Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDoes this sound familiar?
"We have no strategic plan. We never had one."
That's how a senior US military commander described the war in Afghanistan to Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung in her must-read front-page story Tuesday.
Another Pentagon official "only half-jokingly" referred to General David Petraeus' "shadow government" of 200 military and civilian experts tasked with coming up with a comprehensive plan.
But instead of tough questioning of our Escalation Without a Plan in Afghanistan, we are on course to double our presence there by adding 20,000 to 30,000 more US troops. DeYoung writes that this strategy is designed to buy the Obama Administration time so it can devise our purpose for being there and what we hope to accomplish.
We don't need the General's shadow government. What will allow the Obama Administration to reengage the world and region in new and successful ways is to pursue regional diplomacy and targeted development, and a drawdown of our troops. We also need our legislators to begin speaking up for these non-military solutions.
Since my post last week arguing for a smarter strategy, I've tried to talk to many in Congress about the war. They have been hesitant to do so -- with a few notable exceptions.
Senator Bernie Sanders told me, "It's time for the new administration to reexamine our Afghanistan policies. I certainly don't want to see Barack Obama caught in the kind of morass we experienced in Iraq under Bush."
Congresswoman Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Vice Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, responded in an e-mail, "...What we urgently need is to reassess our war effort in Afghanistan and come up with a comprehensive strategy... and engage fully with countries that would benefit from a stabilized Afghanistan--like Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, and China. In short, we need to strengthen our diplomatic efforts in this strategic region."
Advocates for a drawdown of troops who are now meeting with legislators are also finding them reluctant to chart a different course. Most want to wait for President Obama to offer a new plan. But DeYoung writes that such a plan won't come until April at the NATO summit in France. In the meantime, the majority of the 20,000 to 30,000 additional US troops probably will have arrived in Afghanistan. Isn't that something our representatives -- especially progressive leaders -- should be speaking out against? Not to mention the fact that Tuesday's excellent reporting by Walter Pincus on military base construction suggests that the US is settling in Afghanistan for the long haul.
I thought there were some positive signs in soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Senate confirmation hearing -- though I would hasten to add that any suggested challenges to the escalation policy didn't exactly push the envelope. Senator Russ Feingold -- who I previously wrote has been one of the few voices in Congress raising the right questions -- spoke on the need to "explain to the American people how sending more American troops actually fits into a comprehensive regional strategy".
Senator John Kerry, the new Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "I think… we're on the wrong track… and I think unless we rethink this very, very carefully, we could raise the stakes, invest America's reputation in a greater way as well as our treasure, and wind up pursuing a policy that is frankly unachievable…. I think anybody who has really… listened in the right ways, and not just accepted the briefing culture, will suggest to you respectfully, Madame Secretary, this really has to be rethought very, very carefully."
Senator Clinton responded, "I think that your cautions are extremely well taken…. I share your concern as I know the President-elect does… More troops… presupposes that we have a set of discrete goals that we are trying to achieve. And that is in the process of being assessed and analyzed right now… Asking the hard questions and raising the red flags is exactly what this committee I know will do and should do…. My awareness of the history going back to Alexander the Great, certainly the imperial British military… the Soviet Union which put in more troops than we're thinking about putting in -- it calls for a large dose of humility about what it is we are trying to accomplish."
A respect for history, raising the right questions, and a strong dose of humility -- these are all things the nation is desperate for after eight years of the One Who Will Soon Be Gone. But we need to bring pressure through new coalitions such as the one at GetAfghanistanRight to move beyond the right words to the right policies.
For example, it's a foregone conclusion that we need to do a better job with non-military development aid. Even Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the New York Times we need "more money and personnel to be devoted to the civilian agencies responsible for diplomacy and overseas economic development." He also said, "We need to reallocate roles and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many in government."
