Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
President Obama will soon make what could be the defining decision of his presidency. The course he chooses in Afghanistan will tell us a lot about the kind of country we will become during his administration.
We have already been fighting in Afghanistan for twice as long as we fought in World War II. In fact, the United States and its NATO partners have had more than 40,000 troops in Afghanistan since 2006 and have spent more than $300 billion on military and civilian operations. At this perilous moment, as we attempt to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the last thing we need is a "surge" of 40,000 more troops to fight on behalf of a corrupt and unpopular Afghan government.
Security in the United States and the region depend not on this misguided surge, but on commonsense counterterrorist and homeland security measures: extensive intelligence cooperation, expert police work, border control, and the surgical use of special forces to disrupt imminent attack when needed.
What is hopeful is that the majority of Americans have turned against the war.
The Nation's special issue on Afghanistan--Obama's Fateful Choice--published this week, takes on the rationale for escalation, challenges the White House to explore a broader range of options, and offers alternatives, including an exit strategy. The issue also offers ways to get involved to oppose this misguided and dangerous policy.
One new effort was launched today by five national peace advocacy groups representing hundreds of thousands of Americans--a project called NoEscalation.org. The website tracks whether Members of Congress have taken a stand against troop escalation, and lists their phone numbers so constituents can call and ask their legislators to oppose it.
The website is created by CodePink, Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace. The groups are urging Americans to report back to NoEscalation.org about their conversations with Congressional offices.
"We're at a major fork in the road," said Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy. "One road leads to years of quagmire and needless death and trauma for American soldiers and Afghan civilians. The other road leads to national reconciliation in Afghanistan, regional diplomacy, an exit strategy, and a timetable for military withdrawal."
President Obama promised to renew and reconstruct our nation. At a time when we are struggling to recover from a debilitating economic crisis, how can he justify the cost that sending yet more troops to Afghanistan would entail?
Make sure your voice is heard as President Obama makes this fateful choice.
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
KvH: "....the United States and its NATO partners have .....spent more than $300 billion on military and civilian operations."
This is the first comment (?fact?) that jumped out at me! I'm pretty amazed, in a positive way, that that's ALL this Good War has cost for the Good Guys! That's downright pocket change compared to a $787 Billion Pork Bill that raised unemployment from ~7% to almost 10%.......LOL!
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am
KvH: "What is hopeful is that the majority of Americans have turned against the war."
But you know how we Americans are, we have the attention span & patience of........
Curious that no polls yet, just flat out ask if America should just unilaterally withdraw and abandon its share (dominant share no doubt) of that $300 Billion `investment' in the Afghan phase of the GWOT?
I support Magic in whatever decision, as CIC, he makes wrt Afghanistan, but the results better be a shit load better than the Pork Bill, which I did NOT support!
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 09:57am
More boots on the ground will only expand & solidify the Afghan insurgency. Our presence is required, yes, but in highly fortified enclaves, ready on the receipt of satelite & human intelligence to unleash the drones & other armaments on DIRECT threats to Western security. In other words, scale down the violence if you want to win the hearts & minds. And this means showing fewer targets to that same insurgency.
The Taliban is there to stay. Get used to it. These peoples will not buy into Western mores, be they the lost & misguided users of their opiates or the enlightened, trustful & loving families at the other end of the spectrum.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/23/2009 @ 10:36am
This is the first comment (?fact?) that jumped out at me! I'm pretty amazed, in a positive way, that that's ALL this Good War has cost for the Good Guys! That's downright pocket change compared to a $787 Billion Pork Bill that raised unemployment from ~7% to almost 10%.......LOL!
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am
Yeah well I've seen you bitch about healthcare and that would cost a fraction of the costs of afganistan and why is it ok to go in deficiet on afganistan and not healthcare
Posted by tdblacksheep33 at 10/23/2009 @ 10:49am
"That's downright pocket change compared to a $787 Billion Pork Bill that raised unemployment from ~7% to almost 10%.......LOL!"
and which has begun to repair large swaths of public infrastructure in san francisco, to everyone's delight.
but where has that 300 billion gone in afghanistan? what tangible benefits has that 300 billion given americans, happy?
and, and where's bin laden? i thought that was the point of our invasion?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 11:30am
NoEscalation.org is a promise of hope for Obama's contradictory and disconnected positions on Afghanistan. Here is a real opportunity for Obama to stand up against the neocons that have defined (arguably) our foreign policy for the last 20 or 30 years. If we are to truly forge a new direction in foreign policy and in our relationship to the world, our President needs to have the courage to stand up against the neocons. If not, Obama will just be making nice speeches to a world rapidly loosing any belief in his credibility.
