Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt could have been worse. But there's a lot of bad news.
I listened to President Obama's speech, and I spent the morning over at the White House listening to officials there talk about where the Afghan plan is going. Here are some initial thoughts.
President Obama's new strategy for the Afghanistan-Pakistan war isn't Quaker-inspired, but it's not neocon-inspired, either. It has a lot of moving parts, but if you're looking for hopeful signs, or for a light at the end of the tunnel, perhaps the most important aspect of the plan revealed today is that it's a work in progress. It sets nothing in stone -- meaning that President Obama can adjust the plan -- escalate or de-escalate -- in the months ahead. What he does will depend on what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it will depend on what happens in the United States, too, in Congress, the media, and public opinion.
Answering a question this morning about how the success of the new plan will be measured, Bruce Riedel, the former CIA officer and former Obama campaign adviser, said:
The President feels very strongly that this strategy needs to be flexible and adaptable. ... It's going to be a long and difficult road ahead. And he wants to have, and we have built into the strategy, maximum flexibility and adaptability. ... So the theme of this process is to be flexible, adaptable and comprehensive, and self-regulating with periodic reviews.
In his statement, Obama pledged to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to that end he's sending 4,000 more US military trainers to build the Afghan security forces, in addition to the 17,000 additional forces he announced last month -- but he didn't support the full complement of 30,000-plus forces that the military had asked for. He said that the US "soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east" of Afghanistan -- but he said: "We will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces." And nowhere did Obama speak about a generational (or even a decade-long) commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan.
To a degree, the president seemed to endorse a far more limited goal in Afghanistan than a nation-building effort to create a Western-style democracy. Instead, he announced a more modest goal:
I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved.
But, in contrast, at the briefing afterward, Riedel and Michelle Flournoy of the Defense Department were asked if the Obama plan represented a shift away from "counterinsurgency" (generally assumed to mean a broader, long-term effort to eliminate a rooted insurgency or rebellion, which usually involves huge numbers of troops) to "counterterrorism" (meaning a more limited, anti-Al Qaeda effort). Here's the exchange:
Q Should we see this as an abandonment or shift from the counterinsurgency mission that had been undertaken in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan, shifting from that to a much more narrowly focused counterterror mission?MR. RIEDEL: Absolutely not. I'll let Michelle talk a little bit more about counterinsurgency, but I think there is nothing minimalist about this approach.
MS. FLOURNOY: If anything, I would say what we're doing is stepping up to more fully resource a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan that is designed to first reverse Taliban gains and secure the population, particularly in the most contested areas of the south and east; second, provide the Afghan national security forces with the training and the mentoring they need to expand rapidly and to take -- ultimately take the lead in providing security for their nation; and finally, to provide a secure environment that will enable governance and development efforts to take root and grow.
If that's true, then Obama's "clear and focused goal" is actually a lot less clear and a lot more unfocused.
Asked about the "exit strategy" -- Obama, in his 60 Minutes interview, promised that his Afghan plan would have an exit strategy -- Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, replied:
The only exit strategy that Bruce and Michelle and I and the people we work for and with can see is pretty basic. We can leave as the Afghans can deal with their own security problems. That's why the President today put emphasis on training the National Army, training and improving the National Police.
Of course, that's no exit strategy. It could easily take a decade to build up the ANA and the ANP, both dysfunctional institutions. And it's virtually impossible for the Afghan state, even under ideal conditions, to support the vast expense of a security force involving hundreds of thousands of troops.
Obama didn't say anything, at all, about timetables. That was highlighted in the officials' briefing:
Q I know there's no fixed timeline for what you're working on, but there have been some time periods mentioned. The President mentioned building up the troops by 2011. You mentioned making inroads with the Taliban this summer. Can you give any time sense about how long it will take before you know this is working or not working? Or how long -- what the time horizon is? Are we talking about two years? Five years? Ten years?MR. RIEDEL: We very deliberately do not have timelines in this study. And it goes back to what I said about the President's determination that we check the metrics, we see how we're doing, and we remain flexible and adaptable throughout the process.
Of course, the real exit strategy is a political settlement with the insurgents. That means, a deal with the Taliban, or parts of it. At the White House, I asked Riedel, privately, about that, and he told me that the United States will be working hard to develop intelligence about the Taliban and its politics, its leadership, and its commanders. "We will be looking hard at the structure of the Taliban," he said.
In his public remarks, Riedel added:
Let me comment on the Taliban. ... We know that the core Taliban leadership, led by Mullah Omar, is determined not to negotiate with anybody. They want to take Afghanistan back to the medieval hell that they created in the 1990s. But there are many of the -- those involved in the insurgency who may not be so committed as that, and if we see the momentum of the Taliban broken this summer and over the course of the fighting season, we may see some fractures within that movement. And I suspect that the core Taliban leadership is very, very worried about just that kind of thing happening.
