Don't Make Afghanistan the Democrats' War

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 is troubling that a man of such good judgment is now ramping up his rhetoric about how we need to end the war in Iraq to focus on what he calls the "central front in the war on terror"--Afghanistan.

In his convention speech Wednesday night, Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden sounded hawkish notes --not only in flagrantly misrepresenting the Georgia-Russia crisis but in talking about Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for the two Senators, but for too many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like, that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in "the right war.)

Last month, the bipartisan Rand Corporation concluded in an important report that the very notion of a "war on terror" is counterproductive, and that intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy. More recently, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman--no milquetoast when it comes to using military force--criticized the Dems' position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived "bumper sticker politics." Friedman quoted a valuable Time article by Afghan expert Rory Stewart. Reporting from Kabul, Stewart explains: " A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining...The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly."

Stewart, a longtime observer of Afghan politics, makes clear that the temptation to throw more military forces at the problem may do more harm--to our security, to the Afghan people who are already angry about mounting civilian casualties, and to the stability of a region whose underlying conflicts require political resolution not more US or NATO troops.

If elected, Senator Obama has the possibility of re-engaging with a world repulsed by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. His election, allied with smart and more just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and destructive policies of mad men. But extricating the US from one disastrous war to head into another will endanger that possibility --while posing grave risks to the domestic agenda he has laid out. Before the new Democratic ticket of Obama/ Biden make a commitment to this new war, consider the sobering fact--confirmed by the US mliitary--that attacks by militants against the US-led coalition in Afghanistan have risen 40 percent this year, compared with 2007.

In a recent statement, the British humanitarian organization Oxfam 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..." We need to think beyond the reflexive response of troop escalation and begin the necessary, tough search for sane alternatives. If Americans are given a clear choice, how many would support bleeding more lives and resources in another failing occupation as an effective strategy of combating terrorism and promoting our national security?

Comments (44)

1. So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment is now ramping up his rhetoric about how we need to end the war in Iraq to focus on what he calls the "central front in the war on terror"--Afghanistan.

   posted by Katrina

   Precisely.

   But witness one of the major "mainstream" media voices of the American imperium, Fareed Zakaria, on his Sunday GPS show as he bloviates with twinkling eyes about the central importance of Afghanistan in the so-called war on terror.

   This is a revamped redux of John Kerry's cry --after appropriating Howard Dean's primarily anti-war message while distancing himself from Dean's anti-DC establishment message-- with it's subsequent histrionic claim that "we will WIN the war in Iraq".

   The Dems continue to smash their co-opted brains against the brick wall of a futile power play by the established powers to grasp for the ephemeral profits of war.

   When will the American public snap out of this stupor?

   Probably when we are collectively licking the ends of our blown away limbs and vanished dreams.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/28/2008 @ 01:17am

2. Please answer the basic questionsabout all those wonderful Oxfam development projects to which the next president should commit himself are to be undertaken unless NATO supplies troops for protection as the Taliban terrorists will not allow the Afgani government to gain legitimacy derived from the construction of desperately needed infrastructure. Obama is right. More ground troops, stop the indiscriminate aerial strikes.He's been saying it for a year. Please listen.

   Posted by hartal at 08/28/2008 @ 02:21am

3. Interesting foreign policy assessment, I more or less agree but want to point out some issues. I would really want to know from the experts in the field in Afghanistan. My guess of the country side is a semi-nomad country, extreme rough and mountainous where many people are constantly on the move looking for pastures for their animals. These people must be tough and like their free ways and independence, kind of our old far west spirit.

   An administration may struggle to keep a unitarian government because of the differences between the people. It is easy there for the Taliban gangs – again like old west gangs – to reign on terror based on their constant mobility and the fear they may impose to the population until they gather enough strength – and converts – to topple the government. The solution for that needs not be necessarily military but to help the Afghan government with very good communication networks and capacity of response by a very agile and intelligently distributed Afghan army or police. As people there don't like government, the Taliban still will be worse for them. But if we stay there too much we will be seen as enemies too by these people because we add to that sense of dominance our total ignorance on their culture.

