Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
President-elect Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need "to end the mindset that took us into" that war. So it's troubling that he ramped up his rhetoric during the campaign about exiting Iraq in order to focus on what he calls the "central front in the war on terror"--Afghanistan. His plan now calls for an escalation of 20,000 to 30,000 additional American troops over the next year--nearly doubling the current 32,000.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman criticized the Dems' position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived "bumper sticker politics." Too many of the leading Dems have become part of a poorly reasoned bipartisan consensus that threatens to entrap the US in another costly occupation--a war that New York Times columnist Bob Herbert describes as "more than seven years old and which long ago turned into a quagmire." It currently costs the Pentagon $2 billion per month to support the US troops in Afghanistan. An escalation would drain resources that are vital to President-elect Obama's goals for an economic recovery, health care, and social justice at home, while impeding other critical international initiatives such as the Middle East Peace process and a regional diplomacy in South Asia.
Once again, as in the run-up to the War in Iraq, too few people in Congress and the mainstream media are asking tough questions. There are some notable exceptions--see Friedman and Herbert--and in Congress, there's Senator Russ Feingold who writes in a recent op-ed:
Few people seem willing to ask whether the main solution that's being talked about- sending more troops to Afghanistan--will actually work. If the devastating policies of the current administration have proved anything, it's that we need to ask tough questions before deploying our brave service members--and that we need to be suspicious of Washington 'group think.' Otherwise, we are setting ourselves up for failure.
There are strategic reasons to oppose a military escalation and occupation. On national security grounds, a US occupation would be counterproductive to the stated goal of defeating Al Qaeda. The moment for action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was immediately after 9/11. Now, Al Qaeda operates out of Pakistan, and the key to reining it in lies with a democratic Pakistani government. Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, wrote about the "sinkhole" of Afghanistan in Newsweek:
The chief effect of military operations in Afghanistan so far has been to push radical Islamists across the Pakistani border. As a result, efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan, with potentially devastating implications.... To risk the stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake."
US occupation is also exacerbating tensions in South Asia where the Kashmir conflict and Mumbai attacks have nuclear-armed Pakistan and India at "each others' throats."
At a moment when US diplomatic leadership is needed to pursue peace, and cooperation is required to take on Al Qaeda, major groups within Pakistan's military and intelligence services are now providing support to Islamic extremists with the aim of thwarting US policy. The US is viewed as propping up an unpopular and corrupt Karzai government that New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins describes as "seem[ing] to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it," and "contributing to the collapse of public confidence... and to the resurgence of the Taliban." The Karzai government also aids and abets a flourishing narcotics trade. All of these factors fuel anti-American/anti-government sentiment in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But perhaps nothing causes rage towards the US more than mounting civilian casualties.
According to a report from Human Rights Watch documenting airstrikes and civilian deaths, the majority of deaths caused by international troops come from airstrikes. Using statistics provided by the US Central Command Air Forces, the report noted that US aircraft have dropped about as many tons of bombs in June and July this year as during all of 2006. At least 321 civilians were killed in NATO or US aerial raids this year--triple the number in 2006. A UN report now estimates that up to 500 Afghan civilians are dying monthly from US cluster bombs, most of them children and teenage boys. Finally, a UN study shows that civilian deaths have not only increased Afghan resentment of foreign forces but also motivated many of the suicide bombings. As an Afghan vegetable stand owner told the Washington Post, "I never heard of a suicide bomber in Afghanistan until the Americans and this government came."
The other often cited national security objective--ensuring that Afghanistan doesn't become a haven for terrorists--doesn't call for this kind of escalation. First, it doesn't make sense to fight an unwinnable war to prevent Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan if they can operate relatively freely in Pakistan. Also, it would be difficult to find a less attractive place strategically than Afghanistan from which to direct an international terrorist network or threaten US interests or global commerce.
What is required in order to pursue peace in the region is better delivery of targeted aid and reconstruction that improves the daily lives of the Afghanistan people. In a recent statement, the international relief and development organization Oxfam America urged a change of focus: "Unless the next American President...builds on the existing commitments to help lift the Afghan people out of extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will be impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace." Many argue that only increased presence of US troops will create the security needed for delivery of aid, but the Karzai government is too corrupt and too weak outside of Kabul to ensure that the aid goes to the people who need it. A negotiated settlement with elements of the Taliban would create far greater stability than we could ever hope to achieve through an escalation, arming militias, and doling out Viagra to tribal leaders--as the Washington Post reported last month is the practice of US intelligence officials.
Some raise human rights concerns about the consequence of a US/NATO departure. In particular, some groups feel that US troops are needed to protect Afghan girls and women. But many Afghan women activists and organizations -- like former Afghan parliament member Malalai Joya and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)--have called for a withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Here's how Joya put it: "Over 85 percent of Afghans are living below the poverty line and don't have enough to eat. While the US military spends $65,000 a minute in Afghanistan for its operations, up to 18 million people (out of a population of only 26 million) live on less than $2 US a day, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.... As soon as possible, the US/NATO troops must vacate our country. We want liberation, not occupation. With the withdrawal of occupation forces, we will only have to face one enemy instead of two." We currently spend $36 billion annually on military operations in Afghanistan which would climb with escalation. We've spent $11 billion since 2002 on non-military development. Withdrawal of troops doesn't end US aid--it allows resources to be spent more wisely, focusing on creating opportunities and rights for women, and alternatives to the narcotics trade for poor farmers. As Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of Afghan Women's Mission said, "For this, or any other idea to work, the US occupation must end. That's the first big step to recovery."
While President-elect Obama has the possibility of re-engaging with a world repulsed by the destructive polices of the Bush Administration, it is likely that escalating the war in Afghanistan will endanger that possibility. Escalation may cause a rift with European allies whose people have turned against this war, and our ability to extricate ourselves from the quagmire will only get harder. Consider the warning of former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski: "We are running the risk of repeating the mistake the Soviet Union made.... Our strategy is getting in deeper and deeper." Russian military officers caution that Afghans cannot be conquered, as the Soviets attempted to do in the 1980s with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the US currently have in the country and with three times the number of Afghan troops that Karzai can deploy.
The best prospect for more concerted action against Al-Qaeda is a planned withdrawal of US forces, and for reconstruction to be taken over by a multinational coalition that has as few American fingerprints as possible. The fact that this is an American project is the principal reason why Pakistani groups support the Islamic insurgents. To be fair, President-elect Obama has spoken on the importance development aid and resolving the opium trade; but military escalation remains the centerpiece of his plan. The point of withdrawal is not to abandon Afghanistan, but to take a different approach to targeted aid, smart diplomacy, and intelligence cooperation. A regional solution will be tough--one that involves Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, China, Russia, and Iran (who opposes the Taliban and also has its own fight with Afghan drug warlords on its border), as will a negotiated settlement between the Karzai government and the Taliban. But these should be the priorities of the Obama Administration, rather than sending more young men and women to die in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan and making this President Obama's War.