The notion that, first, the momentum of the Taliban must be broken before it fractures -- or before talks can take place -- is probably the biggest error of methodology in the White House review. Adding troops, and escalating the war, is likely only to strengthen, not weaken, the Taliban. Already, in the New York Times today, there's an important story about the unification of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan with Al Qaeda, in direct response to the planned US offensive:
After agreeing to bury their differences and unite forces, Taliban leaders based in Pakistan have closed ranks with their Afghan comrades to ready a new offensive in Afghanistan as the United States prepares to send 17,000 more troops there this year. ...The Pakistani Taliban is dominated by three powerful commanders -- Baitullah Mehsud, Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulavi Nazir -- based in North and South Waziristan, the hub of insurgent activity in Pakistan's tribal border regions, who have often clashed among themselves.
Mullah Omar dispatched a six-member team to Waziristan in late December and early January, several Taliban fighters said in interviews in Dera Ismail Khan, a town in North-West Frontier Province that is not far from South Waziristan. The Afghan Taliban delegation urged the Pakistani Taliban leaders to settle their internal differences, scale down their activities in Pakistan and help counter the planned increase of American forces in Afghanistan, the fighters said.
The three Pakistani Taliban leaders agreed. In February, they formed a united council, or shura, called the Council of United Mujahedeen. In a printed statement the leaders vowed to put aside their disputes and focus on fighting American-led forces in Afghanistan. ...
In their written statement, decorated with crossed swords, the three Pakistani Taliban leaders reaffirmed their allegiance to Mullah Omar, as well as the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
The plan, as expected, stresses the important of Pakistan. It emphasizes economic aid and civilian assistance, agricultural development, and the like. And Obama stressed the importance of diplomacy:
We will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region -- our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China.
If there's an exit strategy, it will involve getting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to work with their allies and friends in the Taliban movement, to make a deal. A contact group is the right way to move that process along, although India, Iran, and Russia in particular won't look kindly on a Taliban resurgence. Obama himself said: "The road ahead will be long and there will be difficult days ahead." True, that.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"We will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces."
Hmmmm.... sounds really just like the Bush administration Iraqi war! He did lean something from Bush!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/27/2009 @ 2:08pm
Mr. Dreyfuss.....I apologize for not having read the full post....but halfway down, I got it!
You said: "What he does will depend on what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it will depend on what happens in the United States, too, in Congress, the media, and public opinion."
Followed by some correct statements that there is in fact, no exit strategy.....everything is both fluid and DEPENDS........
There is but one conclusion: when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, where our men/women are engaged in battles, the Messiah isn't any different w/Bush! Pretty darned interesting....considering how he gained notice and stood apart in the early part of his magical campaign.
Posted by Happy at 03/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
In fact, everything DOES depend!
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 03/27/2009 @ 2:22pm
I congratulate the president for ignoring the shrill cries of the left and dealing with the very real problem of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that region.
While I have found almost everything the president has undertaken domestically to be more aligned with a far left agenda, his foreign policy implementation has so far been very centrist (perhaps a reflection of HRC).
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 2:27pm
...everything DOES depend!
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 03/27/2009 @ 2:22pm
How understanding we ALL are now....NO timetable Too! You won't see us conservatives attacking him (much)....but, we expect positive results!
Posted by Happy at 03/27/2009 @ 2:28pm
Afghanistan will help break another imperial power, it seems. There will be a settlement with the Taliban sooner, or a settlement with the Taliban later, or a general withdrawal (evacuation).
Posted by syfriendly at 03/27/2009 @ 2:33pm
There is but one conclusion: when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, where our men/women are engaged in battles, the Messiah isn't any different w/Bush! Pretty darned interesting....considering how he gained notice and stood apart in the early part of his magical campaign.
Posted by Happy at 03/27/2009 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
BO is pretty good at fear mongering too, both for war and financial crisis. Murtha saying that we are going to need 600,000 troops to control the country - equates to about 2 soldiers/sq.mi. or 1 soldier/120 civilians. I would say that Murtha's estimate is based on the perception that the Afghans don't consider us as liberators - and reflects current reality.
One thing for certain - we ain't leaving for a long, long, time.
'In a war that still has no end in sight, Obama said the fresh infusion of U.S. forces is designed to bolster the Afghan army and turn up the heat on terrorists that he said are plotting new attacks against Americans.'
msnbc.com
The never ending GWOT. I would say we have been snookered - no friggin doubt about it.
Posted by OneVote at 03/27/2009 @ 2:36pm
Save these posts, friends...
I guarentee in a year, guys like RIO, HAPP, and Larry will be telling us "Obama is SURRENDERING Afghanistan!!!" when the military phase ends and the negotiations phase is in full swing and we're NOT looking "staying 100 years if no troops are being killed".
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 2:41pm
I guarentee in a year, guys like RIO, HAPP, and Larry will be telling us "Obama is SURRENDERING Afghanistan!!!" when the military phase ends and the negotiations phase is in full swing and we're NOT looking "staying 100 years if no troops are being killed".
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 2:41pm
Nonsense Mask. Take the example of Iraq.
