Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOne of the most intelligent and thoughtful comments on Afghanistan so far comes from Paul Pillar, the former chief analyst for the US intelligence community and a renowned expert on terrorism, who writes in today's Washington Post that the real issue in Afghanistan is: What is a "terror haven"? Pillar's argument ought to be required reading for anyone thinking about what "success" in Afghanistan means, since the chief fall-back argument for anyone who supports a long-term counterinsurgency strategy there is that the United States cannot allow the country to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
Pillar asks:
"The debate has largely overlooked a more basic question: How important to terrorist groups is any physical haven? More to the point: How much does a haven affect the danger of terrorist attacks against U.S. interests, especially the U.S. homeland?"
And he answers his own question:
"The answer to the second question is: not nearly as much as unstated assumptions underlying the current debate seem to suppose."
Instead, he says, would-be terrorists can use globalization and Internet technologies to plan, organize, and train from anywhere. He points out that preparations for 9/11 "took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States." And, most important, he says:
"Al-Qaeda's role in that threat is now less one of commander than of ideological lodestar, and for that role a haven is almost meaningless."
Pillar's argument makes a bulls-eye on the central issue for Afghanistan policy going forward. If the US goal there is to create a strong, democratic state with a modern army, a centralized government, and a growing economic infrastructure, then, yes, it's a generational project that will necessarily require a heavy-handed US military presence. But if the US goal is simply to prevent 9/11-style attacks on the United States by Al Qaeda and its allies, then it's hard to argue for a counterinsurgency strategy a la General McChrystal. Earlier this year, President Obama seems to have initially defined US goals in the more limited sense, that is, as an anti-Al Qaeda program. Since then, however, under pressure from the US military and hawkish advisers, Obama's "limited" counterterrorism apporach to Afghanistan has morphed dramatically into a much larger, and more open-ended, counterinsurgency and nation-building approach.
In any case, says Pillar, comparing the unfounded assumptions about Afghanistan-as-terror-haven to the Vietnam-era domino theory:
"The Obama administration and other participants in the debate about expanding the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan can still avoid comparable error. But this would require not merely invoking Sept. 11 and taking for granted that a haven in Afghanistan would mean the difference between repeating and not repeating that horror. It would instead mean presenting a convincing case about how such a haven would significantly increase the terrorist danger to the United States. That case has not yet been made."
Meanwhile, growing doubts about US Afghan policy are coming not only from congressional Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi and Carl Levin, but from Republican-leaning realists, too. A letter to Obama from a group that might be called "the Project for Another Type of New American Century" -- an ad hoc group that includes representatives from the New America Foundation, the Cato Institute, and other moderate and libertarian-minded thinkers -- says:
"We are concerned that the war in Afghanistan is growing increasingly detached from considerations of length, cost, and consequences. Its rationale is becoming murkier and both domestic and international support for it is waning. Respectfully, we urge you to focus U.S. strategy more clearly on Al Qaeda instead of expanding the mission into an ambitious experiment in state building."
The letter, circulated in part by Steve Clemons' blog, the Washington Note, echoes the point made by Paul Pillar about alleged safe havens:
"The rationale of expanding the mission in order to prevent 'safe havens' for Al Qaeda from emerging is appealing but flawed. Afghanistan, even excluding the non-Pashto areas, is a large, geographically imposing country where it is probably impossible to ensure that no safe havens could exist. Searching for certainty that there are not and will not be safe havens in Afghanistan is quixotic and likely to be extremely costly. Even if some massive effort in that country were somehow able to prevent a safe haven there, dozens of other countries could easily serve the same purpose. Even well-governed modern democracies like Germany have inadvertently provided staging grounds for terrorists. A better strategy would focus on negotiations with moderate Taliban elements, regional diplomacy, and disrupting any large-scale Al Qaeda operations that may emerge."
You can find all the signers of the letter at Clemon's blog posting.
Of course, by signing the letter, Clemons underlines his disagreement with his New America Foundation colleague, Peter Bergen, a principal exponent of the idea that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are in cahoots to reestablish the pre-October 2001 terrorist safe haven in Afghanistan. Bergen is a believer in the "protect the population" theory of counterinsurgency in the Afghan context, though he's skeptical of the idea that the US political system will allow the dispatch of additional troops.
But last month, in response to a piece by Stephen Walt -- one of the signers of the "realist" letter -- who'd criticized the "safe haven myth," Bergen wrote a response for the Foreign Policy AfPak Channel that said, in part:
"If the Taliban did come back to power in Afghanistan, of course they would give safe haven to al Qaeda. ... The idea that Afghanistan is not an ideal place from which to launch anti-American attacks is simply absurd."The idea of attacking iconic targets in Washington and New York was first hatched in Afghanistan in 1996; the coordination of the attacks took place in Afghanistan over the next several years; the pilots were given their specific orders about target selection and their duties by the leaders of al Qaeda when they travelled to Afghanistan in 1999, and all 15 of the ‘muscle' hijackers passed through al Qaeda's Afghan training camps."
So Bergen backs Obama's escalation strategy for Afghanistan. He's not alone. It's still the consensus view among national security specialists in Washington, at the Pentaton, among thinktanks (including those who've been co-opted into being part of McChrystal's "advisers' group"). But it's fast losing political support.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
i apologize, mr dreyfuss - i am responding after only a brief perusal, grandstanding more really...
but from what i saw - amen brother richard!!!