Posted by trueleftist at 10/23/2009 @ 11:49am
"...that's ALL this Good War has cost for the Good Guys!"
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am |
1. War is not good, so there is no "Good War"
2. Just because the United States invades a country does not necessarily make us the "Good Guys."
"That's downright pocket change compared to a $787 Billion Pork Bill that raised unemployment from ~7% to almost 10%.......LOL!"
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am
The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and was going to go up anyway. Plus, the loss of net jobs per month have gone down since the stimulus package passed, as compared to late 2008/early 2009.
Posted by bes1174 at 10/23/2009 @ 12:07pm
It's no secret that I'm on the side of winning. As I see it, Obama really has a simple choice. Either he wants to be a strong President like GWB was, or he'll withdraw, lose and go down as another Jimmy Carter.
If I were President, I'd choose the advice of my military advisors over the civilian political ones. In domestic policy it should be reversed but right now, Obama is on the cusp of defining himself and his Presidency.
We peons have no input what-so-ever in the decision that the president will make but we sure as hell will live with the consequences either way.
Also, this is the worst time of all to be thinking about moving the country toward socialized medicine both because of our debt and because of our dire circumstances in the war on terror. I'm hoping that Obama will not undo all the good that our troops have accomplished up till this point and that he will find the courage that every President needs to support our troops by giving them the tools and the manpower they need to succeed.
BTW, I also believe that is was a mistake to give the wealthiest Americans tax cuts during a time of war.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/23/2009 @ 12:11pm
"It's no secret that I'm on the side of winning. As I see it, Obama really has a simple choice. Either he wants to be a strong President like GWB was, or he'll withdraw, lose and go down as another Jimmy Carter"
the operative word here being "simple" as in "i'm just a simple president"
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:16pm
I'm not just a little suspicious of Obama putting off his decision on Afghanistan until after the Nov. elections. Imagine playing politics with the lives of our precious troops.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/23/2009 @ 12:21pm
"Imagine playing politics with the lives of our precious troops"
yeah, just imagine that. bush never, ever played politics with our troops (see: 2004, 2006, 2008, walter reed, iraq, afghanistan, etc), because he was "just a simple president."
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:26pm
bush loved the troops so much, that he sent them into, not one, but two countries without:
a) enough troops
b) enough gear
c) a mission
but that wasn't "playing politics," that was "just a simple president."
and of course, it wasn't at all political to leave a catastrophic mess for the next (democratic) president.
that was, again, "a simple president."
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:30pm
all war supporters here must see the frontline documentary "obama's war" if they really want a glimpse into how unwinnable is this war.
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:32pm
Darla continues to support all of those who wish to see not only the US lose Afghanistan to terrorists, but to enable them to continue their assault on civilization.
It is ironic that Darla supports people who would kill her if they had the opportunity.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:39pm
"Darla continues to support all of those who wish to see not only the US lose Afghanistan to terrorists, but to enable them to continue their assault on civilization"
lose afghanistan to "terrorists"? the taliban are terrorists? they may be barbaric, but they certainly aren't terrorists. those guys are in.....pakistan.
"It is ironic that Darla supports people who would kill her if they had the opportunity"
textbook red herring.
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:48pm
btw, if you want to talk about an "assault on civilization," look no further than the united states military's efforts in afghanistan and iraq between 2001 and 2009.
now, let's flip that: has the taliban assaulted another country? what about two countries?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:49pm
Darla,
I posted the intelligence report on another thread that the Taliban has merged with Al Qaeda and now see themselves as part of the global jihad movement.
therefore the Taliban are correctly identified by President Obama as central in the war on terrorism.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:07pm
If Obama doesn't escalate that proves he's a Rev Wright America hating socialist celebrity Muslim born outside the USA.
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:34pm
Yeah well I've seen you bitch about healthcare and that would cost a fraction of the costs of afganistan and why is it ok to go in deficiet on afganistan and not healthcare
Posted by tdblacksheep33 at 10/23/2009 @ 10:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
Now that is really stupid! $300 billion dollars is not even 6 months of the projected cost of healthcare based even on the bogus figures the Demoncrats have come up with. You are really out of touch!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:35pm
and, and where's bin laden? i thought that was the point of our invasion?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 11:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
What was that you said Darlaloon? Oh yea,
deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
You have nothing but love for others especially our servicemen fighting for your right to be a total FOOL!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:40pm
This is all more MSM hype and hokum.
