Shouldn't MoveOn Oppose Obama on Afghanistan?

MoveOn.org became a meaningful force in American politics when it emerged as a muscular network of activists that was willing to challenge not just Republicans but Democrats when they were wrong about foreign policy.

Democratic leaders in Congress might have been willing to compromise with the Bush administration on Iraq back in 2002. But MoveOn said "no."

And MoveOn was right.

Now, more than ever, we need MoveOn to remain true to its historic mission.

We need MoveOn to be right about Afghanistan.

For that reason, I certainly hope that Justin Ruben, the new MoveOn executive director, was wrong when he told my colleague Ari Melber that he did not think the group would be letting President Obama know he is wrong to be surging more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.

Here's what Ruben said about MoveOn's agenda for the coming months:

And while MoveOn loudly led the battle against the Iraq "surge," Ruben said he not expect ending the war Afghanistan, where Obama is deploying additional troops, to make the priority list. The "overwhelming priority" is still Iraq, Ruben explains, and while his members are concerned about Afghanistan, they tend to 'differ on what ought to be done about it.'

Unless the MoveOn membership has lost touch with its values and its former allies, I am going to bet that they are a lot more concerned about Afghanistan than Ruben thinks.

Here's what Peace Action says:

Yesterday, President Obama announced his decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, on the grounds that ‘the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention'. Peace Action strongly opposes Obama's recent announcement and urges people to immediately call on Obama to choose diplomacy, not escalation.

More troops won't solve our problems in Afghanistan...

We have seen the disastrous consequences of heading into war without a plan in Iraq. We are still mourning American and Iraqi lives lost, and struggling to rehabilitate our economy while spending billions of dollars on war.

Peace Action calls for the ‘rapid withdrawal' of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a new commitment to a negotiated diplomatic solution involving all regional players.

The Obama Administration should:

-- De-escalate troop levels in Afghanistan and to reject the idea that there is a military solution to the region's problems;

-- Immediately stop military activities that indiscriminately impact civilians such as air and drone strikes;

-- Rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan;

-- Commit to negotiated diplomatic talks involving all major regional players, including major international peace-keeping bodies;

-- Address the real needs of Afghans, which include health-care, clean water, education, and security.

Here's what the new www.standupcongress.org network -- which has been organized by the group Win Without War and is backed by TrueMajority.org, the Council for a Livable World, Working Assets, Women's Action for New Directions, Faithful America, 2020 Vision, the American Friends Service Committee, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, the Unitarian Universalist Association and NETWORK (the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby) -- says:

President Obama has announced a plan to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer. In the absence of a clear mission or exit plan, this troop escalation is more likely to fuel anti-American sentiment and the Taliban-led insurgency than provide any meaningful improvement in security.

Here's the Afghanistan assessment of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the driving force behind the Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus:

We don't want to substitute Afghanistan for Iraq.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the steadiest track record of challenging presidents of both parties when they make wrong moves on the international stage, adds:

After years of a failed foreign policy which distracted us from our top national security priority of defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates, I am encouraged by President Obama's focus on Afghanistan where the 9/11 attacks originated. But we need to make sure we have a strategy in place for Afghanistan that will actually work before we commit thousands more U.S. troops. A military escalation without a strategy to address the complex problems facing Afghanistan and the region could alienate the Afghan people and make it much more difficult to achieve our top national security goal of defeating al Qaeda.

Is MoveOn really out of synch with Peace Action, Win Without War and other major anti-war and religious groups and congressional allies of the peace movement?

Let's hope not.

Comments (78)

1. ....California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the driving force behind the Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus: "We don't want to substitute Afghanistan for Iraq."

   But, but, The Messiah promised just that.....and now, he's delivering BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq.

   Time to support the local restaurants!

   Posted by Happy at 02/27/2009 @ 8:20pm

2. Posted by Happy at 02/27/2009 @ 8:20pm

   You need to take a break or something. You used to make well reasoned comments. Now you sound like a partisan troll. At least pretend you have a brain of your own until the one you misplaced comes back.

   How do they propose getting out of Afghanistan quickly is my question? Afghanistan is in a worse state that Iraq ever was.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 8:27pm

3. Soon as Obama says "We could stay in Afghanistan 50 years, 100 years...ss long as our troops aren't being fired upon"...or similar nonsense...

   I'll get worried.

   Right now, he's on track for what he said he would do during the campaign, which if I remember a few of our "pure progressives" back then was better than "Hillary's continuation of the neo-con agenda".

   Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 8:27pm

4. I don't think any kind of diplomacy will work with the Taliban.

   If the pleas from the world didn't stop the destruction of the ancient buddist statues of Bamiyan(sp?) or soften their stance on killing women in a public stadium, what would be their incintive to listen now?