I will be blogging regularly on this issue as part of a campaign to stop the escalation. You can find others doing the same--and opportunities for action--at the soon to be up and running website, getafghanistanright.com.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
ain't gonna work.
these people don't want to be occupied.
and the nonsense in gaza ain't gonna help.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2009 @ 11:00am
<<The chief effect of military operations in Afghanistan so far has been to push radical Islamists across the Pakistani border. As a result, efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan, with potentially devastating implications.... To risk the stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake.">>
Though I think it's worth noting that Afghanistan also borders Iran (and thus having al Qaeda there is probably still bad), I think Bacevich actually makes a really solid point here. Giving al Qaeda access to Iran= bad. Destabilizing Pakistan= a whole lot worse. I've generally felt that leaving Afghanistan is intuitively bad (and I'm still not at all convinced we should leave no presence in the broad area), but this does make me second-guess that bit.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 11:14am
al qaeda = sunni.
iran = shia.
thrawn, do you know who the (u.s. sponsored, sshhhh) MEK is?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 11:14am
Yes, THRAWN....you DO know that Iran hates Al Qaeda, right???
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 11:46am
This war in Afghanistan is a lost cause as well, we've been there how long already...years and what has been achieved there? I don't know what makes us think we can fare any better than Russia and they never had a "victory" which is always our mantra!! I can't see any point in troop build up, but I guess that is what is going to happen anyway.
Posted by Caj at 01/08/2009 @ 12:23pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 11:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
'Over the last two decades, Iranians have increasingly become US-friendly, and this was best demonstrated in the days following the September 11 tragedy: They held candlelight vigils, minutes of silence in Tehran Stadium, and anti-Taliban and Al-Qaeda demonstrations. Even the conservative media and authorities followed the people by condemning the terrorist acts and offering sympathy and tangible support to the US-Afghan war.'
excerpt:
http://www.iranian.com/HooshangAmirahmadi/2002/February/Bush/index.html
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 12:26pm
Really rather surprised. Despite the noticeable right-wing bent of THRAWN, he's usually smarter than to fall into the LVLIB/SJCHER/etc. mode of "All them A-rab terr'urrists are the same, all butt buddies!".
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 12:31pm
I can't see any point in troop build up, but I guess that is what is going to happen anyway.
Posted by Caj at 01/08/2009 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Going to be interesting to see how we are going supply our troops through Pakistan. We are going to have to make a huge commitment to Pakistan as well in our efforts to remake Afghanistan. The troop surge contemplated is only the begining.
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 12:33pm
Really rather surprised. Despite the noticeable right-wing bent of THRAWN, he's usually smarter than to fall into the LVLIB/SJCHER/etc. mode of "All them A-rab terr'urrists are the same, all butt buddies!".
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes....I think Thrawn may not have had his morning coffee. For Liv & Sjcher, they all get lumped into the Islamo-fascist melting pot without much differentiation. Where is Joe Lieberman when the hawks stumble?
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 12:38pm
Rest assured all ye supporters of change, BOH will cave in like all good lefties do and give our enemies' what ever they demand (without getting any assurances from them) and hope and pray they don't decide to use the money we give them and attack us again.
**It never ceases to amaze me how the left always makes a good case for getting thrown out office.**
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Caj at 01/08/2009 @ 12:23pm
Don't worry Caj, the magic one is using one of is parlor tricks again. I have absolutely zero faith in him staying the course in Afghanistan.
You'll see after January 20th, he'll call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and use part of the stimulus money to pay off the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Don't worry about the money so much, it's the same model other countries use when paying a randsom to kidnappers. OK?
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 1:12pm
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 12:57pm
ACOOK, Osama bin Laden wanted us to pull out of Saudi Arabia (from the bin Sultan Air Base)....and Bush did that.
He wanted the US to give the appearance of a US-led (not international) "occupation", even "crusade" against an Islamic country.....and Bush did that.
He wanted America to reject its freedoms and live in fear.....and Bush promoted that.
And he wanted to remain free and uncaptured....and....well, you know.
So please explain how it's "the left" who "give our enemies' what ever they demand"????
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 1:13pm
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 12:57pm
Do you like sounding like a partisan idiot? Or do you just do it for show?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 1:20pm
You'll see after January 20th, he'll call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and use part of the stimulus money to pay off the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Don't worry about the money so much, it's the same model other countries use when paying a randsom to kidnappers. OK? Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 1:12pm
Do you have any actual proof of this? Oh wait no. Amazing, your just as bad as the sky is falling liberals.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 1:22pm
>>>The moment for action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was immediately after 9/11. Now, Al Qaeda operates out of Pakistan, and the key to reining it in lies with a democratic Pakistani government.<<<
One of the great strengths of Obama is he is capable of adjusting his view based on new information and changing circumstances, and DOES listen to many different voices before making a decision.
The Pakistan reality you cite above has not been lost on Obama, and he clearly has the ability to change course with a "limited" more strategic force in Afghanistan capbale of backing up special forces operating in BOTH Afghanistan and Pakistan and engage in the nation-building activities required in some of these previously ungovernable regions so that the place does not fall back into a haven for terrorists who want to harm this country.
Also, the immediate economic crisis does perhaps temper and provide cover to adjust some of the escalation plans in Afghanistan, as "leaner" efforts that can be effective at rooting out Al Qaeda and their supporters in the region are clearly needed.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/08/2009 @ 1:48pm
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 1:13pm
We on "the right" didn't give our enemies squat.
Sorry, the first statement doesn't fly. The US leaving the saudi air base had nothing to do with Bin Laden. It had everything to do with the US fulfilling its military obligations.
Second statement, not true either. It was the left and anti-war activists who started the "occupation" theme campaign.
Third statement, not true either. Bush wanted everyone to go about their daily lives after 9/11 hit and to show the terrorist that Americans will not live in fear. The fear mongering was the work of the MSM and the fringe left.
Fouth statement, yeah we missed killing him in Torra Bora. We would have had him had Pakistan not helped him cross over into their country. Our biggest mistake was neogitaing trade deals with the Musharaff government in exchange for their assistance in capturing bin Ladin. They had no intentions of helping us. My feelings are we should have bombed their bad lands the moment they renegned on the deal.
This is one of the few intances that has me miffed with the President. Had he taught the Pakistani government a lesson, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Trust me when I say this Mask, your mystical leader is going to give into a lot of demands that will not change the mindset of those who want to keep the chaos going.
BTW, that crazy german who's no match for you intellectually, has you on ignore. Says you and I are a part of his "dirty dozen" list. What ever that means.
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 1:53pm
"Do you have any actual proof of this? Oh wait no. Amazing, your just as bad as the sky is falling liberals.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 1:22pm
Oh come C3, he just trying to sound tough, come January 20th all bets are off the table.