Who's winning - the hippie no war liberals or the defeat the brown bastard hawk republicans.
Exactly the same every time: look over there, not here. Don't look at the corporatocracy.
Yes it's war, war, war, political war, anything to keep the public not watching the corporatocracy.
The media-multinational-defense-healthcare complex. Keeps millionaire incumbents in office forever, disseminates the middle class, expands the chasm in pay and benefits within the USA, and even worse between the "civilized "and rest of world. Afghanistan needs help with as infrastructure, rule of law, security. Oppression and crimes against women should be the focus.
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:48pm
war on terrorism.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:07pm
Location: between everywhere and nowhere
Duration: eternity
Exit strategy: when the Garden of Eden is restored
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:53pm
Afghanistan needs help with as infrastructure, rule of law, security.
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hmm...not unlike the U.S.A. under the totalitarian rule of the Obamanaion and his Demoncrat congress!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
Exit strategy: when the Garden of Eden is restored
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry, the place (G. of E.) of entry from Genesis has little to do with the exit in Revelations ,except for the sin of man plainly revealed between the two books, and the fact that if we repent and confess our sins Jesus is able to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 2:05pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:40pm
I'd have to agree. Darla makes no sense at all. She has such hatred for all things American except for probably, entitlements.
She has claimed to be a lesbian, pot smoking, black jew. I think she is yanking all our cranks. I don't think Darla is a she at all. I think Darla is probably a man, probably connected to the Taliban in some way. He/she was probably educated in an American university all the while loathing America and GWB for attacking her people. That makes the most sense to me. The drugs, the affinity for our enemies, the hatred of our troops. Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. I'm convinced.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/23/2009 @ 2:10pm
"I posted the intelligence report on another thread that the Taliban has merged with Al Qaeda and now see themselves as part of the global jihad movement."
show me the intelligence report which concludes that they have, in fact, "merged."
and if they have merged, then why is al qaeda in pakistan?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:33pm
i suppose in antisocialist's mind, "merged" means that they both have a common enemy, which isn't surprising, seeing as the americans have:
a) invaded and occupied two muslim countries
b) kidnapped, imprisoned, killed, injured and/or tortured millions of innocent muslims
c) hijacked the american government, at the taxpayer's behest, to continue a) and b)
d) wiretapped the american citizenry w/ out warrants
e) bankrupt the american citizenry w/ two wars
f) used the media to brainwash at least 40% of the population (see fox news)
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:40pm
btw, thank you katrina for posting a bunch of articles on afghanistan this week, in opposition to escalation, but still providing some balance/reality.
keep on keepin' on!
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:45pm
Yeah well I've seen you bitch about healthcare and that would cost a fraction of the costs of afganistan and why is it ok to go in deficiet on afganistan and not healthcare
Posted by tdblacksheep33 at 10/23/2009 @ 10:49am
Because Happy has money invested in defense contractors. Happy looks out for Happy. He could give a rip less about the death and destruction that lie in the wake of war as long as he gets his payout. That's good old fashion, letting the other guy do the work for you capitalism. The soldiers take the risk, the war hawks push the wars, the contractors build the military toys with government tax dollars and the defense industry reaps large profits and of course provide kickbacks to the warhawks in congress.
Government healthcare, on the other hand, is something Happy can't get his greedy claws on and the very idea of it drives him and his ilk crazy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/23/2009 @ 2:58pm
now, let's flip that: has the taliban assaulted another country? what about two countries?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:49pm
Here's the not so funny thing. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. The people involved in the 9/11 attacks were mostly Saudi's and I don't think the Taliban exists in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/23/2009 @ 3:04pm
gunslinger, all I had to do is read one sentence and I knew it was you, yup, didn't even have to see your name, just had to read was, "strong prez like GWB", paaleeaasse, you have got to be joking! I don't want Obama to be "strong" like Bush!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/23/2009 @ 4:13pm
I want Obama to be strong like Obama!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/23/2009 @ 4:25pm
In Katrina vanden Heuvel's article she says (with regard to the website NoEscalation.org):
"........The website is created by CodePink, Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace......."
It is odd that many groups such as the ones above have the word Peace in their names.......since we know from history that policy advocated by such groups leads not to peace but to death, misery and human suffering.
And almost always the death, misery and human suffering is incurred by people other than the groups advocating the "peace".