MONEY! MONEY MONEY MONEY! this costs money - LOTS. it will continue to cost LOTS of money FOR YEARS AND YEARS....
thats for those who think money is more important than blood, and well...the loss of one is often mirrored by the spilling of the other - its when the relationship is inverse that things move beyond black humor ind into the realm of righteous wrath...
but if folks are worried about withdrawel leading to more islamic terrorism, i kind of share their fear...
there are many true believers there and they have a LONG TERM VISION...
but our physical presence there is dubious at best in terms of changing things, and
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:50am
What happened to Obama? Why did he change? Is this who he really is? I know that he is better than anything the rebublicans have, but he needs to be a progressive leader and not a corporate monster. Americans first!!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/16/2009 @ 09:52am
would it not be more cost effective to maintain secure offshore bases from where we can strike swiftly and brutally and effectively ONLY WHEN AND WHERE NEEDED? and more blood effective as well?
enough wallowing in this graveyard of empires!!!!
NEVER GET SUCKED INTO A LONG TERM LAND WAR IN ASIA!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:54am
every penny that gets sucked into this now pointless suckhole is a penny not spent on something more worthwhile and needed.
when yer in a deep hole ya might wanna stop diggin there, cleatis!!! - souf crakalaka-speak ther, by the way...
but seriously...our semiconcious urge to empire is not sustainable nor desirable by any but a sociopathic, napoleonic few.
our country needs serious upgrading and the voter will become increasingly enraged as the money continues to go down these suckholes with precious little to show in return beyond body bags and funerals.
the universe does not tolerate unsustainable foolishnes forever.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 10:04am
DREYFUSS: (Pillar)....says, would-be terrorists can use globalization and Internet technologies to plan, organize, and train from anywhere. He points out that preparations for 9/11 "took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."
A totally legitimate point by Pillar; however, training must be conducted in the physical dimensions. Unless of course, someday ?American? technology leads Basic and all Special Op trainings, to be all done online, by virtual reality and by video gaming.
Now, for Pillar's viewpoint to gain traction, why isn't he going all-out and support a much more extensive eavesdropping operation globally? Like.....The Patriot Act? Like....immunity for telecoms? Like.....total monitoring of electronic funds transfers (that was highly secretive & successful until the traitorous NYT blew the cover off)?
Another word, we are paying in blood for accomplishments that could well be done by bits and bytes!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 10:09am
Now, for Pillar's viewpoint to gain traction, why isn't he going all-out and support a much more extensive eavesdropping operation globally? Like.....The Patriot Act? Like....immunity for telecoms? Like.....total monitoring of electronic funds transfers (that was highly secretive & successful until the traitorous NYT blew the cover off)?
Another word, we are paying in blood for accomplishments that could well be done by bits and bytes!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 10:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
Hap - just plain stupid. FBI & CIA & Foreign Intelligence knew about the 9/11 culprits long in advance.
Patriot Act is being used to spy on private citizens, far beyond its intended scope.
You are being into all the monkey scare - one screams and the rest panic. That is precisely what they want you to do.
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 10:49am
Patriot Act is being used to spy on private citizens, far beyond its intended scope.
You are being into all the monkey scare - one screams and the rest panic. That is precisely what they want you to do.
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 10:49am
You Libs are so idealistic......gotta forgive you sometimes!
Most terrorists are "private citizens", no? Any of those arrested in NYC/Brooklyn are in the military of any country?
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 10:55am
Most terrorists are "private citizens", no? Any of those arrested in NYC/Brooklyn are in the military of any country?
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
Good question. So, you are for unrestrained domestic (private) eavesdropping?
So if the IRS comes knocking on your door for irregularities in your reported income this year, you'll not complain eh Hap?
Or, maybe Homeland Security pays you a visit, worried that racist remarks you've made may represent a threat to the President?
You for that?
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 11:22am
Biggest concern of mine is McChrystal...
if the guy will lie about Pat Tillman's death so easily, what ELSE will he lie about?
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:38am
Biggest concern of mine is McChrystal...
if the guy will lie about Pat Tillman's death so easily, what ELSE will he lie about?
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
Ya think McChrystal is the problem? Really? You think he just acted on his own with regard to Tillman?
The liar is still there. The truth tellers are gone. That should be your biggest concern outside of being dead wrong on the "war" in general.
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 11:48am
What happened to Obama? Why did he change? Is this who he really is? I know that he is better than anything the rebublicans have, but he needs to be a progressive leader and not a corporate monster. Americans first!!!! Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/16/2009 @ 09:52am | ignore this person | warn this person
--how dare you?!?!...you "right-winger" you!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:06pm
The liar is still there. The truth tellers are gone. That should be your biggest concern outside of being dead wrong on the "war" in general. Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
--Mask "dead wrong"?...I won't have it! heheh
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:08pm
Maybe the US should start putting on parades through the Capitol displaying our military might a la the old Soviet Union. Those massive, unrelenting & seemingly never ending messages to the world with virtually every general & high ranking pol in attendance standing high on their elevated outdoor dais were certainly enough to move our leaders & citizenry alike to a frenzy of fear & loathing.