But Admiral Mullen also issued the call for 30,000 more US troops, and the increases in non-military aid are relatively paltry compared to military spending in Afghanistan. Pincus reports on up to $4 billion being spent on military base construction alone in Afghanistan, while as a candidate Obama pledged to increase funding for "non-military aid" -- which includes training for army and police -- by $1 billion to a total of $3 billion. The emphasis is still clearly on a military solution to this 7-year quagmire in a country whose people increasingly don't want us there. (That even includes women's groups like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) who support an international peacekeeping force.)
Doubling down on Afghanistan with 30,000 more troops without a plan -- sent there so we can come up with a plan? No thanks. Contact your representatives. Tell them they need to start asking tough questions and opposing this wrongheaded policy. And check out GetAfghanistanRight.com. The estimable Rachel Maddow -- always ahead of the curve -- recently highlighted it on her show and you can bet it's going to pick up even more steam after January 20.
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
Isn't this a bit contradictory, Ms vanden Heuvel?
"The emphasis is still clearly on a military solution to this 7-year quagmire in a country whose people increasingly don't want us there. (That even includes women's groups like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) who support an international peacekeeping force.)"
By its very definition a "peacekeeping force" will be military in nature, ergo a "military solution". And if they don't want US there...why do they want French, British, Germans, Canadians, etc. there (in a peacekeeping force)?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 10:44am
Yet again? This is about the third time in as many days that you've followed this pattern. You thump the tub for this man's election knowing full well that he plans to escalate the Afghan war and now find yourself concerned? Madam, you are responsible for your own pain. News Flash: Don't vote for war and you might not get it.
Posted by john lowell at 01/14/2009 @ 11:24am
Don't vote for war and you might not get it.
Posted by john lowell at 01/14/2009 @ 11:24am
OR...
You could vote for peace and get a world war..See McMillian and his British success story.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 11:31am
"My awareness of the history going back to Alexander the Great, certainly the imperial British military… the Soviet Union which put in more troops than we're thinking about putting in -- it calls for a large dose of humility about what it is we are trying to accomplish."
Well said Madam Secretary. No on to what exactly are we trying to accomplish? One would think that you first establish your goals before escalating troops and building military bases. That logic escaped the last administration - hopefully it will be painfully apparent to this one. And no, enrichment of military contractors is not a legitimate foreign policy goal.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 2:02pm
100,000 troops did not work for the soviets. what makes anyone think it will work for us?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 2:16pm
100,000 troops did not work for the soviets. what makes anyone think it will work for us?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 2:16pm
one american equals 173 russians.
don't you watch movies?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 3:16pm
What's the movie's name?
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 3:30pm
Kung Fu Panda. great movie.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/14/2009 @ 3:40pm
"Not to mention the fact that Tuesday's excellent reporting by Walter Pincus on military base construction suggests that the US is settling in Afghanistan for the long haul."
~Katrina
Well, there you have the central nugget in a single meaning drenched sentence.
There is a metaphor here that comes to mind that I had conveyed many years ago --seems like almost a lifetime ago, strangely-- to a friend in the first year or so of the Iraq debacle:
The monkey has its hand in a narrow necked fruit jar with its fist clenched tightly around a prized juicy orange. The reality is that the orange will never be extracted until the monkey lets go and simply tips the jar gently upside down and catches the falling fruit.
Translation:
The power establishment in DC has made up its mind, and no amount of persuasion --or facts on the ground-- will apparently shake its conviction that the U.S. must have a deeply entrenched boot print as close as possible to the richest sources of oil on the planet.
That this is a recipe for disaster, or even potentially some version of Armageddon completely escapes the mind of "the planners".
The obvious answer apparently never even dawns on them:
We still have some coercive strength left if we leave now. Why not simply leave and at the same time invest heavily in a new energy grid at home with a heavy emphasis on conservation and clean cheap renewable energy resources? It would be the equivalent of killing 20 birds with one stone, or as Tom Friedman has said, "It's a win-win-win-win-win etc... strategy".
Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that the most likely outcome for the U.S. in the near term --perhaps the next ten years or even much less-- is a complete economic collapse.
We just witnessed the opening salvo last September.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm
The Grand Finale is gonna be something to behold, people.