People other than the ones calling for "Peace in our time" before World War II were the ones who bore the brunt of those decisions.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/23/2009 @ 5:15pm
And almost always the death, misery and human suffering is incurred by people other than the groups advocating the "peace".
People other than the ones calling for "Peace in our time" before World War II were the ones who bore the brunt of those decisions.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/23/2009 @ 5:15pm
OK, no sarcasm, because I really am trying to understand the neocon mind:
the "death, misery and human suffering", for example, endured by European Jewry in the Second World War--what were THOSE people advocating--something OTHER than "peace", i.e., "totaler krieg", perhaps? That is, were they in fact the war mongers, somehow?
Or the Polish civilians on 9-1-39, were they somehow advocating something other than "peace", such that it made them eligible, somehow, for their share of "death, misery and suffering" in your construct?
I don't get it.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/23/2009 @ 5:35pm
show me the intelligence report which concludes that they have, in fact, "merged."
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:33pm
The Front
The Taliban-Al Qaeda merger.
Peter Bergen
October 19, 2009 (New Republic)
Nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan...
Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan that border it have always been the epicenter of the war on jihadist terrorism-and, at least for the foreseeable future, they will continue to be. Though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al Qaeda without securing Afghanistan. in recent years, Taliban leaders have drawn especially close to Al Qaeda. (There are basically two branches of the Taliban-Pakistani and Afghan-but both are currently headquartered in Pakistan, and they are quite a bit more interwoven than is commonly thought.) Today, at the leadership level, the Taliban and Al Qaeda function more or less as a single entity.
The point is not that the Taliban is going to mount a widespread campaign of terrorism in the West-it isn't-but simply that the Taliban's approach to combat has increasingly merged with Al Qaeda's.
This summer, Mustafa Abu Al Yazid, one of Al Qaeda's founders and a current member of its leadership council, described his group's rapport with the Taliban during an interview with Al Jazeera in Afghanistan. "We are on a good and strong relationship with them," he explained, "and we frequently meet them." He also said that his organization continues to regard Mullah Omar as the "Commander of the Faithful"-in effect acknowledging that the Taliban leader is Al Qaeda's religious guide, a position he has enjoyed for the past decade.
http://tinyurl.com/yfzqxj9
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:00pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/23/2009 @ 5:35pm
Neocon mind =
"I'm right" see how I bend reality into a 3D psychotic pretzel, neat, cool, look, this proves "I'm right" see how I bend reality into a 3D psychotic pretzel, neat, cool, look, this proves "I'm right" see how I bend reality into a 3D psychotic pretzel, neat, cool, look, this proves "I'm right" see how I bend reality into a 3D psychotic pretzel, neat, cool, look, this proves "I'm right" see how I bend reality into a 3D psychotic pretzel, neat, cool, look, this proves "I'm right" see how I bend reality into a 3D psychotic pretzel, neat, cool, look, this proves "I'm right" (rinse and repeat)
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 7:03pm
This is their mental reality blender, where all things comes out pond scum brown... you know Cheney, 'dithering' is bad, just send 'em in, no WMDs, Iraq not a threat, etc., in the blender and out comes:
Obama is endangering our troops, emboldening the enemy redux.
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 7:13pm
"Peter Bergen October 19, 2009 (New Republic)"
all we need to know (aka not an "intelligence report")
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 7:46pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 7:46pm
Do you know who Peter Bergen is? You do know that the New Republic is a Liberal Publication?
He was the first man to interview Bin Laden. He is an acknowledged journalist expert on Al Qaeda.
Peter Bergen is a print and television journalist; a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C. where he co-directs the Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative; a research fellow at New York University's Center on Law and Security and CNN's national security analyst. In 2008 he was an Adjunct Lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and he has worked as an Adjunct Professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University for several years. He is the editor of the AfPak Channel a joint venture between Foreign Policy magazine and the New America Foundation which can be found at www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak.
Bergen has reported on al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and counterterrorism and homeland security for a range of American newspapers and magazines including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, TIME, The Nation, The National Interest, Mother Jones, Washington Times and Vanity Fair. His story on extraordinary rendition for Mother Jones was part of a package of stories nominated for a 2008 National Magazine Award. He has also written for newspapers and magazines around the world such as The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, International Herald Tribune, Prospect, El Mundo, La Repubblica, The National, and Die Welt. And he has worked as a correspondent for National Geographic Television, Discovery Television and CNN
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 8:16pm
More education for you Darla
<Bergen has traveled repeatedly to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to report on bin Laden and al Qaeda. His most recent book is "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader" (Free Press, 2006). It was named one of the best non-fiction books of 2006 by The Washington Post. "The Osama bin Laden I Know" was translated into French, Spanish and Polish, and CNN produced a two hour documentary, "In the Footsteps of bin Laden", based on the book. Bergen was one of the producers of the CNN documentary, which was named the best documentary of 2006 by the Society of Professional Journalists and was nominated for an Emmy.