   A strategic drawback in Afghanistan will certainly help some of the Al Qaeda heads get a sense of security while our surveillance system is in place. That would do more to capture people like Bin Laden than what we are doing today. What is really critical for the US and the west is to find ways to isolate – or build an effective border – Afghanistan from Pakistan. Clearly, for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, ‘A' is the hiding and planning place and ‘P' the put into action place. The problem can end in a serious destabilization of Pakis

   Posted by Frank42 at 08/28/2008 @ 02:31am

4. Pakistan. I don't know how the Pentagon – who brags on their electronics – has done so little to know much more about the region. The bottom line: Afghanistan requires much more intelligence than actual forces.

   My conclusion is that nobody really knows what to do in A. The Republican machine and their "soft on terror" or "appeaser" accusations do the magic of shifting the entire political spectrum to appear strong and determined.

   Yes, there is a virus in the border of A and P that must be urgently contained. But it has to be done with 90% of intelligence and 10% of actual force. Again, if we could hear reports or books from the actual field experts….

   Posted by Frank42 at 08/28/2008 @ 02:33am

5. Uhhh. I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Afghanistan is the hiding place of the people who killed 4000 US citizens. Iraq was a farce. Afghanistan is a search for a mass murderer of American citizens and a man who attacked your country.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 02:34am

6. Then again... consider this.

   Osama is at large... and Al Qaeda, which has never been centrally based in Iraq, is regrouping. GWB's dyslexic approach to 9/11 has brought us all to our knees in confusion, and given little satisfaction to our need for a secure world... a world free from psychotic anarchic terrorism.

   It's like someone changed the channel... but the program we were watching was reality, ie. America's need for justice... not a 'reality show'... and we've got to get back to it, because we're still 'hung up' on it in so many ways.

   We may not be able to completely put 9/11 behind us... until we focus on and root out the the perpetrators, the instigators, and the hideous ideologies that guided them.

   Remember... the rest of the civilized world was TOTALLY behind us on this one... and once we get our priorities right... they will be again.

   Posted by ttr at 08/28/2008 @ 02:50am

7. "Obama is right. More ground troops, stop the indiscriminate aerial strikes." Ah, the real difference between US liberals and conservatives: when committing the ultimate crime, war of aggression, make sure you are using the right tactics.

   "Remember... the rest of the civilized world was TOTALLY behind us on this one... and once we get our priorities right... they will be again." Are these priorities that we use acceptable methods of killing innocent people? Would you want some country's air force to accidentally kill your child and 59 of your neighbors' children because it had its priorities right, going after the leaders of this country and the various corporations that have made out like bandits from the war in Iraq, all under the guise of bringing democracy? What are these priorities we need to get right? Make sure we have a nice smile as we kill, not appearing so cold-blooded?

   Posted by onthehelm at 08/28/2008 @ 08:55am

8. So let me get this straight, KVH wants a return to the failed policy of the Clinton administation, that Al-Qaeda should have been dealt with strictly in a judicial manner rather than a combination of military and judicial measures.

   Well we saw the results. Because nothing was done after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, 3000 people died during the attacks in 2001.

   Countries that allow safe haven for terrorist groups must be held accountable. No one could argue the U.S. and NATO going to war in Afghanistan was the wrong thing to do.

   It won't be easy for a country like Afghanistan to modernize. But if the world abandons Afghanistan and allows the Taliban to re-take tthe country, it never will.

   Posted by Zeddmen at 08/28/2008 @ 09:17am

9. Posted by Zeddmen at 08/28/2008 @ 09:17am

   I agree. Afghanistan is the war we should have fought. For MUCH fewer casaulties and maybe 1/10th! the money...we could have secured it and its borders, built schools and some high-tech factories, and locked down the warlords by turning them into ordinary politicians. And created a REAL "model for democracy" on a smaller scale.

   We also would have had the Iranians HELPING us and made Ahmadinejadism look like the stupidity that it is...instead of BOOSTING it as Bush has and McCain wants to continue to do.