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 1:59pm
what have the taleban ever done to us? what have the warlords ever done for us? we gave them suitcases stuffed with cash, and took their side in the civil war in afghanistan. we even gave the taleban suitcases of cash, before 9/11. we also have 100,000 sunni baathists in Iraq on the payroll, as well as the entire shia puppet gov't. more suitcases of cash, big, big cash.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
How absolutely mind-numbingly imbecilic to so enthusiastically support a man for president and then, after having seen to his election, to spend most of your time "blogging regularly on this issue as part of a campaign to stop the escalation". Wouldn't the most elementary common sense have mandated the election of someone inimical to the idea of escalation in the first place, someone like Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin, for example? And many here dismissed the idea of a Nader vote because it was insufficiently "practical". How practical might you think was a design to elect a known escalator only later to engage in a campaign to repudiate him. Some here needs an enema.
Posted by john lowell at 01/08/2009 @ 2:14pm
Oh come C3, he just trying to sound tough, come January 20th all bets are off the table. Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 1:59pm
Again you have zero evidence. You don't even have an iota of platform to stand on while making this statement. You are just shooting off at the mouth like all the liberals you claim to despise. See you are no better and you are just as arrogant to think you are better than anyone else.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 2:23pm
**It never ceases to amaze me how the left always makes a good case for getting thrown out office.**
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 12:57pm | warn this person
Wasn't it your President who turned back the clock on progress in Afghanistan?
Things in Afghanistan and Pakistan would look very different today had we not invaded and occupied Iraq. Now that our military resources have been squandered, and we are bogged down in Iraq for some time to come, our options are limited despite the will to prolong the war.
Just a reminder, your party lost its majority and the executive branch. The "wars" and their attending negative effects on our collective pysche and economy were big reasons why.
And no, we can't just continue to print money to fund the wars. Are you serious? Ask some folks what devaluation of currency does to their livelihood. Former Soviet satellites would be a good place to start. It is fricking devastating. When baby boomers are starting to retire, you want to devalue the currency by printing money to fund the wars? What about our children?
I tell you what, if folks had starting paying the tax bill to fund these "wars" on a pay as you go basis, I believe we would have been out of both Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago. The pain is to come. Lets not make worse.
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 2:41pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 2:23pm
C3, I've been voting in elections since I turned 18 years old. That was 28 years ago. I've seen more than my fair share of back peddling by all the occupants of the WH. Besides, you were barely a twikle in your mother's eye when I cast my first ballot. You and my middle son are around the same age (he's 22).
And no I don't despise liberals because my and my husband's family are full of them. Gotta deal with the hand you're dealt with ;-)
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 2:41pm
ACCOK, basic facts-
1. Obama's main stated "problem" with us was that we had bases in "the holy land" of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina are.....Bush removed that when he closed the bin Sultan Air Base.
2. In addition to "the left"...it is the Arab World that also call it an occupation...and Bush who accidentially called it a "crusade". bin Laden's case was aided by Dubya.
3. Patriot Act, NSA wiretaps, habeus corpus rejection, TORTURE....not "routine America" after 9/11.
4. Dubya called Pakistan one of our allies....was he wrong and they were aiding and abetting bin Laden?!??!?!?
Finally,
"Trust me when I say this Mask, your mystical leader is going to give into a lot of demands that will not change the mindset of those who want to keep the chaos going."----Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 1:53pm
If the chaos is on-going, and Obama isn't President yet....who gets the blame for the ON-GOING chaos?????
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 2:42pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 2:41pm
My dear OV, our external wars aren't the cause of our internal financial problems. Had your beloved Congress not crawled in the bed with special interests groups and lobbyists looking to de-regulate everything in sight and giving the banking institutions free reign by repealing the Glass-Stegal Act, along with a heavy dose of pork, we wouldn't be in this predicament.
The purse strings have always been in the control of Congress, not the WH.
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are spot on Mask. Osama on the run my ass.
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 2:57pm
Oh an a side note to all especially people like LVL who claim Israel has the best intelligence. Anyone hear about Israel attacking a UN relief convoy at a checkpoint and killing one of the drivers? Leading to the UN having to suspend deliveries. Yeah good job Israel. No better way to show the world that you are humanitarian and just trying to protect yourselves like killing UN Humanitarian aid delivery drivers.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 3:01pm
The purse strings have always been in the control of Congress, not the WH. Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 2:53pm'
And Congress was controlled by Republicans for 8 years prior to Democrats taking over, and they did just a bang up job there.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 3:03pm
The purse strings have always been in the control of Congress, not the WH.
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 2:53pm | warn this person
Granted - Congress gets its share of blame for our military misadventures and economy. But George was the biggest cheerleader. And deficit spending for the wars was funded to a large extent by overseas lenders, including the Chinese, who came a calling. Where do you think much of the so called TARP money has gone? Ever wonder why there is no transparency or accountability?
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 3:11pm
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 2:42pm
1. I don't care what Bin Ladin alleges. His main issue with the US was its continued support of Israel. The Saudi Air Base was an after thought.
2. And the Arab world calls the Israelis occupiers too. I can't defend Bush's words on calling the war a "crusade". It was a very poor word choice.
3. Oh please! Congress passed every one of those Acts with little opposition. And, the left didn't start screaming foul until their poll numbers took a nose dive. They were just as eager as the right to pass them.
4. Yes, the President was wrong on calling Pakistan an ally (IMO). And yes I think they are providing support to Al Qaeda.
And as far as my last statement is concerned, the taliban and Al Qaeda are to blame for the on-going chaos.
(You thought I was going to say GWB, didn't you...hehehe.. :-) Gotcha!!
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 3:19pm
Treasury credit default swaps rise dramatically
Tags: bond market, capital markets, credit default swaps, treasury bonds
Posted July 16th, 2008 By Edward Harrison |
As you would expect, the market sees the U.S. Government as much less creditworthy. Note the rise in credit default swaps on U.S. Treasuries.
The question is: when will its foreign government supporters abandon a sinking ship.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/ treasury-credit-default-swaps-rise.html
Now guess who underwrites default swaps on Treasury debt? Hint: AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman......ring a bell?
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 3:19pm
1. He was quite clear that having non-Muslims, especially Americans, on the sacred lands where Mecca and Medina are...were one of his reasons for attacking the United States. He wanted them removed....Bush removed them.
2. If the Arab World considers us in Iraq an "occupation" and (as you admit) Bush used the word "crusade"....then when bin Laden said that's what America was on 9/11 and before...
Bush proved him right, didn't he?
3. There were quite a lot of opponents to those Acts, but few could stand up to being placed in an ad with Saddam and bin Laden and surviving their careers...as Max Cleland's campaign showed. BTW, it's not just "the Left"...BOB BARR and many Republicans opposed those bills because they loved the Constitution, civil liberties, AND knew that it could be used against ANYBODY....even "pro-lifers" who could be linked to the likes of Eric Rudolph....
haven't YOU considered that? Especially with "all those leftists running things" under Obama?!??!??
4. Bush again failed. He supported the government and military (Pakistan) that lets bin Laden, much of Al Qaeda, and much of the Taliban remain free....
yet you still say it's "the left" who's aiding the enemy???