Bergen is also the author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Bin Laden. (Free Press, 2001). Holy War, Inc. was a New York Times bestseller, has been translated into eighteen languages and was named one of the best non-fiction books of 2001 by The Washington Post. A documentary based on Holy War, Inc., which aired on National Geographic Television, was nominated for an Emmy in 2002. Bergen was the recipient of the 2000 Leonard Silk Journalism Fellowship and was the Pew Journalist in Residence at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in 2001 while writing Holy War, Inc. Bergen is on the editorial board of Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, a leading scholarly journal in the field, and has testified before a number of congressional committees.>
http://www.peterbergen.com/biography.aspx#
Do you get that Darla? He even writes for THE NATION AND MOTHER JONES. You are so dimwitted at times.
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/peter_bergen
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 8:33pm
I'm not just a little suspicious of Obama putting off his decision on Afghanistan until after the Nov. elections. Imagine playing politics with the lives of our precious troops.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/23/2009 @ 12:21pm
imagine that....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:30pm
THEY'LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:31pm
I want Obama to be strong like Obama!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/23/2009 @ 4:25pm
well,
you'll have to settle for oblahma.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:33pm
Though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al Qaeda without securing Afghanistan.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:00pm
So, how long do you think it's going to take to win in Afghanistan if the troop levels are increased to a level that the commanders deem sufficient? 4 or 5 years? Longer?
And why did we go into Iraq in the first place, since Saddam did not have a relationship with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was never in that country? I've never heard a firm rationalization for that move. Of course I've read a lot about all the justifications, but it's a muddled study in subjectivism to this day. I'd love your take ( I know you've probably stated it before ad nauseam, but this is a great place for reiteration).
Wouldn't it have been more correct to focus on Afghanistan first, back when we had the money and resources to do so? Saddam was a tyrant, but had nothing to do with 911, our raison d'être for the war on terror.
Posted by ficheye at 10/23/2009 @ 10:58pm
And I mean REALLY focus on Afghanistan first, since we were already there with our bombs and a big can of whup ass after the Taliban refused to expel or hand over bin Laden. But don't you think that should have been the central war effort?
Posted by ficheye at 10/23/2009 @ 11:05pm
by ficheye at 10/23/2009 @ 10:58pm...
I think you've put your finger on something here...
The basically flawed foreign policy tenants of the former administration... when seen outside of the authoritarian atmosphere that was 'promoted' by all its usual channels... call it 20-20 hindsight if you must...
...can no longer stand to the objective scrutiny of dispassionate observation.
It is by accepting this... and acting on it... that the self righteous right can be 'encouraged' to tone down their glaucomic rhetoric, and show a little humility...
...a basic Christian value.
Posted by ttr at 10/23/2009 @ 11:32pm
The assumption that more soldiers means more offensive operations is unwarranted. More soldiers are required to secure areas where we already have support - to protect and police areas where the inhabitants fear reprisals by the Taliban.
Pulling out will lead to a re-conquest by the Taliban, making the 'intelligence' and 'police work' advocated by Katrina impossible. The slaughter and anarchy that we caused in Iraq by turning it into a failed state will be repeated in Afghanistan, along with the re-establishment of al Qaida - a return to the situation of the late 90's when terrorists driven out of the Sudan found a safe haven there.
Why didn't Bush Jr. finish the job? Doing so would have meant the exposure of the real al Qaida connection - the Saudis, not Saddam Hussein. That's also why the Saudi and Yemeni prisoners of war captured in Afghanistan have been held incommunicado since 2001.
Posted by samcrossett at 10/24/2009 @ 08:07am
This war is another example of an Obama lie to get elected. Obama nver intended to support this war when he boldly and ignorantly stated he would even go after al quida in pakistan to get bin Laden..ya right...we will attack inside an allys nation. What an idiot.
