitive. they did a bad thing. six years later, that's the best we can do?
let's get Russia involved, shall we? it was called the Great Game, also known as the dismemberment of the Ottoman. we are still living in the death throes of the Turkish empire, as well as Russia's and our own.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/24/2009 @ 4:57pm
Certainly when we initially went to war in Afghanistan, we (unlike Iraq) had the support of much of the world. I do believe it is in the interests of the world (certainly the western world, arguably the whole world) to not have Afghanistan turn back into a terrorist haven. In that light, the world should do more to help pacify the Taliban/AQ, yes. In principle, I support self -determination - but there are other considerations - such as, for example, Afghanistan turning back into a place where mass-murdering terrorists can plot to attack and kill us again - that is a western (and global) concern. My Yugosalvia analogy (though flawed) suggested that, just as troops (whoever) must permenently occupy that ex nation in order to prevent war from flaring up again, that Afghanistan at some point may require a similar permenent occupation (hopefully, with an at least semi-pacified Taliban/AQ). Yes, I think we should consider help from Russia in this regard. I think it is in their interest too. My fear is (speaking of dead people) that if the Taliban comes back to power, they will allow AQ back in, reopen terrorist training camps, etc, and then we may have another 9/11 attack. In which case we will indeed wonder, why did we go to war there in the first place?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 9:17pm
why did we go to war there in the first place? Posted by FDR43 at 02/24/2009 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
touche
Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2009 @ 10:49am
Implicit in that last line was, of course, the notion that going to war there in the first place WAS the right thing to do. (I'm guessing maybe you disagree.) Of course, when we did (go to war there in the first place), I (and others) had the hope (perhaps naive) that the end result would be not only the destruction of a thoroughly evil regime whose existence (see 9/11 attacks) was a major security threat to us, but also, the creation (in its stead) of some kind of (at least semi) functioning democracy. War supporters really did believe that was possible. We reasoned that that would be good for both us AND the Afghani people. Some of us (such as myself) feel that this possibly COULD have been achieved (or to a greater extent, pwerhaps significantly) if we had NOT fought the war in Iraq - we feel that if we had instead (as we should have) spent our precious, blood, money, energy, time, effort (etc) rebuilding Afghanistan, that Afghanistan might not be a basket case. Of course, supporters of the Afghani war did not realize/anticipate what would happen (though maybe we should have): the President and his administration, instead of rebuilding Afghanistan, would mislead us into Iraq, and in so doing, directly undermine our efforts in Afghanistan. But that is Bush's fault, not ours!
So yes, I still believe the initial decision to go to war in Afghanistan was correct - and it isn't the fault of such war supporters that the President of the United States screwed it all up. And theoretically, Afghanistan COULD have been in semi-decent shape by now. If we had had a real president, that might be the case. But that fact doesn't make the original decision wrong - I still think it was the right thing to do - it's what America has done SINCE that has us in the no
Posted by FDR43 at 02/25/2009 @ 4:32pm
good choices position we are in.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/25/2009 @ 4:32pm