Next up in all probability:
The Death of the Dollar.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm
Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that the most likely outcome for the U.S. in the near term --perhaps the next ten years or even much less-- is a complete economic collapse.---Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm
B_KOOL, I believe you are engaging in either a deliberate self-deception....or you are somehow economically suicidal....OR...you've applied for a visa to some place like FROSTY-ZOOMland or La Belle France....
have you?
Got to be one of those three explanations. Otherwise how do you explain somebody saying they believe the "likely outcome for the US is complete economic collapse"...and NOT preparing to leave?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:15pm
Excellent metaphor, b_kool_66. The grasping and avaricious monkey is appropriate in more ways than one.
Posted by canaro71 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:22pm
".......and NOT preparing to leave?!??!?!?"
~Posted by Maskot
1) Who says I'm not preparing to leave? I have relatives abroad, and I can assure you that I am in full contemplation of potential escape plans.
2) More importantly, whatever my plans may be it's really none of your business, monkey boy. Why not simply spend some time --reading up on Tom Dispatches for just one excellent example-- and coming up with your own conclusions for what the future may hold?
The most valuable asset that Homo sapiens possesses is a large, infolded cerebral cortex that allows for massive information processing and planning for the future. You could do yourself a world of good by putting yours to good use and contemplating potential wise courses of action for you and your loved ones.
Oh, that's right, the canine brain is smooth and unfolded.
Good luck with that, Maskot.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:27pm
I would like to know if there is a plan or are they just winging it? While 100,000 sounds like a lot, it is not enough to secure the country, or invade a neighboring country. It is enough not to lose a conflict, and prevent any group from massing to take over Afghanistan. At some point, a diplomatic solution is the only way out.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/14/2009 @ 4:35pm
"Excellent metaphor, b_kool_66. The grasping and avaricious monkey is appropriate in more ways than one."
~canaro71 @ 4:22pm
Much appreciate the props, friend.
It'd be real swell if more thoughtful posters would show up here and help drown out some of the more fetid ones --not referring to you, Maskot (you're just mildly obnoxious most of the time), but posters like Monsta' Maasch aka Jomamma, or Happy the Clown for a couple of prime examples. LV Lib, you can stick around because I like you for your bizarre acid trip disconnect and genuine 100 proof hypocrisy.
HEY, SMART PEOPLE WHO READ THE NATION, I know you're out there. Please give us a hand, okay?
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:43pm
I think the reality of our economic condition and the ballooning of the deficit will temper efforts to escalate in Afghanistan.
Serious nation-building efforts are needed there to counter the Taliban and prevent the country from reverting to a haven for terrorists, but I don't think the US should be leading that charge.
As for Al Qaeda, I continue to think that they can be handled through special forces and a "small" backup force (a brigade or less) operating in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2009 @ 5:01pm
don't you watch movies? Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
only ones with subtitles.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 5:16pm
"don't you watch movies?"
~frosty zoom
"only ones with subtitles."
~emile
Ah yes.
A man after my own heart.
Speaking of hearts, I highly recommend one I saw just recently, "De battre mon coeur s'est arrêté". I realize that everyone has their own tastes in movies, but I suspect you would enjoy this one, emile (or johannes).
Cool music plays a central role in the film as does primal themes of the human heart --good and bad of course.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:24pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I will keeep an eye out.
last film, Heading South, (vers la sud) starring the divine Charlotte Rampling.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 5:35pm
"last film, Heading South, (vers la sud) starring the divine Charlotte Rampling."
~emile
I recall an article in the NY Times a couple of years back on the popularity of women traveling abroad as sex tourists.
Interesting and unusual subject to be sure!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:52pm
Just like Iraq in 2003: No exit plan. Not even any talk of an exit plan. No talk of what would bring about talk of an exit plan. So the Afghans will have to create one for the U.S. - something they've been pretty good at for the past 275 years, whoever the invader/occupier.