   Iraq blew that chance. But it's recoverable.

   Plus, I'm surprised a Russo-phile like Ms vanden Heuvel couldn't see that a "re-Talibanized" Afghanistan would be something that the Russians would work WITH us to prevent...as it opens up Islamist extremism back on their own doorstep.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 10:06am

10. Obama has been sophisticated in his examination of the Afghan mess. He has recognized that boots on the ground can be discriminating in their action vis a vis bombing campaigns and that the objective is nation building.

    Posted by lenhoffcpa at 08/28/2008 @ 10:27am

11. Ouch!

    Somebody come to KVH's aid .... please ..

    This is getting bloody.

    OK, I will ...

    Let the terrorists grow their camps in Afghanistan. Once they hear Obama's speaking talent they'll forget all about homemade bombs. Peace baby!! PEACE!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 08/28/2008 @ 11:04am

12. Posted by onthehelm at 08/28/2008 @ 08:55am

    The American liberals support more intelligence and more direct combat which reduces civilian casualties.

    The American right wants to turn the whole place into a parking lot.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 11:10am

13. I'm not sure what the previous commenter means by the "failed policy of the Clinton administration." The people involved in the planning and execution of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center are in prison. The people involved in the 2001 attack seem to still be free. How, exactly, is the Bush policy better than the Clinton policy? Do we get bonus points for every Muslim we kill?

    Posted by tgpaul at 08/28/2008 @ 11:32am

14. I'm not sure if you all have read the RAND report mentioned in the column, but it does make a very compelling case that intelligence & police work have proven much more effective in ending terrorist groups than military action. As I recall, their study showed that was especially true when the terrorist organization is religiously motivated. The report even mentions that just by calling it a "War on Terror" you lend credence to the terrorists that they are indeed involved in jihad.

    I'm certainly no expert on these matters, but after reading the report I was convinced that treating terrorist more like criminals than enemy combatants was a better overarching strategy.

    Posted by DeezNats at 08/28/2008 @ 12:27pm

15. There certainly are ungovernable regions along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan that allow a safe haven to those who want to harm this country.

    The key is not to get marred down in an Iraq-like war in order to dismantle these terrorist cells.

    Much of the work could be done by special forces with limited support from a few combat brigades. I would suspect that no more than 20,000 troops are needed, and that the conflict would end within a year with the capture of bin Laden (if he is still alive) and other Al Qaeda leaders.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/28/2008 @ 12:57pm

16. Posted by bleedingheart at 08/28/2008 @ 11:04am

    BOO!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 1:16pm

17. 20 Trillion dollars later and we want to mire ourselves in the same war that ended the USSR. We seem to have as little understanding and memory of this as we do of the history of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. These aren't terrorists, they are a trained insurgency we created to keep Afghan independent.

    I hope and pray that Obama is posturing on this issue.

    The day McCain was declared an American Hero and was returned to the USA, I was indicted along with hundreds of others for resisting the draft. I sacrificed to end the discriminate use of soldiers as fodder. He crashed five planes and would have been an excellant recruit for Al Qaida.

    And today he wants us to drill; as in drill the troops to exchange more blood for oil.

    It is far past the time to end the slaughter of sanity for wartime profits. These companies could just as easily exploit the Green issue and Global Warming and probably earn even more.

    Posted by geof01 at 08/28/2008 @ 1:19pm

18. Please remember the Russian experience in Afghanistan from 1980 to 1990. We armed the mujaheddin the precursors to the Taliban. The Soviets were defeated losing 15,00 men and eventually withdrew. CIA poured $3 billion into the war (roughly $30 billion in 2005 dollars). One of the young Islamic militants who cut his teeth in Afghanistan was named Osama bin Laden. (some direct quote from web site on Afghan US involvement) What kind of hallucinogen makes us think that we can nation build in Afghanistan's hostile geography that make a military occupation impossible? Again we fail to learn from history.

    Posted by rbb246 at 08/28/2008 @ 1:30pm

19. It seems to be a consensus that the terms terrorist and islamic extremists go hand in hand.

    The best recruitment tool for both is the combination of inept leadership and insane posturing by Washington.