Now hundreds are dieing including American soldiers while this idiot of a President says he has to evaluate the statedgy...what the hell was he doing when he made his campaign rethoric during the campaign...yes thats right pulling it out of his rear end...and for the last 9 months???? Oh that's right ...nothing. This is just an excuse to try to find a way out to appease the nut jobs on the far left and help the dem politicians who are about to take a bath in the near term elections. This administration is proving to be insidiously evil
Posted by Obamunut at 10/24/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by Sorelish at 10/23/2009 @ 10:36am
Except every successful counter-insurgency action has done exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Ultimately, you cannot win COIN through military action alone, which your comments assume.
Take a look at this: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/23/2009 @ 5:35pm
sjchermak doesn't believe in facts. That's all you need to know.
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 7:13pm
Bad ol' Dick. It's probably a good thing he never served himself - although maybe they would have taught him muzzle control before he got involved in any friendly fire situations.
Posted by samcrossett at 10/24/2009 @ 08:07am
Another for the ignore bin.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 09:55am
Posted by Obamunut at 10/24/2009 @ 09:46am
Let us know when you and your family is ready to join the group of 500,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers necessary to "pacify" Afghanistan.
Also, they have attacked from within Pakistan - as anyone that has heard of drone attacks can tell you.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 09:58am
anti,
peter bergen doesn't write "intelligence reports"
if you want to post bergen's writings for different publicans, then sure. but don't say, "the latest intelligence report says....."
bergen is a journalist, he's not on the "intelligence business," to quote a great rumsfeld.
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 10:23am
Once you've accepted that Afghanistan was the source of the 9/11 attacks, it's hard not to accept escalation. There is, however much a lot of people don't want to hear it, another story. Check out the VIDEO http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/ Fast forward to 4mins and watch for 30 seconds.
Posted by Buddy33 at 10/24/2009 @ 10:24am
by Buddy33 at 10/24/2009 @ 10:24am...
Shill for delusional affirmation...
Posted by ttr at 10/24/2009 @ 10:39am
some enlightenment from a. bacevich:
"I think the best way to understand the term "counterinsurgency" is to understand what the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps today mean by that term. What they mean is an approach to warfare in which success is to be gained not by destroying the enemy but by securing the population.
The term "securing" here means not simply keeping the people safe, but providing for the people a series of services -- effective governance, economic development, education, the elimination of corruption, the protection of women's rights. That translates into an enormously ambitious project of nation building. . . .
John Nagl says that in effect we are engaged in a global counterinsurgency campaign. That's his description of the long war.
Now, think about it. If counterinsurgency, according to current doctrine, is all about securing the population, if securing the population implies not simply keeping them safe but providing people with good governance and economic development and education and so on, what then is the requirement of a global counterinsurgency campaign?
Are we called upon to keep ourselves safe? To prevent another 9/11? Are we called upon to secure the population of the entire globe? Given the success we've had thus far in securing the population in Iraq and in Afghanistan, does this idea make any sense whatsoever?
Can anybody possibly believe that the United States of America, ... facing a federal budget deficit of $1.8 trillion ... has the resources necessary to conduct a global counterinsurgency campaign? Over what? The next 20, 50, 80 years? I think [there] is something so preposterous about such proposals. I just find it baffling that they are treated with seriousness by supposedly serious people"
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 11:08am
so, conservatives claim that our "mission" in afghanistan is so essential that we must spend trillions.
but healthcare? too expensive.
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 11:18am
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 09:55am
Just grasping at straws. I've long advocated getting out. That doesn't seem possible. What I've posted above represents a downsizing of sorts.
Beats handing out bibles & kicking in doors.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/24/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 11:08am
Fess up Darla. Are you part of the Taliban or Al Qaeda? You aren't fooling anyone here.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/24/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:30pm
Thanks. I'm glad you agree.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/24/2009 @ 1:43pm
Posted by Sorelish at 10/24/2009 @ 11:37am
True enough.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 2:26pm
sr jenkins...I don't have to wait...my son is there. Also the point is Obama committed to going after Bin Ladin...not me and not my son. Either cut the BS politics and send the troops the commanders want or get the hell out...totally out because having more elections and not being able to protect anyone who is voting is blood that is on Obama's hands...his arguemnets and that of his hack advisors, are pure political theater to quell the growing anxiety of wack job lefties like you who can't believe your socialist leaning, Hugo Chavez butt kissing , lightweight President is even entertaining adding more troops to get Bin Ladin...you just assumed his campaign rhetoric were lies...more than like;y you will be right. While he straddles the fence more american treasure will die.