Posted by MeteorBlades at 01/14/2009 @ 5:53pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the film brought humanity to this subject.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 5:56pm
Emile,
Saw Ms. Rampling in another fairly unique French film, Swimming Pool.
Good film as well.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:56pm
the film brought humanity to this subject.
~emile
As a good film should.
Meanwhile back in reality:
tinyurl.com/86nlsz
Amidst all that is so pressing today, I sure do hope that this Gaza massacre can finally provide the impetus for a massive overhaul of U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel-Palestine.
Would someone please give Israel's choke chain a good hard jerk!
Uh, that means you Obama.
I'm not holding my breath on that one, although holding one's breath is probably good advice when approaching the stench of death now emanating from today's Guernica.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:11pm
But hey,
The good news --if we can call it that-- is that if the U.S. does happen to fall into a total financial collapse (wonder what the Vegas odds are; probably very "good" if Vegas weren't itself symbolic of the dilemma that gave rise to the whole conundrum in the first place....there's a Batman movie quote in there somewhere...but I digress) then Israel will finally quit sucking the blood of our politicians in DC.
Hooray!
And then silence followed by a tiny pitter-patter as the fattened flea bounds off to a new victim.......
or gets flattened by a decidedly mushroom-shaped blow-back.
Not wishing that on anyone, but would the rest of the planet really be surprised?
Shocked, yes.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:36pm
B, it's a global downturn.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:39pm
posted by comanchenation @ 6:22pm
Shut the hell up "Commanche" [the original ass-wipe from Tulsa aka Rio Bravo --perhaps named after the lousy, mind numbingly stupid John Wayne flick (you know, the kind where "bad guys" get shot and fall dead without a spot of blood or agony)--], before someone drives over to your house and issues the ass whipping you so richly deserve.
Later to be found bound and gagged with yer bitch, Coulter.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
The monkey has its hand in a narrow necked fruit jar with its fist clenched tightly around a prized juicy orange. The reality is that the orange will never be extracted until the monkey lets go and simply tips the jar gently upside down and catches the falling fruit.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm
Say, wasn't that used by Master Po as an allegorical lesson to Grasshopper in Kung Fu years ago? Very Buddhist. Nice thought.....just let go.......just let go...........
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
"Say, wasn't that used by Master Po as an allegorical lesson to Grasshopper in Kung Fu years ago? Very Buddhist. Nice thought.....just let go.......just let go..........."
Posted by OneVote @ 6:47pm
BINGO!
I would love to pass out a prize for your efforts, One Vote, but you have already earned your eternal reward here for your excellent blog posts, thoughtful one.
Keep up your most wise undertakings and perhaps a more Earthly reward may also be realized.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:52pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
ahhhhhhooommmmmmmmmm!
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 6:53pm
Indeed!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:59pm
Alas, as if further proof were needed, the last few days have shown that the dog at the end of the choke chain isn't Tel Aviv, it's Washington.
There is no exit plan for Iraq or Afghanistan, because no exit is really desired. Permanent bases are the aim, to ensure that US companies, and a Brit, get the vast reservoirs of oil & gas at a reliably cheap price. The US consumer, however, will not see any benefit.
US oil, like US finance, couldn't care less about the welfare of We the People.
The cost to We the People may very well end up breaking the dollar, sooner than later. Best now to put some assets, if one can, in euros.
Posted by sloper at 01/14/2009 @ 8:25pm
this may be true for Iraq, but Afghanistan has no oil.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 8:35pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:27pm
B_KOOL, don't know if I WILL...but...
10 years from now, I COULD re-post your post and you'll be sitting somewhere within the United States, no visa, no emigration plans, etc.
This "10 years until complete economic collapse" is just more bluster and bloviating...same kind of crap the Right is saying, oddly enough, with their "Obama's going to turn us into a socialist state!" stuff.
You don't believe it...you aren't going ACT on it....and if nobody (i.e. me) brings it up again...you'd pretend you never said it.
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:09pm
Whatever Maskot.