   Posted by ACook at 02/27/2009 @ 8:43pm

5. Move on should move on.

   Where it is not wrong, it is inconsistent.

   We now have, in a key foreign policy position, Chas Freeman.

   This former ambassador to Saudi Arabia is a stout defender of the Arab viewpoint. He heads the Saudi funded Middle East Policy Council.

   Now Michael Moore' film, Fahrenheit 9/11, dwells on the incestuous relationship between the Saudi and US leaderships. It paints the White House corrupted by Saudi wealth and sympathies.

   Is that not reason to oppose the appointment of Chas Freeman to a job where he prepares national intelligence findings for the president?

   If among moveon had consistency and honesty among its virtue it would oppose Freeman, but it won't, because it hasn't.

   As to Afghanistan, moveon well yet oppose Obama, because its core, like that of The Nation, is a twisted bunch of stubborn fanatics who are unable to move on.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 8:45pm

6. MoveOn is right, and you're wrong. President Obama is under no illusions that increased troop levels in Afghanistan will solve the problem by themselves. Troops are not the only piece of a successful strategy for Aghanistan, but they are a necessary component. Due to the ineffectiveness of the government and the growth of Taliban violence, addressing the real needs of Afghans will not be possible without protection for aid workers and civilians. A clearly defined mission for our forces and vigorous diplomacy bringing in all the regional players is crucial, and that should be continuously urged upon the administration. But a rapid withdrawal would almost certainly spell a return of the situation in Afghanistan that produced 9/11. What we need from the Obama administration is a comprehensive approach to Afghanistan, not a purely military solution, but not a withdrawal either. It is extremely painful to see The Nation and other anti-war voices treating the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq as equivalent and calling for withdrawal. How hard is it to distinguish between an unprovoked war of choice and the necessary response to an attack on the United States, against its perpetrators in the country where it was plotted? You are courting the ruin of yourselves and the progressive cause.

   Posted by scottbp at 02/27/2009 @ 8:55pm

7. MoveOn is nothing more that a political organization for promoting the democrat party in it's election battles for congress and the White House. It has nothing to do with the peace movement other than convenience.

   Posted by pyeatte at 02/27/2009 @ 9:24pm

8. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 8:45pm

   Hugo, speaking of consistancy and honesty....

   you cite Michael Moore??!!????!?

   LOL

   Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 10:01pm

9. scottbp @ 8:55pm said:

   >> MoveOn is right, and you're wrong. President Obama is under no illusions <<

   MoveOn was wrong and Obama was deluded in opposing Iraq and the Surge and demanding our withdrawal. Both dead wrong, whereas I was right about that.

   You say: >> a rapid withdrawal would almost certainly spell a return of the situation in Afghanistan that produced 9/11. <<

   I am not urging a rapid withdrawal, just not a reinforcement, and a gradual handing off of responsibility to the growing Afghan army.

   You are wrong to assume that the return of the Taliban would recreate the conditions that produced 9/11.

   Al Qaeda is currently in Pakistan's badlands. How would a transfer of those safe havens to Afghanistan make the US less safe? Is there something in Afghanistan's air that invigorates terrorists? Are its caves better hide outs; s its soil a more fertile ground for conceiving terrorist plots? Is it easier to finance a group of hijackers or suicide bombers from Afghanistan, than from Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Somalia, etc?

   You, and the Administration, cannot explain why it ultimately matters should the Taliban return to Afghanistan . You cannot explain why Afghanistan is strategic to us, why it is worth our money and blood, what our vital national interests are there.

   Obama made Afghanistan the right and good war early on. When Iraq proved a success during his campaign, he turned to championing his old pro war Afghan cause. That made him properly belligerent and patriotic and took the heat off his Iraq folly. And now he apparently wants to please some knee jerk foreign policy hawks, while concentrating on his real agenda, redistributing wealth, enlarging govt, increasing the power of Washington over the nation.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 10:05pm

10. Shouldn't MoveOn Oppose Obama on Afghanistan?

    shouldn't everybody?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2009 @ 11:50pm

11. that there obama guy...that charisma, dignity and insight of his is mighty powerful...

    powerful enough to cow moveon.org...

    impressive!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2009 @ 11:53pm

12. "to be surging more U.S. troops into Afghanistan."

    i am sooooo sick of that word.

    surge on,

    sir john,

    surgin' surgeon!

    sturgeon splurgin'

    slur gin svergin!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2009 @ 11:55pm

13. while concentrating on his real agenda, redistributing wealth, enlarging govt, increasing the power of Washington over the nation.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 10:05pm

    WE'LL BE EATING GOVERNMENT CHEESE!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2009 @ 11:58pm

14. I am so tired of obama and his legion of idiot followers. The guy is a fraud. It is sad that he was the first black candidate to win. He is not representing poor blacks in America. He was a lousy Senator in Illinois and lacks courage and experience to lead.