Posted by Obamunut at 10/24/2009 @ 2:41pm
sr jenkins...I don't have to wait...my son is there. Also the point is Obama committed to going after Bin Ladin...not me and not my son. Either cut the BS politics and send the troops the commanders want or get the hell out...totally out because having more elections and not being able to protect anyone who is voting is blood that is on Obama's hands...his arguemnets and that of his hack advisors, are pure political theater to quell the growing anxiety of wack job lefties like you who can't believe your socialist leaning, Hugo Chavez butt kissing , lightweight President is even entertaining adding more troops to get Bin Ladin...you just assumed his campaign rhetoric were lies...more than like;y you will be right. While he straddles the fence more american treasure will die.
Posted by Obamunut at 10/24/2009 @ 2:41pm
Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. He has sent more troops to Afghanistan and deemphasized Iraq.
It was actually his rhetoric on Afghanistan that was the deal breaker in why I didn't vote for him. And if you recall correctly, no Presidential candidate in the 2008 election was campaigning on withdrawal from Afghanistan. McCain wanted more war in Iraq and possibly Iran. Obama was for more war in Afghanistan. That's why I voted for Ralph Nader.
Further, the American people aren't up for supplying the number of troops the commanders need to do the mission. Occupations require are large body of troops. Take a look at how many troops we had in Japan - a couple of hundred thousand, and that's an island nation.
So, stop being a little whiney ass Republican, and start signing up your friends, your son's friends and anyone else that would listen to get them to join an occupation force and collecting the money necessary to fund it - and stop the bullshit about caring about costs. You don't give a shit about costs because if you did, you'd be categorically against being in Afghanistan at all.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 3:41pm
"...pure political theater to quell the growing anxiety of wack job lefties like you who can't believe your socialist leaning, Hugo Chavez butt kissing , lightweight President is even entertaining adding more troops to get Bin Ladin..."
by Obamunut at 10/24/2009 @ 2:41pm...
Great to see such a rational and well researched post from the right for a change... how refreshing...;^)
By the way... can you think of anything else to say... besides "more war"... "I will never respect Obama for any reason"... and "No, only my way or the highway"?
...you know... maybe flesh out your arguments a bit... for those of us that are maybe a little less gifted at being nasty... dittoing... bigots...
Posted by ttr at 10/24/2009 @ 4:37pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 3:41pm
"So, stop being a little whiney ass Republican, and start signing up your friends, your son's friends and anyone else that would listen to get them to join an occupation force and collecting the money necessary to fund it - and stop the bullshit about caring about costs. You don't give a shit about costs because if you did, you'd be categorically against being in Afghanistan at all."
First, I don't know if you know this, but no-one can 'sign up their friends, sons friends, etc', because that's illegal. Also, perhaps you didn't know this, but the Armed Forces are all-volunteer, so no-one signs up who doesn't want to defend the USA - which leaves out most liberals, I would think.
Just educating here. Carry on with your rant.
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 4:49pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 4:49pm
Unlike you, I've served in the military, and if you've even see a military ad aimed at parents, you'd know that parents are influential in getting people to sign up - which is why parents are targeted by the military's advertising agencies.
You should educate people about something you know something about - which ain't the military and judging from your commentary, ain't much else either.
By the way, why don't you join up yourself so you don't sound like a hypocritical asshole when you deign to "educate" liberals that have actually served?Or are you still standing willing and ready when your country calls -the mark of a faux patriot if there ever was one.?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:21pm
As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we are joining together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.
Many of the elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Overall, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is full of corruption and being taken over by Socialists. Everyone of these Socialist are clearly a danger to everything we hold dear as patriotic American citizens, and they are gaining evermore control over the members of our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people. At the very least, many of them no longer think of themselves as being our elected representatives, and now refer to themselves as leaders of Socialism in the true form of tyrants.
Most Democrats already know their pleas are only being answered by repeated insult and injury by their elected representatives within the Democratic Party. Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupted and/or Socialist.
So spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats, for the Democrat members are taking back control of the Democratic Party. Also, please don't forget to contact and request the Unions
Posted by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:14pm
Ask yourself these questions:
1. What political doctrine do President Obama and his administration have in common with Communism?
2. What political doctrine do President Obama and his administration have in common with Marxism?
3. What political doctrine do President Obama and his administration have in common with fascist dictatorships?
4. What political doctrine do President Obama and his administration have in common with Adolph Hitler?
The answer to all of them is Socialism.