    The State Department is short 3500 personnel, and another 1,000 haven't been properly trained. Rice and Negroponte have been treasonous in their disregard for for the importance of this branch of government.

    The number of 40 yard dropboxes needed to clean out the waste left behind after Bush could stretch the width of the continent and the trash pile could fill the grand canyon.

    In other words, before we begin to change the image of America we have to have a sense of history, a vision of where we are headed and a lot of trucks to clean house.

    Posted by geof01 at 08/28/2008 @ 1:31pm

20. rbb246 - thats what Im sayin.

    How is it that the Chinese pulled off the most spectacular event of the 21st century and moved their cause ahead a millenia for the mere pittance we spend on this insane war in one month?

    The Shock of Iraq was totally outdone by the Awe of Beijing 2008.

    Posted by geof01 at 08/28/2008 @ 1:36pm

21. Posted by Zero at 08/28/2008 @ 11:29am

    Zero been itching to get back to "Zero mode".

    Unless the Dems nominated Kucinich with Cynthia McKinney as Veep...he was going to get pissy eventually!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 1:52pm

22. Unless the Dems nominated Kucinich with Cynthia McKinney as Veep...he was going to get pissy eventually!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 1:52pm

    as he should.

    one can only eat so many twinkies before the transfat kills you.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 2:44pm

23. You didn't sacrifice, you're just another coward and traitor. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 2:35pm

    How is he a traitor? Did he capitulate to the enemy? Oh no wait that was McCain.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 2:53pm

24. Obviously you have no idea how much most of us vets hate those like this person whom we feel were giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:34pm

    I don't know too many veterans of Vietnam. I had a teacher who was one but I didn't know him well. Irrational hatred is common though. It doesn't matter how much you dislike him doesn't make your claims true. He has done nothing traitorous at all. He tried to end the draft because the draft was BS. The rich could just buy their way out of it. That's not traitorous at all. That is an acknowledgment of a flawed system. So kick and scream all you want with your hatred but McCain is more of a traitor than this guy is.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:44pm

25. As a proud veteran of Nam and other regions, let me just say:

    When can we count on you leaving the US so that those who actually love this country can enjoy it?

    You didn't sacrifice, you're just another coward and traitor.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 2:35pm

    I don't plan on leaving. I didn't run off to Canada. I didn't maintain a deferment like Dick Cheney. I didn't join the guard, and forget to show up like Bush. And I didn't say "Yes Sir" when some ___hole told me I was going to carry a gun and help in the killing of several million Vietnamese. I had the courage to stand up and say "No. You can put me in jail, but not in the army." If you enlisted Great. If you were drafted and showed up for the party, you were the chickenshit. I put my ___ on the line so others wouldn't have to play soldier. Are you proud that we lost over 50,000 men in Nam? Are you proud that your government ignored them when they came back? Are you proud that 58,000 have committed suicide since then? Are you happy that Bush and Cheney have made $2 billion off this war and squandered $20 Trillion of our money and the money of our children, grandchildren and great grand children? Are you proud that in the past 16 years we have killed 2 million Iraqis and displaced 4 million more? That compares to 60 million Americans.

    I am not a coward or a traitor, and I'm not likely to sit by and watch our leaders take us down another path to hell.

    Posted by geof01 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:51pm

26. One has to be very naive to believe that a real change is possible in a two-party monopoly politics supported by the military-industrial complex we are dealing with. While ugly, war is a profitable business and business is what we do best in this country.

    So why fret over usual war-mongering by our presidential contenders? Did you actually think that Obama was the re-incarnation of Jesus Christ who was going to perform miracles and turn the military tide we have been riding since WWII?

    We just have to accept the fact that maintainig a wasteful consumerist lifestyle we are so accustomed to in the U.S. depends on our military might around the globe.

    Eventually, we will over-extend our resources abroad and become vulnerable to serious internal economic collapse and related problems.

    We have a saying in this country "Don't fix it if it ain't broken". I guess we have not hit rock-bottom, yet. We are on the Titanic, my friends. And we are in denial.