5. So Obama is to blame for any future "chaos"...and Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the present "chaos"...
wow...what a lucky break for Dubya, huh?
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 3:31pm
And Congress was controlled by Republicans for 8 years prior to Democrats taking over, and they did just a bang up job there.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 3:03pm
My dear, having a majority means nothing. The dems today have a much larger majority in both houses than any Republicans will ever have. Everything that was passed under the current administration had the full support of the minority democrats. Blue dogs dems, like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Billy Tauzin (ret.), and Jane Harmon, to name a few put their seal of approval on President Bush's proposals.
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
It take a large number of troops to occupy a country, and a volunteer army cannot handle it. We have enough firepower to destroy armies, but, as in Iraq, we don't have the troops to occupy the ground and provide security for the people. Counter insurgency is labor intensive, because firepower, sometimes, does not discriminate between the enemy and the innocent people around them. Unless they are counting on an "Awakening Movement" in Afghanistan, they still have too few troops there. I am rather wonder if there is a plan, or are they winging it?
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 3:31pm
1. Again, Bin Laden was not the cause of the US closing the base in Saudi Arabia period.
2. Your second statement is not clear to me. Run that by me again.
3. Uh, Bob Barr has been out of the House of Reps since 2003. And he was more concerned about his own ethics problems than his so-called love for the constitution. As far as the Consitution and civil liberties are concerned, I have yet to read where one native-born or naturalized American living within the US has had their rights violated or taken from them. If can recall, most who were under the microscope were under suspicion before the Patriot Act was passed.
4. And again, I stated it was a mistake for Bush to call Pakistan an ally. Also, I never said nor implied the left was aiding the enemy.
5. Al Qaeda and the Taliban will continue the chaos regardless to what we will do.
Posted by ACook at 01/08/2009 @ 4:14pm
'As the Bush presidency comes to the waning days of power, it is time to evaluate how well or poorly the administration has done in the one defining issue of his time in office: the international war against terrorism.
Sadly, it must be said … we lost. Osama bin Laden has extracted from the United States, more than anyone could have imagined, and he did so at a surprisingly low cost. In fact, we were complicit in our own failures.
Why attribute victory to bin Laden? After all, post Sept. 11, his safe harbor in Afghanistan was destroyed, he is holed up hiding somewhere (we presume) in a cave in the rugged hills of Pakistan, his al-Qaida network is without a home and without state protections … that sounds like defeat to most.
But bin Laden wasn't trying to gain territory or treasure, the conventional measures of victory in war. His goal was to tarnish the U.S. image as a force for good to reveal the "real America" as an evil influence or make our country something it was not, taking us a far cry from the ideals on which the nation stood for centuries. In that he has won an overwhelming victory. We abandoned our commitment to the rule of law, to humane treatment of prisoners, to the international agreements we had such a big role in developing. In short, we started down a road to becoming the thing we opposed.'
Excerpt:
http://www.lmu.edu/Page49110.aspx
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 4:17pm
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, Waiting for the women to carve up your remains, Roll on your rifle and blow out your brains, And go to your God like a soldier."
Rudyard Kipling
Posted by Publicus at 01/08/2009 @ 4:36pm
Rudyard Kipling
Posted by Publicus at 01/08/2009 @ 4:36pm
You can put your money on the fact that this was written by a Frenchman or Britton! They do hold the worlds records for surrender and defeat!!!
Posted by comanchenation at 01/08/2009 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Get out of the rez casinos comanche and visit a library once in awhile.
Nobel Prize for literature for starters. Declined knighthood, declined award of British Poetlaureateship....Henry James called him "the most complete man of genius I have ever known," and George Orwell called him "prophet of British imperialism" [failing imperialism that is]. The guy also wrote children's books - which will be interest to you.
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 6:20pm
Posted by comanchenation at 01/08/2009 @ 6:13pm
Actually it was more like 40 years. Do I need to detail what 40 years of Democratic rule in the Congress got us? Or should I detail the failings of the 105th-109th Congress. With 6 of those glorious years being under a Republican President as well. Or should I let the statement made by a deep recession that is only getting worse and two wars that we can't get ourselves out of and a government deficit that is a record speak for itself?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 6:32pm
The guy also wrote children's books - which will be interest to you. Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 6:20pm
Those might be a bit out of his league actually. He needs the letter books.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 6:40pm
I have great respect for Katrina. But this displays naivete. You quote Ms. Joya of RAWA saying that U.S. must withdraw. And then repeat the favorite:aid not war is the solution. Who would you aid if the Taliban, which has reconstituted itself, takes over the Karzai government? We will be back to square one when woman will be executed in football stadiums for not wearing the burka.
I will gladly jump on the peace bandwagon if Obama was pursuing only military might policy in Afghanistan. If I hear Obama correctly, the new administration will be pursuing diplomacy and aid plus finding a political solution. I agree that in doing so regional countries like India, Iran and Pakistan need to be involved. NATO forces can help militarily but the solution is not military.
The biggest drawback is the corrupt government. What is holding the West from teaching Karzai how to govern? Are we not footing the bill? You teach governance by building basic government systems such as revenue collection, budgeting, procurement and merit based personnel system. Building government not OXFAM.
What progress has the Karzai government made in the field of governance? Nothing, zero, zilch.
Governance is done by the 90% of people that do not get elected the professionals who know what needs to be done. Afghanistan needs governing systems. Effective governance is based on technology and professionals who know how to build and manage effective systems. Once you have the system, you take the politics out of it and corruption disappears. Without professional systems, politicians will continue to rob and pillage. Who are they accountable to? Help Afghanistan build an effective government which can defend itself and ensure that foreign aid will reach the people, not politician's pockets
Posted by KushK at 01/08/2009 @ 6:50pm
i see, now that you've woken up to obama's a'stan policy you oppose it. and you actually believe that he would not have voted for the iraq war resolution if he had been in the u.s. senate the time! and that's why there is all that continuity in the military and foreign policy appointments. so far, not a single new idea how to extricate from a mess of the u.s. making going as far back as 1978, maybe one ought to put a gun to ziggy's head and force him to come up with one. well, anyhow the defense industry wont be in recession under president obama. bring back the draft big time and for both men and women might take care of a lot of unemployed, a nice war to burn some cannon fodder...
Posted by mikerol at 01/08/2009 @ 6:59pm
That should be intresting when you know it traces to the Carter and Clinton administrations who signed all the fiscal and finacial bills that got us here! Posted by comanchenation at 01/08/2009 @ 7:05pm
Or the Nixon and Reagan administrations who are in a lot of ways responsible for much of our current political landscape.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:16pm
That should be intresting when you know it traces to the Carter and Clinton administrations who signed all the fiscal and finacial bills that got us here! Posted by comanchenation at 01/08/2009 @ 7:05pm
Oh it's also funny that you blame the 2 Democrats while ignoring that out of the last 5 Presidents 3 were Republican and 1 had a Republican majority in Congress as well. You also ignore that between Carter and Clinton there were 16 years of Republican President who could have said something if they truly didn't help. However you go on with your stupid partisanship, it gives the rest of us a laugh.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:25pm
Those might be a bit out of his league actually. He needs the letter books.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 6:40pm | warn this person
Maybe his Mom can be read to him?..lol...