Who needs Afghanistan when we've got Pennsylvania Ave.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/16/2009 @ 12:18pm
--Mask "dead wrong"?...I won't have it! heheh
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:08pm
What's your obsession with Mask?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:30pm
Most terrorists are "private citizens", no? Any of those arrested in NYC/Brooklyn are in the military of any country?
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
So, then, sounds like more of a law enforcement problem than a military one, eh?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/16/2009 @ 12:59pm
--Mask "dead wrong"?...I won't have it! heheh Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:08pm What's your obsession with Mask? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--Obsession? I have no choice, he "owns" me, right mask?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 1:23pm
--Obsession? I have no choice, he "owns" me, right mask?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 1:23pm
I don't think you can own a person.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:43pm
What's your obsession with Mask?----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:30pm
The usual....feed 'em and they focus on one person and follow them everywhere. With a little effort you can train them to fetch posts and re-post them, and get around Ignores!!!
But be sure and go "Bob Barker" on them...don't want strays starving in the streets of the Blogosphere.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:50pm
...sounds like more of a law enforcement problem than a military one, eh?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/16/2009 @ 12:59pm
Debatable ONLY if "law enforcement" don't use wiretaps, can instantly communicate w/every other country's "law enforcement", can parachute into areas filled w/caves, sling around in the dark w/night-vision goggles, can blend in with the locals (in full-body burkas of course), can speak any language, have MASH copters and tents minutes away......
Sure, you might have a point!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 2:32pm
What's your obsession with Mask?----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:30pm The usual....feed 'em and they focus on one person and follow them everywhere. With a little effort you can train them to fetch posts and re-post them, and get around Ignores!!! But be sure and go "Bob Barker" on them...don't want strays starving in the streets of the Blogosphere. LOL Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person |
--beck's trained him thoroughly!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:44pm
--beck's trained him thoroughly!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:44pm
Some weird folks on here.....
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:51pm
Really weird, CCC. "The most liberal poster on this blog" over on the Michael Moore thread sounding exactly like HAPP and Larry about Mr. Moore.
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 3:00pm
Anybody, please let me know when CCC spouts something critical of Magic....that's when he has turned into a Racist and will have earned a HAPPY Get Out of Jail Free card!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 3:27pm
Anybody, please let me know when CCC spouts something critical of Magic....that's when he has turned into a Racist and will have earned a HAPPY Get Out of Jail Free card!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 3:27pm
Eh, is he really arrogant enough to believe his ignore list matters to me?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:38pm
Ccccomf01--are you really arrogant enough to believe we care whether you call us "weird" or when you try to moderate the board content?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:45pm
Ccccomf01--are you really arrogant enough to believe we care whether you call us "weird" or when you try to moderate the board content?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:45pm
No I don't believe you care at all.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:57pm
Ccccomf01--are you really arrogant enough to believe we care whether you call us "weird" or when you try to moderate the board content?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:45pm
I don't know what the lesson is you're trying to push here, but for someone so critical of Mask you sure do act a lot like him with your attempt at "gotcha" moments.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:57pm
Oh and also I'm not trying to moderate the boards. I am asking that the moderators moderate the boards like they have in the past.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
Also is weird an insult? In opinion it isn't
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
cccomf01--what do your last 4 posts have to do with the blog above?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
cccomf01--what do your last 4 posts have to do with the blog above?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
They are in response to you which is above my post.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:08pm
cccomf01--what do your last 4 posts have to do with the blog above?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
Keep trying for that gotcha maybe you'll get there.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:08pm
cccomf01--what do your last 4 posts have to do with the blog above?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
No where in here have I started a new topic of subject. I have always simply responded to the posts above mine. If you know how this all works each post creates a new possible topic of response however in a well moderated forum the topics are always based on the original post. This forum allows for anyone to post about whatever is bugging them. The people who are on topic are the ones addressing the posts above theirs and the overall topic at hand.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:16pm
Mr. Dreyfuss wrote of the signers of this letter that they were "an ad hoc group that includes representatives from the New America Foundation, the Cato Institute, and other moderate and libertarian-minded thinkers."
I just wanted to strike a note of caution and say that while some of these folks may be libertarians or moderates, we shouldn't confuse NOT being a neo-conservative or a hopped up interventionist with being a moderate. Some of the signers are in fact solid conservatives who probably belong to one of the following three schools of foreign policy thought:
- the "realists," who have no problem invading a country like Panama or supporting the Contras, Jonas Savimbi, or even Pol Pot if it fits into their conception of U.S. national - i.e., corporate or imperialist - interests;
- the "isolationists," who generally prefer to only engage in military action if the homeland or "our way of life" is directly under threat; or
- the "nationalists," who, while they are very much America Firsters, seem to lie between the two other camps, being less cautious than the isolationists but more cautious than the realists in defining American interests.
There are political moderates, liberals, conservatives and progressives who are interventionists ("Out of Iraq and Into Darfur!"), "realists," nationalists and isolationists. Hell, there are even some neo-cons (Ben Wattenberg for one) who are closer to the realist or nationalist schools than the interventionists like Bill Kristol and Co. A general political outlook does not neccessarilly match one-on-one with a foreign policy outlook.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/16/2009 @ 4:33pm
Bush lied when he claimed that the Taliban refused to negotiate the surrender of Al Qaida leaders. We have no evidence about what the Taliban will negotiate other than what Bush said.