No one, not Bush, not Cheney, not any conservative on this board ever said that troops must stay in battle mode in Iraq forever, for a 100 years, or even a decade.
Bush said "When Iraq stands up, we will stand down". That was always the plan and now we can all celebrate that with the success in Iraq, Obama is able to start bringing most of the troops home from there.
The same holds true for Afghanistan, unless you surrender,you don't leave the fight until you win. Not unless you are a leftist who hates to see America and freedom triumph over despotism and/or terrorism.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 2:53pm
I guarentee in a year, guys like RIO, HAPP, and Larry will be telling us "Obama is SURRENDERING Afghanistan!!!" when the military phase ends and the negotiations phase is in full swing and we're NOT looking "staying 100 years if no troops are being killed".
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 2:41pm
I don't think Rio and LVL are on the same exact page as I.....why don't you be useful and dig up my post where I said I'm neutral on continuing the Afghan War.
IF Magic surrenders Afghanistan, AND it doesn't turn into the Killing Field.....I'm fine w/that. Of course, if he does a complete pullout when all hell is breaking loose, as was Iraq in 2005/6, I would be critical of his timing and how it makes the US look like turning tail.
Things in Afghanland aren't peachy now, but it ain't bad...it's a big country (size of Colorado & New Mexico combined)....Kabul is pretty quiet/secure....lest you forget, it was the problems in Baghdad that led to the Surge, the neighborhood dividing walls, and mayhem damned near everyday.
Posted by Happy at 03/27/2009 @ 2:54pm
One thing for certain - we ain't leaving for a long, long, time.
Posted by OneVote at 03/27/2009 @ 2:36pm
Tell you what, divide the Left and help us kill some of Magic's agenda, like EFCA, tax hikes beyond the expiration of Bush's expiring cuts, and KILL all earmarks, some of us cons can be persuaded to help you to agitate for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 03/27/2009 @ 2:58pm
Tell you what, divide the Left and help us kill some of Magic's agenda, like EFCA, tax hikes beyond the expiration of Bush's expiring cuts, and KILL all earmarks, some of us cons can be persuaded to help you to agitate for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 03/27/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Jeezz.....just like Congress! True bi-partisanship. Can we forget Pakistan too?
Posted by OneVote at 03/27/2009 @ 3:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 2:53pm
Actually I was refering of course to MCCAIN's position. Which actually had a REAL NUMBER in his statement ("100 years")....
where as Bush and Cheney and YOU guys it was always "stay until 'victory'" and then an ambigious, can't-ever-be-timetabled series of definitions of what "victory" is.
Mind you, this is all pre-Election Day. Now apparently, you have no problem with Obama's all combat troops out by 2011...where as his 2010 number was "reckless" and "sends the wrong signal to all the Al Qaeda forces in Iraq".
My point is as the Left is disappointed now in the Afghanistan plan from Obama....soon your day will come, when it's not "Kill, Kill, Kill!" and we actually have to start talking to the Taliban and warlords and cutting a deal with them to get out.
Soon as that day arrives, the Left gets more enthusiastic, and you guys lose your new found love of his policies over there.
You ALWAYS like escalation...you ALWAYS hate negotiations.
You are nothing if not predictable.
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 3:09pm
Since shortly after invading Afghanistan, The Pentagon has referred to that war as The Long War. If Obama tries to shorten it, he's a one-term or less president. If he goes along with Long, he may well be a one-president anyway.
Afghanistan: the graveyard of empires as well as smart presidents. Just ask Gorbachev.
And the pipeline? Aye, what about the pipeline? How many Afghanis do we have to kill -- how many are we prepared to kill -- to guarantee the longterm security of the pipeline?
There's the real rub.
Posted by sloper at 03/27/2009 @ 3:17pm
If he goes along with Long, he may well be a one-term president anyway.
Posted by sloper at 03/27/2009 @ 3:19pm
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 3:09pm
1. You are distorting McCain's position. It is entirely consistent with mine, with Bush, and it seems now with Obama. McCain never said combat troops for 100 years.
here is the Fact Check page correcting this lie from the Democrats and the left.
http://tinyurl.com/cqeyk5
2. "Mind you, this is all pre-Election Day. Now apparently, you have no problem with Obama's all combat troops out by 2011...where as his 2010 number was "reckless" and "sends the wrong signal to all the Al Qaeda forces in Iraq"."
No, what we said was that it's wrong to make that claim until you have secured the country enough to then form that agreement with the Iraqis.
3. "You ALWAYS like escalation...you ALWAYS hate negotiations.
You are nothing if not predictable."
We don't hate negotiations; we hate surrender or negotiating away peace simply for the sake of negotiating.