Well, on second thought, if he is a product of his parental environment.....
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 7:26pm
I'm sorry I meant 12 years of Republican Presidents, not 16.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:38pm
Well, on second thought, if he is a product of his parental environment..... Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 7:26pm
Jesus, did he become more extreme or is he actually the less extreme one?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:38pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 12:31pm </i>
This isn't the position I was defending at all. Having al Qaeda operate on the border of a country with which our relations our not particularly good and which may possess a nuclear weapon is probably not an ideal thing. Not only that, if you believe that al Qaeda could be disruptive to Pakistan's power structures, it's not clear why they couldn't also be disruptive (though probably much less so) to Iran's.
So basically...no, despite the strawman, my argument was not "oh, those A-rabs." My argument was "al Qaeda, whether it likes it Iran or not, probably is not someone we want right next door to them. However, them destabilizing Pakistan would probably be even worse."
Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 7:39pm
And just for clarity's sake, by "may have a nuclear weapon," I don't mean "might have one right now," I mean "may end up with one."
Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 7:39pm
That should be intresting when you know it traces to the Carter and Clinton administrations who signed all the fiscal and finacial bills that got us here! Posted by comanchenation at 01/08/2009 @ 7:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I think the problem goes back to Millard Fillmore. that's where it all started.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/08/2009 @ 8:06pm
if we want save the afghani women from abuse, we will have to occupy forever. the taleban's opponents are little better in their treatment of women.
wanna know an arab country where women had rights and were treated well? Baathist Iraq. well maybe if they were sunni women.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/08/2009 @ 8:12pm
Jesus, did he become more extreme or is he actually the less extreme one?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:38pm | warn this person
Whew......who knows for sure? Maybe the meds need to be adjusted or something. The guy is barking at the moon today. Is this a permutation or mutation? Stay tuned.
Posted by OneVote at 01/08/2009 @ 9:02pm
<i>You also ignore that between Carter and Clinton there were 16 years of Republican President who could have said something if they truly didn't help. However you go on with your stupid partisanship, it gives the rest of us a laugh.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:25pm </i>
Hate to be the tool, but...12. 8 Reagan + 4 Bush. And I think aspects of both parties' decisions are to blame.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 9:11pm
They do hold the worlds records for surrender and defeat!!!
Posted by comanchenation at 01/08/2009 @ 5:59pm
korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan........
you're catching up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2009 @ 9:34pm
Hate to be the tool, but...12. 8 Reagan + 4 Bush. And I think aspects of both parties' decisions are to blame. Posted by Thrawn at 01/08/2009 @ 9:11pm
I'm sorry I meant 12 years of Republican Presidents, not 16. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 7:38pm
I also blame both parties I just like to needle people who make broad statements with zero fact. I like to play at his level of debate every once in a while.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 9:53pm
Trying to get excited and outraged by $2 billion per month occupation costs in this day of $750 billion dollar bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus packages sounds rather quaint. Two billion? That's a bargin.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/08/2009 @ 10:58pm
Trying to get excited and outraged by $2 billion per month occupation costs in this day of $750 billion dollar bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus packages sounds rather quaint. Two billion? That's a bargin.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/08/2009 @ 10:58pm
Sorry, I double clicked by accident.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/08/2009 @ 10:59pm
Two billion? That's a bargin.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/08/2009 @ 10:58pm
and who would have thunk death would be so cost effective?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2009 @ 12:41am
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2009 @ 9:53pm </i>
Whoops; I missed the retraction. Sorry, Cccomf.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 01:07am
Sending more troops cannot be THE only part of a new strategy in Afghanistan, and Obama has never said it will be. Both he and Petraeus (and Karzai) are in favor of negotiation with any elements of the Taliban that could be so persuaded, and Obama has stressed the importance of a more comprehensive approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan, including development aid to combat poverty, corruption, and drugs. I saw a very eye-opening interview on Bill Moyers Journal with Sarah Chayes, an American reporter who has made her home in Afghanistan running a co-op after going there to cover the war. She identifies governance as the most important problem to be addressed, and calls for a full court press to help build a rule of law. But she also says that this, and the other civilian aid programs that are needed, cannot be successful without more troops, to protect the population from Taliban intimidation. Civilian aid could not function if aid workers, et al are under constant threat of attack. One of the worst wrongs of the war in Iraq was that US resources and attention was diverted, leaving Afghanistan hanging. It troubles me that now, when the Bush crowd is heading out the door and it will actually be possible to end the war in Iraq and recommit to Afghanistan, progressive voices are pushing for withdrawal there too, which might very well allow it to revert to its pre-9/11 situation under Taliban rule, with all the horrors that prevailed then. Has just opposition to the Iraq war gotten the left into broken-record mode, so that it just can't help opposing Afghanistan too? I think Obama knows what needs to be done. If we progressives try to push him away from anything that doesn't include troop withdrawal, it could come back to bite us all, big time.
Posted by scottbp at 01/09/2009 @ 03:40am
Eight years of war and nothing to show for it. Six years of war in Iraq and nothing to show for it. What has the US gained by these wars?
Regardless, the money's running out. The credit is drying up.
The majority of Americans want the wars to end. As the economy worsens, there will be more popular demand to end the wars.
There is another catagory of home loans expected to result in more massive defaults within the next year or two.
The clock is ticking.....
Posted by koroviev at 01/09/2009 @ 03:55am
4. Bush again failed. He supported the government and military (Pakistan) that lets bin Laden, much of Al Qaeda, and much of the Taliban remain free....
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2009 @ 3:31pm
You are not the only ignoramus here Mask but you should know better. Pakistan has captured all the important al Qaeda operatives if not all of them. Like the others your knowledge of the wild and woolly Nth West border region of Pakistan, that has never been tamed let alone become a civilised part of Pakistan, is abysmal. In fact, as with Iraq, you people make what is essentially undiluted bullshit an art form. See if you can distort this into Bush fails:
"The War in North-West Pakistan is an armed conflict between the Pakistani Army and Islamist militants made up by local tribesmen, the Taliban and foreign extremists.[23][24][25] It began in 2004 when tensions rooted in the Pakistani Army's search for al-Qaeda members in Pakistan's mountainous Waziristan area (in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas) escalated into armed resistance by local tribesmen."
"Clashes erupted between the Pakistani troops and al-Qaeda's and other militants joined by local rebels and pro-Taliban forces. The Pakistani actions were presented as a part of the War on Terrorism, and had connections to the war and Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.[26][27]"
"After a truce in September 2006, clashes escalated again in 2007, with local tribesmen ousting militant Uzbeks and attacking the Pakistani security forces again in July 2007."