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 4:37pm
Bush lied when he claimed that the Taliban refused to negotiate the surrender of Al Qaida leaders. We have no evidence about what the Taliban will negotiate other than what Bush said.
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 4:37pm
You can't be that ignorant of history. try googling
even Commondreams.org has a press notice on it.
<Published on Sunday, September 16, 2001 by the Associated Press
Pakistan to Demand Bin Laden
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan –– A delegation of senior Pakistani officials will go to Afghanistan on Monday to demand that the ruling Taliban militia hand over Osama bin Laden to the United States, a top government official said.
The Taliban have steadfastly refused to hand him over despite two rounds of U.N. sanctions that have cut off funds to the national airline and isolated Taliban leaders.
The Taliban say bin Laden is a guest. The Taliban's reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has said in the past that delivering bin Laden to non-Muslims would be akin to betraying a tenet of Islam.>
http://tinyurl.com/os9z8o
<Taliban maintains refusal to turn over bin Laden.
Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL) | October 2, 2001
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan _ Defying new military warnings from the United States and Britain on Tuesday, Afghanistan's Taliban government again refused to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and disregarded the American threat to its regime.
"Only Allah changes the regime," the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said at a news conference in Quetta, Pakistan.>
http://tinyurl.com/qewrue
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 4:53pm
Yeah, and Saddam Hussein refused to hand over the non-existent WMDs, and Saddam Hussein refused to do anything about the Al Qaida Ricin Factory in Northern Iraq -- even after the United Nations and delegations of the willing went over there.
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:22pm
Plus, the most recent claim you can make about the Taliban's position on supporting Al Qaida is 2001 - somewhat dated don't you think, Conservative?
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:43pm
Plus, the most recent claim you can make about the Taliban's position on supporting Al Qaida is 2001 - somewhat dated don't you think, Conservative?
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:43pm
So you are changing the question and then claiming my answer doesn't meet the new question.
<Bush lied when he claimed that the Taliban refused to negotiate the surrender of Al Qaida leaders. We have no evidence about what the Taliban will negotiate other than what Bush said.
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 4:37pm>
I didn't know George Bush was still in office.
You made a charge ABOUT EVENTS IN 2001. I proved you are lying about events in 2001. Now you attempt to shift the goal posts and charge me with a 2001 answer to current events.
Get real
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 6:11pm
cka2nd
A real traditional Nationalist finds nothing wrong in the U.S. dominating the Americas, but opposes intervention in Europe and the Mideast. As the current imperialist power brokers are not nearly satisfied with that geopolitically natural "America First" arrrangement, a trad. nationalist fidns it necessary to withdraw support for hemispheric domination until such time as they do.
Posted by zionopp at 09/16/2009 @ 6:23pm
You can't be that ignorant of history. try googling
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 4:53pm
And if you google it (rather than googling what you believe) you'll find that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden provided that evidence linking Bin Landen to 911 was provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
On 21 September 2001, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the 11 September attacks.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 6:55pm
The Taliban refused again and again and again to hand over bin Laden. Then, AFTER we started bombing them, they said they WOULD hand him over to a third-world country like Sudan were he would be tried and likely found innocent IF we first gave them evidence of his guilt that THEY would deem sufficient or insufficient to put him on trial.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 6:59pm
From that wiki article:
"The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.[125] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 7:04pm
The Taliban refused again and again and again to hand over bin Laden.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 6:59pm
Because the US refused again and again and again to produce evidence linking Bin Laden to 911.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 7:07pm
Do you think Osama was innocent?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 7:50pm
If so, who is responsible? Bush?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 7:51pm
Do you think Osama was innocent?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 7:50pm
Of course not, but the Taliban had a right to ask for evidence no?
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 7:57pm
Is the war fighting in Afghanistan to fight the good war on terror, nation-building, or is the only super power left in the world and its very powerful allies doing combat over there, in that otherwise worthless, desolate land, for the only things of value in Afghanistan -- oil/gas and opium? If Ben Laden & Al Qaida are across the border in Pakistan, still not captured, and the war on terror therefore mere flummery; and if the idea of building a nation where none has ever existed proves ephemeral, as it seems to be, then we are left with no other conclusion than we are wasting blood and treasure just so some people can make money from Afghanistan oil/gas and opium. Shouldn't we all, conservative, independent and liberal, just admit that now and refocus on just what America should be doing in the region before we face another disaster like Vietnam?