    Posted by diogenes2 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:09pm

27. And yes, in my view, you are still a coward and traitor. Your efforts gave aid and comfort to the NVA. That is treason. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:19pm

    Actually no it's not. It's called free speech. Obviously you don't like it much.

    Doing Propaganda for the enemy on the other hand. I bet hearing the son of the Commander of the entire theatre speak negatively about his country was better than him here protesting.

    "treason |ˈtrēzən| noun (also high treason) the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government"

    He didn't try to kill anyone or overthrow the government.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:35pm

28. From a military viewpoint there have never been enough troops for either Iraq or Afghanistan. Counter insurgency is a labor intensive operation. General Shinseki recommended about a half a million troops to secure Iraq. he was not talking about a conventional war, but about dealing with irregular forces, dispersed over a wide area after the conventional conflict. Without a political settlement there is no such thing as total security, but the security of Iraq would have been better with more troops. The same applies to Afghanistan though I believe it has more open ground, and fewer urban centers. With fewer troops, you compensate with firepower to defeat the enemy. Dependence on firepower makes civilian casualties more likely. Bullets can be more selective than bombs. The only reason we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11. Our basic mission is to go after al-Qaida, which is the only terrorist organization that attacked us. Unless other terrorist organizations make themselves our business, we have no other business except al-Qaida. While we are there, we need to reduce civilian casualties. Their political system is their own business , but we can, with their consent, help them out with medical care, infrastructure, and schools. Security is needed for those projects. We need to keep those blood sucking multinationals out of any aid programs. War is no place for private enterprise. Unless the American people are willing to commitment to a long struggle, we might as well forget it. If we leave, the Taliban and al-Qaida will come back.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/28/2008 @ 4:35pm

29. Democrats are barely mentioning Iraq, which I see as a major tactical error. By avoiding or finessing the subject, they are, in essence, ceding the issue to the Republicans, who will continue to pound home the dual themes that the surge and the war as a whole are a success and that Democrats are quitters and defeatists.

    The message that the Democrats must pound home is that the Iraq War is a disaster on many levels, regardless of the current reduced level of violence. They must remind the public of the incalculable cost to the nation in killed and grievously wounded soldiers, in treasure, loss of political influence, the rise of Iran, the resurgence of Al Qeda and the Taliban, etc, let alone the one million Iraqi lives estimated to have been lost and the four million Iraqi refugees.

    And the icing on the cake of this sick enterprise is that all of this was undertaken solely for the benefit of American oil companies and war contractors, who have grown rich beyond avarice.

    This is a story that the American people still do not fully understand, and they may be easily seduced by the Republican's version of reality if the Democrats fail to rebut it forcefully.

    Posted by robgo2 at 08/28/2008 @ 6:32pm

30. I stand firm on this view as do many of my fellow Vets. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 5:09pm

    I understand that you stand firm. And you are perfectly fine to do that. It's your right as an American to speak freely. It is also HIS right as an American to speak freely, and he spoke. Just because he wasn't saying something you like doesn't mean you can call him a traitor. Again that is the tactic of Fascists and dictators. They say anyone who speaks against their belief is a traitor and then kill them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 6:39pm

31. lvliberty,

    you are nuts.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:33pm

32. I'm really turned off by the number of thick, paranoid sickos here. To see Obama cater for their votes, rather than make a principled stand is disappointing but not surprising. Turning the country around? I don't think so.

    Posted by donpolly at 08/29/2008 @ 12:27am

33. Vietnam was a national tragedy. Good for the ones that went, good for those who follow their conscience, bad for those who hided pretending they supported it...like?

    Conscience can be invoked if it is not a totally defensive war.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/29/2008 @ 02:32am

34. And who will we have to blame when Democratic adventurism in Afghanistan and the former republics of the Soviet Union explode in our faces. It won't be George Bush. It'll be the Katrina van den Heuvel, the Nation and the netroots schmegeggies who actively support the Obama-Biden ticket. When there are other options available for progressive voters, namely Nader, for vanden Heuvel to sit there wringng her hands at the prospect of almost certainly widening hostilites in these regions is, at best, cynical.