You on the other hand don't care whether we achieve victory. Like Neville Chamberlain, you prefer negotiating even if it means defeat.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 3:30pm
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Masks way of saying Obamanation did not learn anything from Bush's Iraq success!?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/27/2009 @ 3:46pm
More broken promises for our country! It was PROMISED that our people were going to come home..NOT to send MORE people over! When do the lies stop? WE NEED TO STOP THEM NOW! PLEASE.... Our tea parties are letting the government know that we are not going to stand alone and not be counted. The symbol of our unity shows in growing numbers throughout our country by uniting together on April 15th and every day thereafter. Together, we have decided that we are NOT going to sit back and let them take anything more away from us. It must stop! And it must stop today! All the bailouts given to these companies will NOT matter. Once the "patch comes off the hole", the water will come in again, and then what? The government continues to patch the holes but NEVER fixes the real problem. Fix the boat! And that boat is the DEBT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! BAILOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! The government should be bailing out the American people by paying down proportionate shares of our debts. WE will then be indirectly bailing out the same companies that the government is directly bailing out right now by paying down our debts. They would still be getting their money. But they would be getting it the fair, just and honest way. The way that is a win-win for everyone. We would have less debt and they would still get paid. But if we continue to do it the government's way, and bail them out, while leaving us out, WE are losing it all. WE have nothing to gain. The American Bailout, The Plan for Americans Made by Americans, can work. If we all join hands to show our support and sign the petition to being The American Bailout Plan to our government, WE can help to open the door to OUR nations NEW future.
www.TheAmericanBailout.com The Plan for Americans Made by Americans
Posted by www.TheAmericanBailout.com at 03/27/2009 @ 4:27pm
Ever since the Dems "lost" China , presidents have been fearful of taking the heat for losing another country. Johnson in Vietnam and now Obama in Afghanistan.
But we do need to get out of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan pronto!
Obama's Afghanistan thrust, aka Bush II policy, will fail-- The rationale for staying in Afghanistan is wacko-we're there to prevent them from attacking here. How many times have I heard this: From Russia, to China, Korea, to Vietnam, to Nicaragua, and on and on--same old story. Everybody is waiting to attack us--these evildoers will slip a bomb in with their underwear in their luggage and leave it in a Times square bus stop--and BLAM--we're done for.
And then there is the problem that there are more problematic countries than we can possibly invade--Haiti, Somalia, Moldovia, Mexico, and on and on. In this globalized age, Bin Ladens can operate from anywhere. We need a smarter strategy than invading and occupying.
Truly, enough in enough! In reality no one will attack us--we need to stop invading and droning their countries.
I'm no expert but I can tell you the Obama plan of re- invading Afghanistan is DOA. Just ask the master of foreign armies dying in that country, Rudyard Kipling. The place is still part of the "Great Game"--countries near and far want a piece of the action--energy routes, geopolitical control. So India fights Pakistan (solve this one and the whole region will quiet down!), the Taliban/Pushtuns fight Russia, USA, Iran. It gets so mixed up. The place needs a grand bargain--make it neutral like Switzerland, offer a little something to everyone. But whatever you do, don't send foreign soldiers there!
Posted by hkaplan at 03/27/2009 @ 5:43pm
Obama's plan is to ESCALATE the conflict in Afghanistan and expand it increasingly to Pakistan. That's what these drone attacks in tribal areas in Pakistan are. That's what more that 20,000 troops will do. It's fine to listen to the words of the prez, sec of state and generals', but actions and concrete plans define policy.
Despite Obama's lofty rhetoric and firendlier and more articulate demeanor, this policy is substantively WORSE THAN BUSH! The Bush admin also justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as making the world safer and helping the people of the country.
Liberals seem only to be able to criticize a Republican hawk. The Democrats have just as much blood on their hands.
Posted by werdna.123 at 03/28/2009 @ 06:00am
Afghanistan can't be tamed, that should be clear to everybody. Trying to superimpose our Federal ideology of organization/change/support/influence will fail just like all other efforts there, throughout history. The Afghan people at large don't want to cooperate with outsiders to change their way of life, this is simple stuff. I'm sure most people are happy that the Taliban are out of power for the time being, but the power vacuum will be filled the Afghan way, not the U.S. way. That is inevitable. Sure, we have to at least attempt to give them the tools they need for self-sufficiency now. However, there is a reason that Karzai is known as the mayor of Kabul. He is not the answer for lasting and nationwide stability. Aside from the fact that any person propped up by us will be completely rejected, sooner or later. It's time to wrap it up.
Posted by Milhaus at 03/28/2009 @ 08:02am
The speech was a deal breaker for me. It sounded just like BushCo, or at least a right of center Democrat version. Some of the rhetoric was eerily familar. The same kind of crap that led up to the occupation of Iraq and even some nostalgic Vietnam warspeak.
Whereas it seemed at times that Bush was trying to prove something in regards to one-upping his Daddy's attempts at warmongering and empire. Now Obama seems to be trying to prove something aswell. Like "I'll show Bush how this should have been done", and establishing his own chops at warmongering and empire.
This really makes me ill. I know it doesn't matter in the big picture what I do or think. But for my part Obama will not be getting my vote in 2012.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 09:02am
The entire 9/11 affair should have been handled by the criminal justice system, just like the Oklahoma City bombing and the bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center was. It should not have been a reason/excuse for military action.