Posted by dont_know at 09/16/2009 @ 8:08pm
No. Those war criminals had no right at all to make demands of US, the United States of America, as if there was some co-equivalent legitimacy between their barbarous, depraved rule and its massacres of hundreds of thousands of innocents as direct and indirect consequences of their rule and the secular vanguard democracy that we represent, a source of hope to the millions of Afghans who rely on us for food, to the 47,500 Afghan women and children we save each year due to improved healthcare, and to the brutalized and miserable people of Sudan, who join together in refugee camps and chant "Welcome Welcome USA, Welcome Welcome International Force" in the hope that America will save them from their nightmare of genocide and slavery. These criminal thugs who plant IEDs in schools built for girls cannot be reasoned with. They attacked our country on 9/11, and they had the nerve to demand that WE meet standards THEY set for US before they handed over to an Islamic court in a third-world country the man who they harbored and funded and who lead the assault?!? These weak, puny cowards with no culture or intellect or civilization who live like cavemen are so arrogant they did not grasp just HOW MUCH stronger we are then them. They cannot threaten us. We killed thousands and thousands and thousands of them with very few troops and ousted the Taliban regime and made it flee in cowardice and shame in 2001. The Soviets tried to beat them. They killed over a million Afghans in their effort but they still failed. These clowns have to steal airplanes they could never build in order to bring down in flames buildings that could never be the product of their culture.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 8:35pm
They have no strength over us, no virtues, no morals, and no contributions of any merit at all to the world. We overthrew them in the blink of an eye, like a god or a force of nature. We bombed them and the fools and barbarians fled in utter terror, and they cracked under the fear that never could shatter American resolve and that failed to when 9/11 only mobilized us! We need not appease them or regard their culture or enslavement of women as a society of value equal in legitimacy to our own. We could crush them, and so we did. There was no need to ask for an apology for 9/11, to negotiate over their dozens of internationally renowned terror camps, or to plead with them to allow in enough food aid needed to avert the mass starvation their actions had made a real possibility when they still ruled the country in 2001 (when the U.N. estimated that a quarter of the population (5.5 million people) would be reliant on food aid if they were to stay alive through November) and that America prevented. We are civilization, they are barbarism. We are morally and intellectually and culturally superior and militarily superior as well. We had no need or reason to appease these fools in order to satisfy their vulgar hysterical hubris. They honestly thought that America was so weak that after 9/11, THEY could make demands of US and threaten US with consequences if we failed to meet them! I'm glad we have destroyed that illusion of America as a paper tiger. We have massacred thousands and thousands of jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have been fighting for eight years and have not given up. AQ in its writings has expressed utter shock that we showed such nerve in our response to 9/11, which they figured would be a couple of well-aimed cruise missiles.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 8:52pm
Those war criminals had no right at all to make demands of US, the United States of America
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 8:35pm
What made them war criminal? Were they war criminals when they were invited to Texas as gusts of Unocal?
As you might recall, Ronald Reagan was happy to deal with these thugs, calling them freedom fighters who held the same values as our founding fathers, while they were throwing acid in the faces of women.
As vile as they are, they had nothing to do with 911.
Why do you persist with this lie?
Why should we not show the world the evidence that Bin Laden perpetrated 911?
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 8:55pm
They have no strength over us, no virtues, no morals, and no contributions of any merit at all to the world.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 8:52pm
That's not what Ronald Reagan said. he said they were freedom fighters who exemplified the values of our founding fathers.
As for the fact that we bombed them and managed to defeat them, are you implying that anyone who is unable to withstand our massive military might is not deserving of human rights?
All your screeds about how much you hate them are entirely irrelevant. The Taliban were in power and George Bush's friends were happy to deal with them. In fact, had the Taliban agreed to the pipeline deal, we might well have left them alone. That is why we told them that they had to choose between a future paved with gold or paved with bombs.
We didn't bomb them becasue they are uncivilized barbarians. We bombed them becasue they wouldn't let us have our pipeline. After all, it's no coincidence that our hand picked puppet was a former UNOCAL employee.
Oh and BTW. Bush allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders to escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:02pm
There is plenty of evidence.
If the Taliban was not convinced it was sufficient to give OBL a show-trial "under Islamic law" in a third-world country like Sudan (while still keeping intact their dozens of internationally renowned terror camps), fuck them. We can kill the thugs, Bush reasoned; we need not appease them or worry about what their fellow jihadists might think of us if we do so.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:06pm
"Bush allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders to escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan."
Because he relied on the Northern Alliance to do what American troops can do better than anyone else.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:08pm
We overthrew them in the blink of an eye, like a god or a force of nature.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 8:52pm
Did we?
Funny how we're still trying to overthrow them , 7 years later. With all our weaponry and technology and civility, a bunch of barbarians have managed to stave off a coalition of the world's most powerful military forces.
Obviously they are not the cowards you claim they are.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:08pm
1st, I suggest that the warmongers try the reciprocity rule:
every single country that has been vandalized by Oncle Sam should send over their war machines, (infantry, mercenaries and all) to invade the US of A in retaliation for its crimes.
It would be legitimate for the Vietnamese to occupy Kansas in order for them to protect themselves against yet another orgy of blood, death and suffering.
(They might as well try to occupy France as well who vandalized and humiliated the Vietnamese before Washington tryed to succeed where Paris failed in imposing its will on these martyrized people.)
And then add Cuba, the Philippines, Iraq, Panama, the Congo, etc., etc. etc. the list is almost endless...
2nd, they werent any Afghanis in 9/11. No Afghanis participated in it in any way. Period.
3rd, even if the Taliban government is guilty of harboring terrorists, well then, tell us: what country, starting with the US, isnt?
4th, Afghanistan has not attacked any country since... the days of the Moghul empire and the Khan dynasties.
And 5th, how is the Taliban regime a real menace to the world anyways? It isnt.
Even if were, invading their country, imposing on Afghanis foreign rule (and trying to reach other imperialist and mercantilist goals at the same time) is not and will never will be a solution.
Get real.