    Posted by john lowell at 08/29/2008 @ 11:46am

35. Thank you Katrina, This is the most important issue coming out of the convention. Obama promised in the convention to take the fight to the Talliban and al Queda. But excuse me, naming the Talliban as our enemy is as much of a lie as saying that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

    While I detest the Talliban's politics and their destruction of sacred Buddhist sites, the Talliban never once threatened the United States and are now only acting as nationalist insurgents seeking to throw out the current US-NATO invaders like they threw out the previous Soviet invaders.

    There is absolutely evidence of participation by the Talliban in 9/11 and when the US wanted Bin Laden turned over the Talliban did was any goverment does, exercise its sovereign right to hold an extradition hearing. It was the US hat refused to participate by giving over any evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, and instead issued a demand that Bin Laden be turned over with no questions asked.

    But would the USA turn over someone to Russia or China just because they asked? I think not. So the Bush administration used the Talliban's exercise of international law as an excuse to put into motion the pre- 9/11 plans to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

    Now with no evidence that Al Queda is operating wtihin Afghanistan or that the Talliban ever threatened the US, the Democrats are using Afghanistan as their whipping boy to show they can be just as militaristic as Republicans, as if after Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, anyone ever had any real doubts that Democrats can bomb and invade with the best of them.

    Posted by Gregory W at 08/29/2008 @ 2:53pm

36. In my previous post the negative was omitted in the sentence "There is absolutely evidence of participation by the Talliban in 9/11," It should have read: "There is absolutely no evidence of participation by the Talliban in 9/11."

    Posted by Gregory W at 08/29/2008 @ 2:57pm

37. Some people agree with the notion that "more troops on the ground" is the answer. What they fail to understand is that the amount of troops now being considered by Obama is not the amount needed to "win" the war in Afghanistan, but is only an amount for increased training and guarding of certain facilities. To "win" the war, which means to "pacify" or subdue the population opposed to the occupation, another 150,000 troops would be needed, not just another 10,000 to 20,000. In other words, all the troops in Iraq would have to be moved to Afghanistan in order to have even a chance of quelling the insurgency.

    And if the troops actually attempted to prevent the poppy and opium production then 300,000 troops would be necessary.

    Posted by Gregory W at 08/29/2008 @ 3:41pm

38. Only Dennis Kucinich during the entire Democratic convention recognized that moving the war to Afghanistan and Pakistan is not the solution: "Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America."

    Posted by Gregory W at 08/29/2008 @ 3:48pm

39. Obviously you have no idea how much most of us vets hate those like this person whom we feel were giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    Hey Mr. Liberty, did you know that John McCain was only tortured the first two years until he cracked and signed his confession and began collaborating with his captors? His nickname among the other prisoners was "Songbird." I have been told there is a publicity photo in the Viet Nam museum about the Hanoi Hilton showing McCain playing pool to show the Red Cross that the prisoners where being treated well and given recreation opportunities.

    I'm not saying that McCain should not have cooperated, because I probably would have cracked after two months and not two years, but I believe the truth of McCain's whole 5 years is not what McCain and the Republicans say about it. The question could be resolved easily if McCain released his military records, so I have to ask why hasn't he released his full records?

    Posted by Gregory W at 08/29/2008 @ 3:56pm

40. Trying to "root out and destroy terrorism" is like trying to catch wind. Many across the world view the 9/11 attack as a righteous act of retribution against atrocities committed by the evils of the western world. How do you personify this? How do you make this into a solid target you can get into your cross-hairs and shoot at? KVH makes sense, and Obama's assertion that killing isn't wrong, just so long as the right people are killed, is certainly something to be uncomfortable about.