"Since the conflict began, Pakistan has lost more than twice the number of its soldiers compared to the number of US troops killed in Afghanistan. However, as of December 2008, the confirmed bodycount of militants killed by the Pakistan Army reached the 5,000 mark.[28]" wiki.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 06:12am
Incidentally I agree with Ms Editor on the worthlessness of a continuation of the present Afghan war, which you may find is not really the US's war but was conceived and hatched in Europe with most of its troops now hiding from the Taliban or anything that looks dangerous. In the meanwhile US, Brit and Aussie troops are doing most of the dying. That's why it will fail, it was the Americans the Brits and the Ruskies who had to bail Europe out in WW2, remember. They are not particularly good at this sort of thing.
Bush's initial invasion was justified on the grounds of removing al Qaeda from the country and for a bit of revenge but the Taliban is not al Qaeda and was never a threat to America or the West for that matter and it is not an Arab but a Pashtun show. About the only present reason for the US being there and perhaps why Obama wants to get more Americans killed there, is because he has been told Bush made a mistake in "liberating" Iraq from Saddam and thus allowed al Qaeda to prosper in Pakistan. Well that is for those can't see a hole in a ladder.
Apart from the very thick, it is plain that al Qaeda met its Waterloo in Iraq. Not only because of the very many killed there but essentially because it was rejected by the Arab Sunni nationalistic (former) insurgents. This group of Arabs should have been its natural supporters and if you like to check, it now has little support throughout the Arab world. Arabs like the rest of us don't like losers. And observing some of you slackers I don't know why but those Arabs chose to be buddies with the American soldiers.
Al Qaeda is finished, thanks to Iraq and neither Obama nor those in the pentagon, whom it seems hate to see soldiers out of real work should get away with that excuse for staying in Afghanistan.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 06:52am
ok...i'm on board...
the arrogantly stupid and wicked neocons missed the opportunity to get bin laden early as a result of their stupid, wasteful, and wicked war in iraq and bin laden is holed up in pakistan.
in light of the current economic mess our satano-aynrando demigodly ideologue overlords (aided and abetted every step of the way by the ignorant jay walking marching moron masses of redstateland and beyond, voters and non-voting psuedo-intellectual complainers and borderline retards alike) the simple fact is that...
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO STAY THERE ANY LONGER!
treasonous, traitorous, seditionous, rightwing ideologues...lying ruiners of our own country, pied pipers who led a legion of jay walking marching morons and the rest of the country to the very brink of civilizational disaster and collapse...who will shortly return to their trust funds and stolen gold while we the schmuks will have to deal with the consequences...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/09/2009 @ 08:59am
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 06:52am | ignore this person | warn this person
Well...some may differ on your call that Al-Qaeda is finished and that the war is restricted to ungovernable tribal regions along the border. Also curious about your confirmed body count cited. Did Musharraf provide them?
Here is another view from India - for what its worth. No doubt, the view from India regarding Al-Qaeda is probably self-serving and framed for Western consumption.
'In these circumstances Pakistan may try to bargain for being let off the hook on terrorism against India, ask the US and the West to put pressure on India to make concessions in Kashmir and pledge continued large-scale military and civil aid to Pakistan in return for uninterrupted supply lines to Kabul to aid US and NATO operations. The Pakistani army's interest is not in allowing an early military victory for US and NATO forces. Its interests are served by a prolonged war, which would provide Pakistan aid over a longer period of time. It would also tire US and NATO forces in Afghanistan compelling them to consider the withdrawal option. That will only lead a triumphalist al-Qaeda and its associates such as the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and JuD to step up their Islamist jihad all over the world.'
Excerpt: Times of India, 12/16/08,"Held to Ransom," K Subrahmanyam
Posted by OneVote at 01/09/2009 @ 11:10am
I have to agree - development for civilians is what we should see rather than war.
After all that's what Soviet Union was doing there for almost three decades, between the devastations of UK and US.
Posted by sulion at 01/09/2009 @ 11:21am
I have to agree - development for civilians is what we should see rather than war.
After all that's what Soviet Union was doing there for almost three decades, between the devastations of UK and US.
Posted by sulion at 01/09/2009 @ 11:21am
I have to agree - development of civil society and its institutions and infrastructure is what we should see there, not war.
After all, that's what USSR was doing there for almost three decades, before USA returned the country to stone age during the 80-s.
Posted by sulion at 01/09/2009 @ 11:23am
Sorry - had trouble with registration and commenting, I didn't realise all the comments with error page afterwards actually came through.
Posted by sulion at 01/09/2009 @ 11:26am
Get it right blackcoptermedia.com, is the only true right!
Posted by thesid at 01/09/2009 @ 12:48pm
You have touched upon very important issues in your article. However, the solution for Afghanistan's problem is not de-escalation, but the salvation of Afghanistan is good governance and accountability. In other words, a strong, clean, and responsible government can establish peace; and can defeat Taliban and Al Qaida in the long run.
Posted by Wahed at 01/09/2009 @ 12:54pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 06:52am
LRJONES, rather than re-hash the whole myth of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (and the fact that it didn't exist before the invasion and was NOT primarily linked to the 9/11 version)....
let's just leave it at, the tiny minority who still believe that in the US...and the MINISCULE slice of the world who believe that...
it's not likely Bush is going to be redeemed in the history books...ever.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:13pm
Mask: I disagree, I think Bush will be treated quite well by historians - it may take a few decades but... The big thing you guys have to worry about now is your tendency to disregard the "war on terror" as being nonexistent and that all the weapons we have been using are all unnecessary. The last thing you want to hear people saying is "At least Bush kept us safe, unlike Obama". Be careful what you wish for - the fickle finger of fate...
Posted by pyeatte at 01/09/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by pyeatte at 01/09/2009 @ 3:22pm
That's because you're a "true believer", pye....also known as "part of a cult of personality".
28% of you guys or so by most polling. Die-hards who dream of Dubya AND YOURSELVES being "proven right by history".
That last part is significant, because you can imagine the guilt a normal human being would endure, if 10-20-30-40 years later (and no "redemption by history") they had supported a useless war that had killed 4100 of America's best.
So, yes, I'm sure you DO believe that "Bush will be treated kindly by history"...upto you drawing your last breath...
for the OTHER possibility (for yourself, not some politician), would be too horrifying to contemplate.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by pyeatte at 01/09/2009 @ 3:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Here is another one for ya. It may take several decades to believe this one too.
'Over the past few weeks, many Bush administration officials have begun rewriting history in an effort to burnish President Bush's legacy. Following suit, neoconservative war hawk Richard Perle has taken the opportunity to polish his own record during the Bush years -- mainly on Iraq.