Its time to look for alternatives to war and unilateral attempts at imposing ones will on other peoples.
But wait! Its been time for millenias, theyre is nothing new here.
Peacefully yours.
Posted by Karim_B at 09/16/2009 @ 9:12pm
"Obviously they are not the cowards you claim they are."
Of course they are, or they'd all be dead. Why don't they abide by the rules to which civilized nations adhere during war? Why don't they march as one wearing the same, easily identifiable uniform? Why don't they stop hiding in caves in Pakistan and coming out of hiding only to attack Americans when their backs are turned or to through acid in the faces of little girls?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:15pm
Because he relied on the Northern Alliance to do what American troops can do better than anyone else.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:08pm
Wrong.
As Sy Hersh reported in the article, "The Escape", the airlift out of Afghanistan took place with US permission.
Bin laden was allowed to escape from Tora Bora because US forces were instructed to only block one of the exits.
Bin Laden and a thousand of his operatives were allowed to escape via a convoy in November 2001, even though US pilots would have easily been able to spot them.
Bush admitted that he was never concerned with catching Bin Laden.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:17pm
"We didn't bomb them becasue they are uncivilized barbarians. We bombed them becasue they wouldn't let us have our pipeline."
According to who? Ted Rall? No serious person takes such conspiracy theories even remotely seriously.
You're soft on jihad.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:18pm
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:17pm
Lies.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:19pm
Why don't they march as one wearing the same, easily identifiable uniform? Why don't they stop hiding in caves in Pakistan and coming out of hiding only to attack Americans when their backs are turned or to through acid in the faces of little girls?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:15pm
For the same reason US troops stop using RV's and armored personnel carriers and just walk out in the open. Any military force will always play to it's own strengths if they are serious about winning.
Reagan thought that throwing acid in the faces of girls was a virtue held by America's founding fathers. republicans are strange people.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:20pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:19pm
"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden"
General Richard Myers, US Military Chairman, 2001
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:22pm
You're soft on jihad.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:18pm
How anti semitic of you!!
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 9:25pm
"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden"
His full remarks were:
"Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden. Obviously, that's desirable.
Interesting, I just read a piece by some analysts that said you may not want to go after the top people in these organizations. You may have more effect by going after the middle men, because they're harder to replace. I don't know if that's true, or not, and clearly we would like to eventually get bin Laden.
But I think the fact that we've been able to disrupt operations, get a lot of the people just under him and maybe just a little bit further down, has had some impact on their operations. We now have disrupted, you know, four, five, six, seven active operations that they had planned and probably more that we don't know about.
So we're going to keep the hunt on. Finding one person, as we've talked about before, is a very difficult prospect, but we will keep trying."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:34pm
As Rumsfeld said:
"My attitude is that if [bin Laden] were gone tomorrow, the same problem would exist. He's got a whole bunch of lieutenants who have been trained and they've got bank accounts all over some 50 or 60 countries. Would you want to stop him? Sure. Do we want to stop the rest of his lieutenants? You bet. But I don't get up in the morning and say that is the end; the goal and the endpoint of this thing. I think that would be a big mistake."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:34pm
"You're soft on jihad.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:18pm
How anti semitic of you!!"
How so?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:36pm
1st, I suggest that the warmongers try the reciprocity rule:
every single country that has been vandalized by Oncle Sam should send over their war machines, (infantry, mercenaries and all) to invade the US of A in retaliation for its crimes.
It would be legitimate for the Vietnamese to occupy Kansas in order for them to protect themselves against yet another orgy of blood, death and suffering.
(They might as well try to occupy France as well who vandalized and humiliated the Vietnamese before Washington tryed to succeed where Paris failed in imposing its will on these martyrized people.)
And then add Cuba, the Philippines, Iraq, Panama, the Congo, etc., etc. etc. the list is almost endless...
2nd, they werent any Afghanis in 9/11. No Afghanis participated in it in any way. Period.
3rd, even if the Taliban government is guilty of harboring terrorists, well then, tell us: what country, starting with the US, isnt?
4th, Afghanistan has not attacked any country since... the days of the Moghul empire and the Khan dynasties.
And 5th, how is the Taliban regime a real menace to the world anyways? It isnt.
Even if were, invading their country, imposing on Afghanis foreign rule (and trying to reach other imperialist and mercantilist goals at the same time) is not and will never will be a solution.
Get real.
Its time to look for alternatives to war and unilateral attempts at imposing ones will on other peoples.
But wait! Its been time for millenias, theyre is nothing new here.
Peacefully yours.
Posted by Karim_B at 09/16/2009 @ 9:39pm
Warmongers whether Al-Qaida or pro-US imperialism all sound the same. Extremists all, whathever their religion or lack thereof.
Posted by Karim_B at 09/16/2009 @ 9:40pm
Foreign Policy also has a piece on "The Next Osama" they just put out.
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/10/the_next_osama
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:42pm
Because the US refused again and again and again to produce evidence linking Bin Laden to 911.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 7:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Strange how the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List still doesn't directly link OBL to 9/11.
Very strange.
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
Yes, and the next Kissingers, McNamaras, Reagan, Bushes and Eric Prince are not very far either.