Posted by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:15pm
Posted by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:15pm
Even the Blue Dogs might find you a bit much. Surprised that you're commenting on this thread. You might be missing something on Fox.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/24/2009 @ 9:01pm
EricPearson, don't know who you are but a dem isn't it, back to your hidyhole for you, no more playing mole.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/24/2009 @ 10:32pm
by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:14pm...
by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:15pm...
Next time some git goes on about Reverend Wright...
...I'll show them these posts!;^)
Posted by ttr at 10/24/2009 @ 11:06pm
America----Start leaving the indigenous peoples of the world alone!!!!!
Indigenous peoples should not have to put up with Military Imperial Empires like the United States.....Leave them alone, get out of their countries and they will not bother anyone else either.....
Posted by mercurysun1 at 10/25/2009 @ 03:07am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:00pm |
Do you honestly think the Taliban would be interested in 'global jihad', if Dubya hadn't provided them with the best recruiting tool ever when he invaded Afghanistan, then invaded Iraq (letting the first front wither, no less)?
Do you honestly think that AQ isn't comfy, cozy, and plotting their next move in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Karachi, and Berlin?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 06:11am
Posted by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:14pm |
I think you accidentally inhaled some jimson weed...please find a babysitter until you come down.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 06:15am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 06:11am
It's also worth pointing out that the Afghan Taliban is a nationalist movement with no interest in global jihad. But antisocialist is no more interested in discriminating between different groups labeled as "the Taliban" than he is in the differences between Sunni and Shiite.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 09:32am
Posted by ttr at 10/24/2009 @ 10:39am
Can't handle reality. Won't believe his own eyes. The truth is just "much too terrible".
Posted by Buddy33 at 10/25/2009 @ 2:21pm
Check out the VIDEO http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/ Fast forward to 4mins and watch for 30 seconds.
Posted by Buddy33
Posted by Buddy33 at 10/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by Buddy33 at 10/25/2009 @ 2:29pm |
All I saw was Cheney looking bored while others reeled in horror in the 'bunker' under the WH.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 3:47pm
sr jenkins and the rest of the lefty wacko's here. Jenkins you almost sound like you know what your talking about but let me correct you. First Obama didn't send more troops on his own as you imply. They were already committed by Bush before he left.A total of 21,000 and he simply honored an agreement in place with the Afgan government. Obama has sent no new troops on his own. secondly it was Obama from a strategic stadpoint along with Kerry's support during the camapign that said they were so figgin smart and they would get NATO to supply more troops in concert with more troops and resourses from the US and they would get bin Laden...go back and read what this A$$ said,,,he has not been able to do either...he is simply and empty suit ideolog,,,he is weak, two face, and our allies know he has no convictions other than to make himself look good.None of our allies will trust him and our enemies simply mock him.They sure as hell don't fear him which only puts our troops in more danger.
Accordingly,we should get out for all the wrong reasons but we need to get out because the Commander in Chief is not capable to lead honorable men who are risking their lives for this nation. Whine this jenkins,
Posted by Obamunut at 10/25/2009 @ 4:18pm
The answer to all of them is Socialism. Posted by EricPearson at 10/24/2009 @ 8:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you wouldn't know from socialism if it sat on your lap and bit you on the nose.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/25/2009 @ 4:55pm
Posted by Obamunut at 10/25/2009 @ 4:18pm
Try the interactive graph below. You'll notice that in January 2009 there were 34,000 troops. In September 2009, the estimate is 68,000.
Now, compare that with every single month under Bush. There's no month where there is more than 34,000 - even including the initial "invasion". Many months have substantially less.
Even if we go with your assumptions that Bush agreed to 21,000 more troops and that Obama's hands were tied, that still leaves an additional 13,000 troops that Obama has added over that number there when he entered office - which is still a ~38% increase.
So, perhaps, you should spend a little more time trying to learn the facts and less time with your imagination of how you think the world works.
http://tinyurl.com/y96tjjt
Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 7:19pm
Letter to Americans & America,
Leave the indigenous peoples of the world alone!!!!! They have the right to live free from foreign invaders and outsiders who wreak havoc over their way of life. Most of these people would not even know what weapons were without nations like the USA introuducing them to such anti-civilization like hardware.
Indigenous peoples should not have to put up with Military Imperial Empires like the United States.....Leave them alone, get out of their countries and they will not bother anyone else either.....
The Indigenous peoples of the world have their legal rights too.
Sometimes I think the Indigenous peoples of the world are more civilized than the supposed enlightened people who still seek conquest and domination over others.
Posted by mercurysun1 at 10/26/2009 @ 2:41pm