    Posted by jin at 08/29/2008 @ 7:29pm

41. I can only hope that Katrina's warning is heeded and that Obama/Biden's posturing is just that. Let's hope that the democratic ticket is playing this card for political gain only, and pray that it will be removed from the table once the election is won. There will be enough work extricating from Iraq before increased attention must be paid to Afghanistan. And if the Dems don't win the Senate, they'll have to fend off calls from the Republicants to attack Iran. The next great challenge for the U.S. is to commit to the evacuation of the permanent bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan; for without that, we will be in the region for "a hundred years," fueling the ire of bin Laden's grandchildren.

    Posted by Scott77 at 08/29/2008 @ 11:52pm

42. Poooor show Obama. One of the most crucial setbacks an individual could have is to ape somebody or try to please somebody or try to compete with somebody. Hilary did that with you about sniper fire and fell from grace and you are doing that too with a new war in your speech!

    Barack did well as long as he was representing and promoting his own concepts and ideas, which people instantly identified with, as they pertains to current crises, their causes which concerns the people.

    Now, he overdid it, talking about the war, why? Because he is up against a military guy contesting for commander-in-chief slot? I am certain if he goes like this Barack will lose, he must only talk about what people want to listen to and people definately dont want to hear the word 'WAR' at any cost, as they are paying the price due to weak disgraced dollar which is not able to compete with other leading currencies and as dollar is the medium currency which for international commerce, thus the hike in prices on all commodities. But it goes funny when the moron from W.H brings his own logic.

    This evil B.....D cheney of Brown and roots which collects all international governmental contracts of almost everything and the alchoholic demon in the white house, who confesses that he never watches news channel(despises people's opinion) nor reads the papers, but religiously takes his drinks blames his mistakes on China and India! According to him both countries are making progress and their economy have improved, he says, thus able to afford nutritious food stuff now only, thus there is shortage of global food supply! For his flaws he comes up with such stupid theories?

    What a stupid moron, and the tragedy is after knowing his IQ how he got elected for the 2nd term is simply unbelievable.

    Posted by aleemsyed at 08/30/2008 @ 02:17am

43. Are you proud that in the past 16 years we have killed 2 million Iraqis and displaced 4 million more? That compares to 60 million Americans. I am not a coward or a traitor, and I'm not likely to sit by and watch our leaders take us down another path to hell. Posted by geof01 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:51pm

    Great post.

    And, alas, it looks as if our leaders, either party, will take US down, via different paths, to the same destination, hell.

    As long as the US plays at the imperial game, the only direction will be down. NO empire survives, peoples survive.

    BTW: as Benazir Bhutto told us, via David Frost shortly before she was murdered, Osama bin Laden is dead, assassinated by Omar Sheik.

    Posted by sloper at 08/30/2008 @ 08:19am

44. lvliberty, I am sorry that you think I gave aid to the enemy and this caused a problem in your life. I protested against the war for a great many reasons, but never against the troops. As in this war, we are all supportive of our troops. We are against the leadership that sends them in harms way for reasons that have little more than profit for someone. You were in harms way and suffer for this. The Vietnamese were in harms way and suffer for this. My son and nephew have been in harms way in Kosovo and Iraq.

    We need to be alert to the lies we are sold to go to war. I find it very difficult to buy into 911. No way did an Arab in a tent in Afghanistan mastermind 911 and penetrate the air defenses of the entire est coast of the USA. No way did a plane crash topple the WTC. Nothing at all hit building 7 of the WTC. And no plane hit the pentagon leaving a hole the size of a garage door with no wings or tail section outside and no evidence of a plane left inside. 911 did not happen, and since it did not happen, the pursuit of terrorists in Afghanistan in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran will never find Osama Bin Laden, and never uncover the truth. Of course some people will continue to get rich faster than if they won the lotto every time there was a drawing.

    How is Vietnam relevant to this? Because it is the same thing over again. We created Bin Laden and the Taliban and now we pretend to hunt them down while our development of the impoverished country of Afghanistan is the construction of a pipeline to India.

    The traitor that sold out our troop in Vietnam is Henry Kissinger. The same man had Allende assassinated in Chile on 9/11 and was named by George W Bush to investigate 911. WATCH THIS http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815881561030958784

    Posted by geof01 at 09/01/2008 @ 07:07am