Posted by Karim_B at 09/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
Did anyone REALLY expect the neocons to crawl under a rock when Wolfie got the boot and Scooter got caught and Judith got a gag and Jack got jail time and Ariel got a permanent IV tube? Nah, these 'guys' may be going to Hell, but they won't go voluntarily and they'll try everything they can to take us with them. Afghanistan is just one small part of The Plan.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/16/2009 @ 9:50pm
Strange how the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List still doesn't directly link OBL to 9/11.
Very strange.
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
Which is probably why they didn't hand the evidence to the Taliban.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 10:10pm
Foreign Policy also has a piece on "The Next Osama" they just put out.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 9:42pm
The next Osama, the next Hitler, the next Saddam. America is always on the look out for new boogie men.
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 10:11pm
"The next Osama, the next Hitler, the next Saddam. America is always on the look out for new boogie men."
Someone has to fight the forces of evil in the world.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 10:24pm
Someone has to fight the forces of evil in the world.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 10:24pm
While we keep propping them up? Who would that be?
Posted by Shingo at 09/16/2009 @ 11:03pm
>>>He points out that preparations for 9/11 "took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."<<<
Sorry I missed this but I am jet-lagged in Europe and have been preoccupied with other projects.
I think the last quote for STEPHEN WALT hits the nail on the head! 9/11 was PLANNED in Afghanistan but EXECUTED from various places around the world.
I still think many progressives are not appreciating the "special politics" unique to Obama in Afghanistan, in that he in particular CANNOT allow ANY attack to be planned from terrorists in Afghanistan regardless of where it is ultimately executed. If an Afghan connection is made to a future attack, OBAMA IS TOAST!
If Obama fails, so does the progressive agenda in America, and we end up in 2012 with someone WORSE THAN BUSH like Sarah Palin!
Since we have waited nearly 30 years since Ronald Reagan to remake America based on our progressive ideals, we simply cannot afford to over-look Obama's unique Afghanistan problem, and nation-building IS the progressive answer to an occupation that only serves narrow corporate interests.
Cato is an isolationist oriented (as in Pat Buchanan) group, so I do not know why you are citing their conservative thinking at all, ROBERT DREYFUSS. They would have America roll up its tent everywhere in the world, and pretend there is no affect on America based on events occurring around the world.
America is NOT an island, and we must therefore lead the world in a PROGRESSIVE direction!
Posted by Metteyya at 09/17/2009 @ 03:52am
As an aside, I was in Switzerland yesterday and the SELFISHNESS that is the centerpiece of the Ayn Rand conservative ideal is still very much alive. I even got looks of astonishment as I held the door open for others as I exited several buildings.
Re-connecting with others, showing kindness and genuine compassion for other people are PROGRESSIVE ideals, and it is these ideals America should help spread around the world!
Posted by Metteyya at 09/17/2009 @ 04:02am
Well, we have elected a president who was supposed to get us out of Iraq and we're still there, and we're escalating in Afghanistan.
Today, I see that good ole Max Baucus came up with a healthcare bill that was so corrupt that the stock in every health insurance company went up. Baucus is a crook and should be removed from his office or at least removed from his chairman position in the senate.
If this is what the democratic party calls change, then voting for them isn't any different whatsoever to voting republican. Because I live in Georgia, I know my vote counts for nill, but democrats across the nation have to be pissed off to the nth degree from the political circus we've been observing from the party that is supposed to represent us.
The green party is looking better and better every day. They won't win any elections, but then again, corrupt dems won't either. From what we've seen, having the democrats in office as the majority party in both houses of congress and the white house has produced nothing.
Here's a list of what the democrats accomplisments. 1) Blackwater is still working for the state department and conducting "security" operations. 2) The healthcare bill Baucus put forward looks like the healthcare industry wrote it themselves. 3) We are still in Iraq. 4) We're escalating in Afghanistan 5) They bailed out wallstreet and the banks and have zero oversight of what is going on with that money. 6) No regulations regarding banking and or wallstreet have been passed to make sure that the derivative fiasco that took place won't take place again. 7) None of the Bush administration has been held accountable for crimes committed in broad daylight.
This country is screwed with it's one party system folks. All reps sold-out.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 06:36am
"Someone has to fight the forces of evil in the world."-----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/16/2009 @ 10:24pm
I take it you are in your 40s or more in age?
Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 07:36am
Strange how the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List still doesn't directly link OBL to 9/11.
Very strange.
Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
No it's not...
<In all, the 9/11 attacks were viewed as an "act of war", and the U.S. government is responding accordingly. During the Clinton administration, terrorism was handled more as a matter of law enforcement. This change in how terrorism is handled may be yet another reason why the U.S. government has not bothered to formally indict Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.
Regarding this matter, FBI officials told the Washington Post:
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.">
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Osama_bin_Laden
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 10:26am
If you want to know why the Bush Administration let Ben Laden escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan read
"The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI" by Jonathan Beaty & S C Gwynne
and the research by Michel Chossudovsky, a Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html.
To understand why Obama is carrying on Bush's policies of fighting the Taliban and not Al Qaida read "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia "by Alfred W. McCoy.
In the two former sources, you will learn about Ben Laden's historical (not conspiracy theory) connections to the Bush family and the international drug trade.
In the latter you will learn about the real reasons behind the war in Vietnam.
Then perhaps you will learn why history is repeating itself in Afghanistan.