So the argument that Afghanistan was not a war of choice and therefore is somehow justified is bullshit and beyond the pale.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 09:17am
We have over 500,000 troops stationed around the world in numerous military bases in such hotbeds of conflict as Germany and Japan. Does the United States ever leave? Anywhere? We are like a freeloading relative that comes to stay for a few days and never leaves. The military freeloads like a tick or a leech on the backs of the American taxpayer. And another tick/leech has just attached itself to Afghanistan.
If we finally brought all the troops home. And I mean, ALL THE TROOPS, it would save so much money that we could afford to provide free medical care for all, free education for all and free energy for all for the foreseeable future.
And then we could probably rest a little easier when it came to terrorist attacks as we wouldn't be pissing off everyone in the world with our lust for Empire.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 09:39am
I just had to post the following....too funny...and I won't credit the writer.....you want to know, go find the article and read it......worth your time!
"All of this circles back to the core of the problem -- and it's not Afghanistan. Afghanistan's not worth a mullah's hemorrhoid...."
Posted by Happy at 03/28/2009 @ 09:54am
Canada is going to leave its Afghanistan mission in about 2 years when its commitment runs out. Why? Because they cannot sustain the high mortality losses and the hopelessness of their efforts. And the public has turned against this adventure. Even the current Conservative Prime Minister Harper if still in office will most likely pull out and the New Democratic Party has been railing against Canadian intervention in Afghanistan for a long while. President Obama, take notice.
Posted by pvolkov at 03/28/2009 @ 10:44am
"Never Engage in an Asian Land War".
And the nations that have conquered and held Afghanistan? Just ask.. let's see Obama I think I have the list here somewhere... Oh yes! Here it is!
Well the list is rather long and goes back many centuries.. The most successful attempt seems to have been made by Alexander The Great, but even he could not hold it.
Obama, are you another Alexander? I doubt it. He would have run circles around the likes of you.. Maybe a bit of good advice would be to leave that part of the world alone. But No, you are all caught up in yourself and cannot see reason and logic.
I wish you could ask Alexander...
Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 11:53am
Up to 70% of US aid to Pakistan 'misspent'
America's massive military aid package to Pakistan has come under scrutiny after allegations that as much as 70% of $5.4bn in assistance has been misspent.
Since 2002, the US has paid the operating costs of Pakistan's military operations in the tribal belt along the Afghan border, where Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are sheltering.
Pakistan provides over 100,000 troops and directs the fight; the US foots the bill for food, fuel, ammunition and maintenance. The cash payments -- averaging $80m a month -- have been a cornerstone of US support for President Pervez Musharraf.
But over the past 18 months, as militants seized vast swaths of the tribal belt and repelled a string of Pakistani offensives, the funding has come under the microscope.
American officials processing the payments at the US embassy in Islamabad have concluded that the Pakistani expense claims have been vastly inflated, two western military officials told the Guardian.
"My back of envelope guesstimate is that 30% of the money they requested to be reimbursed was legitimate costs they expended," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The official said the US did not know what happened to the remaining 70% - approximately $3.8bn - but suspected that some may have been spent on F-16 fighter jets or a new house for an army general.
Other than that, he said, at least half the money was thought to have disappeared. "Who knows, the roads on Constitution Avenue [in Islamabad] may have been paved with part of this money."
Declan Walsh, Guardian.coUK, 02/28/08 Excerpt...........
Now BO has announced the need for massive US aid to prop up another Paki government - but for "civilian" purposes.
Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2009 @ 12:34pm
Al Qaeda is a movement and has no boundaries. If treathened they will simply relocate elsewhere and continue with their agenda. No military option will ever prevail in Afghanistan, only a political solution will. The British and Russians learned the hard way. Eight years of Bush have made no difference. Furthermore wars cost lots of money. Money is scarce and I don't think that the Americans people or the rest of the world are ready to squander what little of it is available and have future generations pay for it. Did not Einstein define insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome? It's time to stop the insanity, NOW.
Posted by GETREAL1 at 03/28/2009 @ 1:17pm
While everything might DEPEND, by the time all reactions are in and calculations made, who knows what "deals" may be available and no exit. Afghanistan and Pakistan seem about the scariest places to get involved without a clear idea of what is a reasonable objective and how to leave. Particularly, since India, Russia and Iran may have clearer objectives of their own.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 03/28/2009 @ 2:26pm
...Money is scarce....
Posted by GETREAL1 at 03/28/2009 @ 1:17pm
For working and tax-paying Americans, undoubtedly!
For Obama and his Gubbers, merely the cost of a few clicks on a computer and some pulp and ink! Viola!
Posted by Happy at 03/28/2009 @ 2:58pm
Oh, yeah, a regular roaring success over there in Iraq.
References are replete on the resemblance of Baghdad to Brussels.