In the latest issue of The National Interest, Perle devotes 4,600 words -- not to congratulate President Bush for invading Iraq -- but to wipe his, and the whole neoconservative movement's, hands clean of the whole affair. In the essay, he categorically denies that both he -- and neoconservative ideology in general -- had any influence on the Bush administration in its decision to go to war:'
Excerpt from:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/08/perle-iraq-architect/
Posted by OneVote at 01/09/2009 @ 3:41pm
Here is the arguement for sending more troops to Afghanistan. The reason we are loosing is because we have been making the classic mistake of fighting a ground war from the air because of the lack of troops on the ground. This is becomeing a case study in how to loose a war because it always makes more enemies than it kills. If there is going to be progress in Afghanistan we will need more boots on the ground establishing a tollerance among Afghanis for US even being there. I like the reconstruction arguments to this article. Another big reason these wars are mostly failure is because they have disenfranchised the same people we are supposedly liberating, and all for the treasonous reason of elite Republican corporate club profits.
Posted by dajson at 01/09/2009 @ 3:53pm
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]
Katrina Vanden Heuvel hits the nail on the head.
On February 23 the war in Afghanistan will have lasted twice as long as World War II, which lasted 3 years, 8 months and 8 days.
After 9/11, I believed it was possible to win a war in Afghanistan, but years of blunders have made that a long shot and removed any pretense that America is engaged in a just war.
Even a few years later I believed we should still try to win, but only if:
(1) the American troops in Afghanistan were under UN or NATO command;
(2) the total number of American troops would not constitute more than one-third of the total international forces in Afghanistan under UN or NATO command;
(3) the deployment had to be requested by the Afghani government and approved by a supermajority of Afghanistan's citizens; and
(4) the deployment was part of a comprehensive development-focused peace plan for Afghanistan and the region approved by Afghanistan and all concerned parties.
Unfortunately, these conditions were never met, and it is now too late. And it looks like Obama is willing to buy the farm, just as Johnson and Nixon did in Vietnam.
You can find this and much more in, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP's War on Iraq and America," (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).
Patriots everywhere can download the entire book for free at www.bushleagueofnations.com.
I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using it as a resource to help restore and build America.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
Posted by jswanson at 01/09/2009 @ 4:01pm
.. Times of India, 12/16/08,"Held to Ransom," K Subrahmanyam
Posted by OneVote at 01/09/2009 @ 11:10am
OV I think you are correct in qualifying that Indian source, as one needs to be aware that India and Pakistan have been playing their little needling games and more, since partition.
The test of whether or not al Qaeda is still the potent world wide force for international terrorist activities, that we witnessed in large scale attacks in the US and Europe over the last decade or so, is a very simple one, namely are those sorts of attacks occurring now and what is the present status of al Qaeda in other Arab countries beside Iraq.
When was al Qaeda's last successful or attempted attack in a Western country?
Not only has al Qaeda been humiliated in Iraq but has been reduced to insignificance in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (al Qaeda was born in its ideology) will need watching but at this stage it is being contained by a pretty hostile government in its home base.
The West's fear of al Qaeda was compounded by its earlier popularity amongst Muslims, particularly in Arab countries. You will find that level of support, and potential recruiting base, has diminished dramatically. There can be little doubt that the rejection of al Qaeda by the Iraqi insurgents has fed into that Arab disillusionment.
In that context bin Laden, who once was an Arab hero, is down in the pits with al Qaeda and it would make scarcely one iota of difference, except for those who like to see the baddies get theirs, whether he is caught or not.
My position is that Bush's Iraq War is fully justified by the removal of Saddam on humanitarian grounds alone. So this is not a justifying reason but a tremendous, unexpected, beneficial side effect but thank you GW anyway.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 8:33pm
On February 23 the war in Afghanistan will have lasted twice as long as World War II, which lasted 3 years, 8 months and 8 days.
True, for us, but the war had been going on for a few years before we got in. The thing is it lasted just less than four years for us because it was fought as total war, 100% effort, 100% of the time. It ended when we ground everthing up, and that happened to be how long it took because it would not have ended before that.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/09/2009 @ 8:57pm
As a follow up 88 Australians were killed in Bali (202 altogether) on 12th October 2002 by Jemaah Islamiyah an al Qaeda off-shoot.
(incidentally Hambali who master minded the bombing and was caught by the Thai police, one the Pakistanis didn't capture, is probably resting up in Guantanomo. His clerical associate Bashir got 2.5 years in an Indonesian court so that's one reason Australia doesn't want the Americans to let Hambali off the hook by releasing him to Indonesia).
Apart from al Qaeda's humiliation in Iraq one vital reason for its predicament has been the marshalling of most every countries intelligence, security and police forces into a unified pro-active operation in which intelligence is freely shared. That will continue I'm sure, though civil libertarians will attack the various "patriot acts" wherever they are law around the world.
But that sort of containment of a diminished al Qaeda, which is working, is a far cry from pouring troops into Afghanistan to contain it. There may be valid reasons to continue the Afghanistan war but al Qaeda is not one of them.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 9:10pm
in light of the current economic mess our satano-aynrando demigodly ideologue overlords (aided and abetted every step of the way by the ignorant jay walking marching moron masses of redstateland and beyond, voters and non-voting psuedo-intellectual complainers and borderline retards alike) the simple fact is that...
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO STAY THERE ANY LONGER!
treasonous, traitorous, seditionous, rightwing ideologues...lying ruiners of our own country, pied pipers who led a legion of jay walking marching morons and the rest of the country to the very brink of civilizational disaster and collapse...who will shortly return to their trust funds and stolen gold while we the schmuks will have to deal with the consequences...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/09/2009 @ 08:59am
Hi ya Ibbie. Love the poetic flow. Wondered where you were. Thought you must have got the pox and died. Still chasin up those "loose" sheilas? You'll have start thinkin with ya larger brain mate (bout wimmen).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 9:47pm
"Obama Must Get Afghanistan Right"
Why? So that we can deny China the opportunity to build that trans-Afghan oil pipeline to Iran? And so we can simultaneously park some missile defense directly on the border with Russia, China, and Iran? You go Obama, WWIV.
Posted by fakedemocracy at 01/10/2009 @ 01:33am
well, looky here. seems the evanlocos and the mullaholics have even more in common:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-
stories/2009-01-09/irans-hottest-porn-video/
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/10/2009 @ 02:51am
"The moment for action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was immediately after 9/11."
Really Katrina? And you heard this from what, the reticent and complicit corpstream media?
Could the illegal and horrid attack on Afghanistan and the innocent Afghan people have anything to do with energy flows and occupation of important oil fields and pipelines and via military forces emplaced strategically near Israel's most important enemies – Iran and Syria security for Israel?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski26.html
Afghanistan had "nothing" whatsoever to do with 9/11
Thank you though for participating in this on-going hegemonic and very truculent charade called "Wheel-of-Middle East- Mendacity"
Posted by Munich at 01/10/2009 @ 02:51am
In that context bin Laden, who once was an Arab hero, is down in the pits with al Qaeda and it would make scarcely one iota of difference, except for those who like to see the baddies get theirs, whether he is caught or not.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 8:33pm
Good points. I agree totally that escalation in Afghanistan is totally not justified by continuing to chase a diminished al Qaeda and the ghost of bin Laden. We should not let our leaders or foreigners use al Qaeda to manipulate us into escalation.