Conservatives say we are in Afghanistan to fight the war on terror (they are wrong).
Liberals say we are in Afghanistan to build a new nation there (can't be done).
The international drug dealers know the real reasons we are in Afghanistan. Isn't it about time you did also?
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 1:27pm
If you want to know why the Bush Administration let Ben Laden escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan read
"The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI" by Jonathan Beaty & S C Gwynne
and the research by Michel Chossudovsky, a Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html.
To understand why Obama is carrying on Bush's policies of fighting the Taliban and not Al Qaida read "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia "by Alfred W. McCoy.
In the two former sources, you will learn about Ben Laden's historical (not conspiracy theory) connections to the Bush family and the international drug trade.
In the latter you will learn about the real reasons behind the war in Vietnam.
Then perhaps you will learn why history is repeating itself in Afghanistan.
Conservatives say we are in Afghanistan to fight the war on terror (they are wrong).
Liberals say we are in Afghanistan to build a new nation there (can't be done).
The international drug dealers know the real reasons we are in Afghanistan. Isn't it about time you did also?
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 1:28pm
If you want to know why the Bush Administration let Ben Laden escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan read
"The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI" by Jonathan Beaty & S C Gwynne
and the research by Michel Chossudovsky, a Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html.
To understand why Obama is carrying on Bush's policies of fighting the Taliban and not Al Qaida read "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia "by Alfred W. McCoy.
In the two former sources, you will learn about Ben Laden's historical (not conspiracy theory) connections to the Bush family and the international drug trade.
In the latter you will learn about the real reasons behind the war in Vietnam.
Then perhaps you will learn why history is repeating itself in Afghanistan.
Conservatives say we are in Afghanistan to fight the war on terror (they are wrong).
Liberals say we are in Afghanistan to build a new nation there (can't be done).
The international drug dealers know the real reasons we are in Afghanistan. Isn't it about time you did also?
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 1:31pm
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 1:31pm
Another mindless leftwing moron.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 2:25pm
Another mindless leftwing moron.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Why are you so afraid of truth that you can't do anything but call people names. If the Bush family does not have ties to Ben Laden and international drug smuggling, then present your evidence. If drugs are not the number one commodity in the world, then present your evidence. If we were not in Vietnam for among other reasons, drugs, then present your evidence. If we are not in Afghanistan for opium, then present your evidence that we are not.
What you write should be interesting.
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 2:38pm
Why are you so afraid of truth that you can't do anything but call people names. If the Bush family does not have ties to Ben Laden and international drug smuggling, then present your evidence. If drugs are not the number one commodity in the world, then present your evidence. If we were not in Vietnam for among other reasons, drugs, then present your evidence. If we are not in Afghanistan for opium, then present your evidence that we are not.
What you write should be interesting.
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 2:38pm
Nice try but the onus is on you to substantiate your claims.
All of which are a lie. You are just another fringe moron who believes every radical conspiracy lie you read on the web.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm
ou are just another fringe moron who believes every radical conspiracy lie you read on the web.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The books I suggested you read are not on the web, they are in libraries or you can order them from Amazon, Borders or B&N.
Do you have anything to offer but calling me names?
From what you have written I suspect that you are also an apologist for that great right wing TV star, and drug dealer, Oliver North (remember Iran-Contra?).
Guys like you in your conservative ivory towers just don't want to admit that drugs both run, and ruin, societies nowadays. Your leaders from Buckley to Reagan to Bush are neck deep in the drug traffic. Many investment banks launder so much money for the drug traffic that they couldn't exist without drug profits. And some liberals are also caught up in the narco-financing just look at Soros.
Drugs, drugs, drugs. It's what makes the world go round.
But then again, what do I know. I am only another "fringe moron", according to you.
Posted by dont_know at 09/17/2009 @ 4:07pm
Paul Pillar remains conventional and wrong in his evaluation of Iraq. He does not understand why Vietnam was a mistake; that he has figured out our deployment in Afghanistan is pointless, is not such a big deal. Even a loon like Dreyfuss toots that horn.
What not Pillar or any of The Nation crowd has the stomach to examine, is the next step. If there are no compelling arguments for the US to squander its money and men in Afghanistan, why are we there? If there are no national security reasons, what is the reason?
There the fearless Nation is silent. It knows the reason. It is not so hard to figure out. It lacks the integrity and courage to speak the truth.
The answer is, Afghanistan is a political war, initially championed by the Left, but now it serves just one man, Barack Obama. And does not serve him well, another reason to speak out.
At first Afghanistan was pushed by the Left in the hope of pushing America's focus away from Iraq and saving Saddam's skin. That's when, Iraq the bad war, Afghanistan the good war mantra started. Obama, in 2002, was in the middle of that.
But in the 2008 campaign, when his judgment on Iraq and the Surge proved lamentable, he began making warlike noises on Afghanistan. He was indignant that the Republicans had reduced that war to a mere holding action. He vowed to make it the central front in the war on terror and fight it to victory. Now we, and he, are stuck with that political gambit. American lives and money are being pissed away to back up Obama's campaign dodge.
That no one on the left says this out loud, is willing to denounce Afghanistan as a political war, Obama's war, shows their the hollowness, their dishonesty, their rot.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/20/2009 @ 7:00pm