Righto.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/28/2009 @ 3:01pm
Happy,
Printing more money will only devalue it more. I seriously doubt that the Chinese are ignorant enough to keep purchasing our US Bonds to keep financing our wars, after all are they not the ones that invented paper money in the first place?
Posted by GETREAL1 at 03/28/2009 @ 3:36pm
I am very skeptical there is such a thing as a moderate wing of the Taliban - it would go against what defines them: extreme Islamic doctrine. How would you negotiate with that? What would you negotiate? It would be like saying we could negotiate with Hitler...impossible, the goals are completely at odds with each other. During WWII it would have been impossible to negotiate with the Japanese for a similar reason ( and Pearl Harbor of course).
Posted by pyeatte at 03/28/2009 @ 7:25pm
If Barack Obama wants to be war president and wants to risk a massive problem in South Asia which in addition to the original players has brought in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, I say to him "Go With God."
And if he wants to put US troops in Pakistani Kashmir and risk a nuclear war with India, peace and god bless.
Just leave us in South America the fuck alone, please. It took us all of three weeks to figure out who Barack Obama was because we've seen this movie before.
Barack Obama is Ronald Reagan.
I have never been more proud to be Panamanian than when our left-wing PRD candidate for Prez, Balbina Herrera, had to go to her one time enemy George Bush Senior to make sure she had a good US stopper on Obama.
Posted by DexterManley at 03/28/2009 @ 9:19pm
So...most if not all of the arguments I've seen here against Afghanistan are remarkably unimpressive. Let's sample a few:
<<The entire 9/11 affair should have been handled by the criminal justice system, just like the Oklahoma City bombing and the bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center was.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 09:17am>>
This argument doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. One, the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing was domestic made a HUGE difference seeing as how it was actually within the jurisdiction of domestic police. Two, and even more importantly, Afghanistan is precisely the kind of country for which this argument CAN'T be made; all the factors that make it difficult for powers to subdue also make it impossible for a mere police force to just "arrest" al-Qaeda members and somehow haul them before an as-yet-unnamed international tribunal.
<<"Never Engage in an Asian Land War".
And the nations that have conquered and held Afghanistan? Just ask.. let's see Obama I think I have the list here somewhere... Oh yes! Here it is!
Well the list is rather long and goes back many centuries.. The most successful attempt seems to have been made by Alexander The Great, but even he could not hold it.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 11:53am >>
This presupposes that the goal in question is to "hold" Afghanistan as an imperial conquest. However, that's NOT the goal; the goal is to try and get at least some Afghani infrastructure in play and then leave the country primarily to its own devices. For this reason, the "Alexander the Great" analogy just doesn't work.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/28/2009 @ 11:39pm
Quesations:
Is the Taliban a homogeneous entity?
What would have happened if we had invested the 2.4 trillion we are going to spend on this war and treated this as a crime scene instead of an act of war?
What would have happened if we had invited other middle east countries to help?
What would have happened if we had let the United Nations and NATO handle this issue?
Can we continue to expand a war that is none ending into the next century?
Can we continue to borrow money from China and the next generations to fight this ego driven war?
Is there an easier way to learn about the Middle East?
How many of our warriors do we allow to die and become injured walking around in full military gear at 120 degrees Fahrenheit?
What will happen if we expand this war into Pakistan?
Have we driven Russia, China, North Korea, Iran etc... closer together?
Can we win this war with our military gadgets, drones and smart bombs, by blowing up wedding parties?
Can Rosetta stone teach us the languages, culture, religion and feudal system in six months?
Can we convince the people that we are never going to leave thus being able to leave sooner?
Are we creating centuries of hate from other more rational countries?
How much testosterone do we spend before we admit that thinking and logic may be needed?
Posted by julien38 at 03/29/2009 @ 09:18am
MUSH! Its whats for breakfast.
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/29/2009 @ 09:25am
Just leave us in South America the fuck alone, please. It took us all of three weeks to figure out who Barack Obama was because we've seen this movie before.
Barack Obama is Ronald Reagan.
Posted by DexterManley at 03/28/2009 @ 9:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Remember that a nuclear war would leave only the cock roaches on the face of the earth.
Posted by julien38 at 03/29/2009 @ 09:29am
Think a more appropriate response to the Afghanistan pipeline dreamers should be a banner proclaiming "mission impossible". See nothing wrong with a couple forts to monitor possible belligerent activity directed at the West, but forget the cultural impositions. They won't work. Kabul might become a "city state", however. But don't count on it.
Good posts, julien.
Posted by Sorelish at 03/29/2009 @ 10:51am
No Country , no matter how small or large should ever engage in a war without first considering the following words of wisdom.
Know when to hold them. Know when to fold them. Know when to walk away. AND, Most importantly, Know when to run.