Posted by OneVote at 01/10/2009 @ 4:03pm
I actually have to second Happy on this one. Shielding the institution that perpetrated 9/11 isn't nothing. Katrina's just right. Even if you don't believe that we should have gone in to "nation-build" as it were, going in to attack al-Qaeda, I think, was clearly justified.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 5:34pm
And if somehow I am wrong, as time will tell, and he's NOT so Magical, then I'd say, his supporters and voters, are proven dumb and naive!
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/10/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So far dumb and naive looks like the safe bet. This so called "stimulus package" worries the hell out of me. May just be the biggest boondoogle of them all. Hang on!
What are you investing in today....if anything?
Posted by OneVote at 01/10/2009 @ 5:47pm
It's Magic's call...borrow & throw around a Trillion wastefully with no sure outcome or come on over to the dark (ie, supply) side....:~))
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/10/2009 @ 11:21pm
Where have we got exactly with Bush's wonderful ideas over the past 8 years...do you not see the state of the country or are you so blinded by dislike for PE Obama that whatever Bush has done is so much better than PE Obama could ever achieve? I think you need to get over the fact that the Repubs are no longer in power and wait and see what PE Obama can do before giving all these negative blanket statements. By the way, PE Obama is not"Magic" as you so rudely put it, that is a sure sign of ignorance on your part.
Posted by Caj at 01/11/2009 @ 10:38am
Other than energy stocks, I'd say to just hang loose until after Magic has had 100 days.
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/10/2009 @ 11:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep!
The idea of creating "jobs" of a temporary nature (what happens when the money runs out) has alot of popular appeal, but it doesn't really address what we do after. Will these so called 3.5 million jobs create another another level of bureaucracy that must be fed?
We need to take a look at our trade policy and provide tax incentives to rebuild our economic base. Strange, none of our politicians seem to be addressing the globalization pickle we are in.
Posted by OneVote at 01/11/2009 @ 10:40am
bush's tax cuts = jobs?!?!??!?!??!?!??!?
well, that's MORE than obvious.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/11/2009 @ 11:56am
I suggest war with the Taliban will not work. The overwhelming reason the USA is hated is because of its ardent support for Zionism. President Obama can turn that around overnight by one and only one strategy - bomb Israel. That does not mean bombing civilians but sinking the Isreali navy or destroying other military facilities would bring about elation in the Third World. In Afganhistan the USA could then offer a ceasefire and evacuation. The World could then demand the Taliban think again about human rights and the Afghan government think again about government by corruption. Al Quaeda could go into voluntary liquidation.
Posted by Rickytreelover at 01/12/2009 @ 08:22am
Not only has al Qaeda been humiliated in Iraq
THEY have been humiliated in Iraq? no, the US has been humiliated in Iraq. with more to come upon withdrawal.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/12/2009 @ 10:39am
THEY have been humiliated in Iraq? no, the US has been humiliated in Iraq. with more to come upon withdrawal.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/12/2009 @ 10:39am
Hello JR. Was expecting you with your Jimmy Swaggart act. You do love a bit of grovelling don't you?
If you were a religious man we could call it self abasement but whatever turns you on.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/12/2009 @ 5:14pm
Afghanistan is indeed Obama's Cuba and could be his Civil War since he is so beloved of Abraham Lincoln if he does not pursue a less strident military policy. It's a US quagmire now. What will become with more troops committed to a region that the Israelis are intent on moving toward Armageddon, with them having the last word in the form of a nuclear bomb?
Posted by afrothetics at 01/12/2009 @ 7:09pm
You all have told us what has gone wrong, but none of you has proposed a solution. What would you do if you were president?
Posted by calvon at 01/12/2009 @ 8:57pm
The True Terrorist leaves office in 7 days, it would be a shame to send 20,000 more troops into Afghanistan when the crooks are about to walk right out the door and slip away. And escalated Afghanistan war in my mind could only turn out to be the absolute worse thing this country can do at this point in time. Facing an economical meltdown in this country with half a million people losing jobs monthly. To waste more money on War, while we are also giving $15 million dollars a month, for what, I have NO IDEA, to Israel, supporting their War Crimes against Gaza! If this is Obama's Idea of change, I am NOT looking forward to the future. I have been thinking about what his change has so far been and this is what I have come up with; generally former presidents have surrounded themselves with members of their own parties, a partisan administration, Obama is going for a non partisan Administration to surround him. This is the difference that I think America has been duped into accepting. At least in my opinion, and that Isn't the kind of change we need in America! We need change that is of a Non War Environment. We need change that isn't going to have to cut back on some of its promises, already, before even reaching office. We need Progressive thinking change, not the same old people from past administrations, just by mixing up the partisanships. I hope I am Wrong, but it doesn't seem like we are in for Any Real Change, other than a change in Party members, and I am already of the mindset that there isn't, or hasn't been that much difference between the parties, two different sides to the same coin. http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/12/2009 @ 9:58pm
Dear Katrina and friends -
Please do not take this wrong ... would you or some other learned people please explain to me the most effective way protect the U.S.
Were you as surprised and upset about the bombing of the U.S. Trade Center as I was?
When we mention Afghanistan is a sentence, shouldn't we be also including Pakistan in the same breath?
Katrina and friends ... I do not want to sound like I'm be a smart ass... but really, in your opinion, what should we do to stabilize things around the world.
Katrina, your opinion is very important to me. Thank you.
Posted by Hoot at 01/13/2009 @ 1:15pm
TGIF (Thank God It's Katrina)
Posted by KJusko at 01/13/2009 @ 5:55pm
TGIK (Thank God It's Katrina)
Ignore the one right above, please.
Posted by KJusko at 01/13/2009 @ 6:12pm
what should we do to stabilize things around the world.
Posted by Hoot at 01/13/2009 @ 1:15pm
go home.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 8:45pm
Afghanistan is winnable. An escalation is troop numbers is essential. Building military outpost in Afghanistan is long over do. The insurgents living in Pakistan cannot continue taking air strikes. The Taliban are will aware that they cannot win the war. Fortified bases will draw them out into the open fields cause them great losses. Some of these bases will be lures, forever taunting the enemy. The Afghani's are well equipped and they are superb warriors. They will be controlling many of these basses for years to come. The comparative cost of war is greater for the Taliban than it is for the allied forces. Attrition will be the Taliban's undoing as much as overall lost of life. Keep in mind that Afghanistan has become an ally to the entire western world. And too, it is self-stainable. America and perhaps its allies are there for good!
Posted by RickyTickyTarvey at 01/14/2009 @ 12:47am
Building military outpost in Afghanistan is long over do.
is long over don't. whattaload of crap. outposts? paging gunga din.
this war is about the hearts and minds of that nation. with 80% under taleban control, it sure looks like we're winning, don' it.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 09:33am