Good night.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 9:36pm
this may be true for Iraq, but Afghanistan has no oil.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 8:35pm
nope. but it is prime pipeline territory. specifically the pipeline from the caspian to india, thus blunting iranian influence in the subcontinent.
don't forget the taliban visited unocal in texas.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 9:58pm
the dollar's not gonna collapse.
it's just gonna fizzle away.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 10:07pm
this may be true for Iraq, but Afghanistan has no oil. Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 8:35pm
They may not have any oil, they do however have something even more valuable. The best opium and hashish in the world. Consumer demand for that is not going to decline anytime soon. Especially in these depressing times..
Posted by chaoszen at 01/14/2009 @ 10:38pm
more valuable for whom? certainly not for the afghanies. the profit is always for the middle man, or middle men.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 10:41pm
The dollar is being artificially propped up right now and higher against the Euro and the Yen by expectations that the European central bank will lower interest rates. Shortly the dollar index will likely bite the dust.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/14/2009 @ 10:52pm
more valuable for whom? certainly not for the afghanies. the profit is always for the middle man, or middle men. Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 10:41pm
True enough. Similar to how much good all that oil in Iraq is benefiting Iraqis.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/14/2009 @ 10:55pm
Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that the most likely outcome for the U.S. in the near term --perhaps the next ten years or even much less-- is a complete economic collapse.
We just witnessed the opening salvo last September.
Posted by b_kool_66
There is a second catastropic wave of defaulted mortgage loans anticipated to occur in the next year or two.
Alt-A mortgages usually get a 5 to 7 year grace period before payments to the principal were required. Subprime loans only 2 to 3 years.
Considering the impact of massive unemployment and sinking home values, a lot of the "Alt-A" loans are expected to result in more foreclosures.
After the fisco that occurred with the 700$ billion financial industry bailout, the banks probably won't get another one.
So, get ready.....
Convert your cash into Krugerands, stock up on canned goods and buy a shotgun.
Posted by koroviev at 01/15/2009 @ 02:18am
Note to Ms. VandenHeuvel: the plan for Afghanistan is to WIN. That's spelled W-I-N.
If this confuses you, please refer to IRAQ. That's spelled I-R-A-Q.
Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 07:30am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 9:36pm
Yeah, come 2019, that's what I'd expect then too.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 07:30am
That's where we "have already won the war, but can't leave for years, because if we do, we'll lose the war"....right?
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 1:17pm
win?!?!??!?
ponti, PUT DOWN THAT BONG!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 2:11pm
Here is the PLAN; Complete withdraw of troops by the end of 2009. Stopping construction of Military bases in Afghanistan and the Middle East in General. Along with a complete withdraw of troops from Iraq.
If this doesn't happen, we are going to end up in a HUGE War and Mess in the Middle East within the next 3 years! The Arab world is tired, rightfully so, of Americas nation Building and Imperialism in their part of the world. We have destroyed Iraq, bombed it into worse shape now than it was before the invasion.
Now with what is going on in GAZA, the war crimes of Israel is inflaming the tensions of the Middle East. We know that GAZA asked for help and permission to attack Iran 2 years ago, thankfully that didn't happen. But we know they still want to attack, and that if they did it would undoubtedly draw America into their war with Iran. We don't have the Troops, the Resources nor the Money to get involved and Morally we do NOT have the right to get involved wither. Iran has done NOTHING to us. Iran is an Industrialized nation with a western tinge, just like America tries to do around the world. Their only "crime" is in wanting Nuclear power. America has over 10,000 Nuclear weapons and Israel over 400. And these nations want to keep their bullying power leverage and go after anyone else who feels they too have the right for Nukes; IRAN.
If you think the Situation in the middle east right now is a quagmire, wait and see what it'll be like if we are still in Iraq, send MORE troops into Afghanistan, then their is the issue over Pakistan. Plus with what is happening in GAZA with Israel's attacking them and in turn causing Lebanon to get involved and drawing support of Iran, who Israel would love to attack, and also gaining the support of the rest of the Middle East.