Posted by GETREAL1 at 03/29/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by julien38 at 03/29/2009 @ 09:18am
What a great example of a far left individual who doesn't have a clue.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/29/2009 @ 1:49pm
Mr. Dreyfuss, I'm missing why you felt this announcement "could be worse". This is a war policy. It is a continuation of unilateral American policy with only lame gestures towards multilateralism. There is no plan for negotiations, just one for peeling away Taliban foot soldiers. There is no regional peace conference, no serious role for international institutions - they are an afterthought.
Posted by rozziecole at 03/29/2009 @ 2:04pm
"What would have happened if we had invested the 2.4 trillion we are going to spend on this war and treated this as a crime scene instead of an act of war? "
We would have known the suspects and been completely unable to arrest them.
"What would have happened if we had invited other middle east countries to help? "
We did.
"What would have happened if we had let the United Nations and NATO handle this issue? "
If you didn't notice the United Nations is already in the area. And if we let them handle it we would still be hip deep in it because the biggest contributor to United Nations troops and technology is the United States.
"Can we continue to expand a war that is none ending into the next century? "
No war is non-ending.
"Can we continue to borrow money from China and the next generations to fight this ego driven war? "
Yes. Because China would destroy itself if it stopped lending. They are now dependent on us just like we are dependent on them.
"Have we driven Russia, China, North Korea, Iran etc... closer together? "
No.
"Can we win this war with our military gadgets, drones and smart bombs, by blowing up wedding parties? "
No we need to start collecting better intelligence so we can blow up Taliban.
"Are we creating centuries of hate from other more rational countries? "
Probably. But so does every war. Some are just and some are not but one thing that holds true is you will always be hated by someone.
"How much testosterone do we spend before we admit that thinking and logic may be needed?"
This is infantile. Thought was taken into account. When 4,000 of your citizens are blown to shreds, burned or crushed under rubble you are expected to do something about that. I didn't like Iraq because we had no reason, we have reason here.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 2:37pm
Posted by Sorelish at 03/29/2009 @ 10:51am
Notice, Obama's plan doesn't involve spreading our culture or democracy. It involves making Afghanis able to take care of themselves. I agree. I don't believe in manifest destiny. If they want democracy let them choose democracy. However we should catch the criminals and then leave the Afghan government with the ability to take care of itself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 2:40pm
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 2:37pm </i>
Nicely done.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/29/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 2:40pm
That's the rub. Obama's plan or anyone's plan for Afghanistan may not be interpreted by the indigenous peoples as we would hope. Can westernized Afghan leaders impart their wishes to the diverse peoples? And without being regarded as puppets of the foreigners? What binds peoples of Afghanistan? Over long periods it seems resistance to outsiders has been the binder. We don't need any more criminals in that land than we already have. If there is a Mustafa Kemal in the wings, we haven't seen him.
Posted by Sorelish at 03/29/2009 @ 4:18pm
capt. clusterbomb, dont'cha just wish you could still be making devices to dismember innocent children instead of bilking people with your used car sales, or insurance sales, or whatever jesus like scam you are running now? I bet you still thirst for their blood you vampire. Tell your forty year old virgin, coward son to stay away from my GODDAMNED livestock!
this one's dedicated to all of your murder victims.
Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build all the bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks.
You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly.
Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain.
You fasten all the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion' As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud.
You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins.
How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you That even Jesus would never Forgive what you do.
Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes it's toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul.
And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead.
Posted by entropy at 03/29/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person
Posted by entropy at 03/29/2009 @ 4:42pm
capt. clusterbomb, dont'cha just wish you could still be making devices to dismember innocent children instead of bilking people with your used car sales, or insurance sales, or whatever jesus like scam you are running now? I bet you still thirst for their blood you vampire. Tell your forty year old virgin, coward son to stay away from my GODDAMNED livestock!
this one's dedicated to all of your murder victims.
Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build all the bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks.
You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly.
Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain.
You fasten all the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion' As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud.
You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins.
How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you That even Jesus would never Forgive what you do.
Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes it's toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul.
And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead.
Posted by entropy at 03/29/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person
Posted by entropy at 03/29/2009 @ 4:43pm
it would be hilarious irony if your coward son died in one of the pointless wars of aggression you trumpet, but also ultimately impossible because that chickenshit bastard spawn of unspeakable incest would never actually put himself in the line of fire, much like his corpulent father/brother. Are you packed for the big move to el salvy yet?! Time's a wastin bubba- o(s)bama's minions are but a breath away from your doorstep! My comrades there will welcome your poor, pasty, downtrodden soul with open arms!
Posted by entropy at 03/29/2009 @ 4:50pm
hey, be sure to tell the fmln about those nuns you raped and murdered- arena ain't what it used to be pendejo.
Posted by entropy at 03/29/2009 @ 4:51pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry, no cigar and the answers are terribly adolescent. Please stop sniffing rattles cans. just a matter of time before you fry your brain son. It may be too late already.
Posted by julien38 at 03/29/2009 @ 5:50pm
That's the rub. Obama's plan or anyone's plan for Afghanistan may not be interpreted by the indigenous peoples as we would hope. Can westernized Afghan leaders impart their wishes to the diverse peoples? And without being regarded as puppets of the foreigners? What binds peoples of Afghanistan? Over long periods it seems resistance to outsiders has been the binder. We don't need any more criminals in that land than we already have. If there is a Mustafa Kemal in the wings, we haven't seen him.
Posted by Sorelish at 03/29/2009 @ 4:18pm
This is true. It takes time to find the right strategy. But either way if you want to build up infrastructure in a war zone you have to build up enough troops to make it safe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 8:06pm
Sorry, no cigar and the answers are terribly adolescent. Please stop sniffing rattles cans. just a matter of time before you fry your brain son. It may be too late already.
Posted by julien38 at 03/29/2009 @ 5:50pm
You accuse me of adolescence and then you lob insults. Who is the child? You attacking me instead of the substance of the response I said is often proof that you have nothing of substance to respond with. If you want a debate feel free to actually respond t my responses with something of substance. If you still want to act like a child feel free. Your insults are anonymous, childish and flat out stupid. If you are going to try to insult me at least try to be creative, otherwise try to actually debate my points and stop acting like a child.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 8:09pm
Sorry, no cigar and the answers are terribly adolescent. Please stop sniffing rattles cans. just a matter of time before you fry your brain son. It may be too late already.
Posted by julien38 at 03/29/2009 @ 5:50pm
The questions you asked are based on falsities. They are pretty easy to look up the truth to. For instance you asking about NATO and the UN helping. The UN and NATO are both involved. They are actually looking for Americas support right now. They afraid because Obama said he might pull out. So it is a NATO and UN operation that's US led, just like EVERY NATO and UN operation.
This is just one question out of the many that are quite easy to debunk with rudimentary knowledge or a short Google search.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/29/2009 @ 8:12pm
Don't have a clue? Who is it that cant find OBL after 8 years of looking? Who is it that created and was blindsided by the Global economic crisis? Who is it that cant figure out why Obama got into office?Who is responsible for N. Korea getting A bombs? Bet you don't have a clue, do you ?
Posted by GETREAL1 at 03/29/2009 @ 9:39pm
(1) "This argument doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. One, the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing was domestic made a HUGE difference seeing as how it was actually within the jurisdiction of domestic police."
(2) This presupposes that the goal in question is to "hold" Afghanistan as an imperial conquest.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/28/2009 @ 11:39pm
As far a rebuttal (1) Have you ever heard of "Interpol" or "Europol"? The focus of these police agencies is on public safety and includes among other priorities terrorism and war crimes. It's membership includes 187 countries. Increasing the budget for these agencies and increasing staff would be a lot cheaper and more effective than occupying foreign countries with an imperialistic foreign military. Four of the six involved directly in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. By the F.B.I., not the military.
The rebuttal to number (2) is my post: Posted by chaoszen at 03/28/2009 @ 09:39am
You need to get a can opener and open that mind of yours. (If it exists).
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 09:52am
You need to get a can opener and open that mind of yours. (If it exists).
Posted by chaoszen at 03/30/2009 @ 09:52am
The last comment demeaned your entire rebuttal. Insults aren't useful in discussion. While it's true you can catch the perpetrators, we have yet to catch the masterminds. Europol I guarantee you could not have arrested Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 5:51pm
I find it really interesting that some of the hottest spots for security concerns are emerging from former colonies of the British Empire: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mesopotamia (Iraq), the Levant (Middle East), Somalia, etc.
As for the plan, in my opinion, it is way too incomplete and lacks comprehensiveness. As it was stated in the white paper and from the President (considerable differences by the way), it falls short of tackling the actual problems. It will neither defeat al Qaeda, nor cut off the life cord between the local and global jihadists, the Pakistani security services ISI and the Taliban, etc.
Lubo http://www.politea.org
Posted by picha69 at 04/01/2009 @ 12:47pm
I find it really interesting that some of the hottest spots for security concerns are emerging from former colonies of the British Empire: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mesopotamia (Iraq), the Levant (Middle East), Somalia, etc.
As for the plan, in my opinion, it is way too incomplete and lacks comprehensiveness. As it was stated in the white paper and from the President (considerable differences by the way), it falls short of tackling the actual problems. It will neither defeat al Qaeda, nor cut off the life cord between the local and global jihadists, the Pakistani security services ISI and the Taliban, etc.
Lubo http://www.politea.org
Posted by picha69 at 04/01/2009 @ 12:48pm
Obama has a few things right on this plan, 1. he is not going to force the American way of life in Afghanistan 2. he is trying to work with the government to ease worry and re- assure them that we will not be in this country for ever( unlike former pres.bush) this sounds more solid then what the former bush army did over there for the past eight years, under obama's plan we might be able to do what we should have done in the fist place, go after the real terrorist that attacked us( unlike former pres. bush who invaded a country with no ties to the attack i.e IRAQ) this is just my view of the matter.
have a nice day every one.
Posted by pagan4peace916 at 04/01/2009 @ 8:58pm