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/15/2009 @ 2:19pm
Then you will see a real Sh*t Storm!
Oh and lets not leave out Russia, whom has ties with some of these Nations as well.
We need to leave the Middle East alone, at least in the sense of War and Bullying them for our own desires. We need to Tell Israel, enough already! No more monetary support to Israel from America and NO More Military support, giving them weapons to use to attack the Arabic world.
If Israel wants to fight these countries, they have to do it on their own, WITHOUT Americas support or backing. We do NOT need to cause the Middle East to explode, having them Truly HATE us, even more so, while causing the Rest of The World to Wake up and See the Evils of America and Israeli's actions, causing the World to HATE us even More!
We NEED Diplomatic and Peaceful solutions to the Middle East - or else you can basically say goodbye to all the luxuries of America and we deplete our national treasure and spill our blood over there for all the WRONG reasons.
End these WARS Now! Iraq and Afghanistan! Israel's Invasion of GAZA! and Any Bad Blood Between the United States and the Middle East!
We NEED Peace.
http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/15/2009 @ 2:25pm
Only difference is they NEVER figure out what is going on!
Posted by comanchenation at 01/14/2009 @ 6:22pm
We know what is going on alright and that is your man Bush is nearly out the door, thank God!! Can't wait to wake up each day and think, oh, to be in America now that calm and sensibility have come to the White House.
Posted by Caj at 01/15/2009 @ 5:09pm
Obama said recently that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. 16 US intelligence agencies say that Iran IS NOT pursuing nuclear weapons. The UN inspectors in Iran say the same. There´s ZERO evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Why does Obama say it then ? IS OBAMA MAD ???
Posted by claus at 01/15/2009 @ 5:20pm
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/15/2009 @ 2:19pm
Quagmire! Quagmire!! BGAWWWWKKKKK!!! Quagmire!!!
Ha ha idiots! We WON in Iraq! The surge worked!
Earth to the left! We WON in Iraq! Earth to the lefty losers! Come in, lefty losers!
Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 9:15pm
On the Surge
O'Reilly: I think history will show that Iraq was the wrong battlefield, and I think you were perspicacious on your original assessment of the battlefield. Obama: I appreciate that. O'Reilly: I think that you were desperately wrong on the surge, and I think you should admit that to America. … We have defeated the terrorists, we have taken control of the southern region… by the surge, which you did not support, so why won't you say, I was right in the beginning, I was wrong about that. Obama: I think that there is no doubt that the violence is down. … I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that no one expected, including President Bush and the other supporters … partly because of the Shite awakening. O'Reilly: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge. Obama: Well, look… O'Reilly: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge. Obama: No, no, no, no. O'Reilly: You and Joe Biden, no surge. Obama: Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had been through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous, and the president wanted to double down and continue on an open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility that they needed to reconcile. O'Reilly: But it worked. Obama: Well, look. Uh, uh. Bill, what I've said is–I've already said–is it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. O'Reilly: So why can't you say you were right in the beginning, but you were wrong now?
Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 9:18pm
Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 1:17pm
"That's where we "have already won the war, but can't leave for years, because if we do, we'll lose the war"....right?"
So, by your logic, we lost WWII because, after all, we still have troops in Germany and Japan 60 years later?
Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 9:25pm
ponti, PUT DOWN THAT BONG!
iraq is a mess. people are dying everyday. surge? what a joke.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 10:07pm
bush can secure his legacy as the president who successfully defeated terrorism by finally getting Osama bin Laden. Beginning next Wednesday, this guy won't have that much to do. If he had any guts, as "Joe Citizen," he would announce that he's personally going after the guy; that he's going over to Afghanistan/Pakistan to call-out bin Laden. Boy, that one single act would certainly endear the masses of Americans in his favor. Do it Mr. bush! You get bin Laden and I'll start spelling your name again with a capital "B." It would be the honorable thing to do.
Posted by coloneblog at 01/18/2009 @ 12:17pm