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 02/28/2009 @ 02:37am

15. As long as the Taliban go around throwing battery acid into little girls' faces because they want to go to school, then there is sufficient moral grounds to use force to oppose them. What actions should feminists support to protect these girls?

    This is a morally justified war.

    John Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 02/28/2009 @ 03:50am

16. There's a problem with the logic of continuing either the Iraq or Afghan war and it is the speculative outcome of each.

    Bush never flinched at offering platitudes to sell the wars, like "the people of Iraq and Afghanistan will be free and democratic govt.s will result in future alliances" -especially concerning Iraq. Even the names given to the wars "Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom" sound like marketing slogans.

    But, in the end, it's all speculation as to what kind of leadership either country will eventually have and whether they'll be allies or enemies of ours.

    I hope Obama doesn't place those conditions of victory on Afghanistan.

    Also, what kind of culture has catchy slogans for their wars?

    Posted by koroviev at 02/28/2009 @ 04:15am

17. I stopped opening MoveOn's emails when they didn't flinch after Obama reversed himself (i.e., he lied) last summer and supported FISA and Telecom immunity.

    Posted by Non_CompassionateLiberal at 02/28/2009 @ 05:16am

18. There is nothing the US can "do" about Afghanistan, as the US has no strategic objective there.

    IOW, the US doesn't know why it's there.

    Which, as so often before, means more bombing, more artillery, more killing ... until "they" -- whoever they are ... Vietnamese, Iraqis, Lebanese -- give in & do as the US tells them, whatever that is.

    More bombing & killing hasn't brought a resistant population to its knees before & there's no reason given now why it will work nwith the most successfully resistant peoples, the Afghanis, in all recorded history.

    The Pentagon & its suppliers will make a fool out of Obama yet.

    Posted by sloper at 02/28/2009 @ 08:09am

19. Tiger, Obama is not a fraud. He may not be making decisions that you like, but he is leading. He is clearly showing that he is "working hard" to solve a multitude of problems that he inherited from a real "fraud" that claimed to "work hard" but never did.

    As for Afganistan, I will give Obama his chances to use a different strategy. I, however, do worry that the Afgans can make of the US what they made of the soviets, Great Britain and everyone else who thought it a good idea to invade and occupy this land.

    Yet, it may work to some degree. Obama, at least, has the confidence and understanding and brains to make clear assessments when the time comes. This is what was sorely lacking under President Bush.

    Posted by erazma at 02/28/2009 @ 08:38am

20. Slow day in news? Are your researchers on strike? President Obama is making sound decisions based on more information than you can find by asking people their opinion. Afghanistan is not Iraq...that has been the situation that Bush blundered. Troops are not the only peace strategy for Aghanistan, but they are a necessary in the process; addressing the real needs of Afghans will not be possible without protection for aid workers and civilians. The Taliban is growing in that area. Have you been to that side of the world? My brother has and there are people just like you and me, who want and need protection from those warring around them.

    Posted by truthandjustice at 02/28/2009 @ 08:47am

21. Describing MoveOn as "muscular" would be like describing JOMAMA as patriotic.

    ----

    I watched Obama on the Newshour last night. What a god damned refreshing change to have a smart man in the White House!!!

    He is doing pretty much what he said he would during the campaign, with minor modifications. That is far better than his predecessor, who either flip flopped 180 (uniter, not divider) or stuck to his guns regardless of changing information .

    According to the war mongers, Iraq has been fine since 2005. There really wasn't a need for "the surge" . If there was no need, how can it be successful? Another funny thing, the cons celebrate "success" in Iraq, yet not one will recognize that this "success" (which remains to be seen if it can hold, even Patraeus says so) means the formation of a LIBERAL SECULAR government .

    Will any con join me in celebrating a liberal secularist government in Iraq? So far, none have. Just like none can supply an instance of someone being denied their right to practice their religion in their homes or places of worship. (But, they are under attack!!! From liberal secularists!!) )

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2009 @ 09:11am

22. Re Afghanistan, see:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUwQGmMSm0

    Re aid workers getting US protection ... only in Kabul. Otherwise, no US protection. In fact, the polio eradication teams are being protected by Taleban, whose allies grow every time a civilian is killed by US bombing or US artillery, which is how almost all civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused every day.

    Posted by sloper at 02/28/2009 @ 09:13am

23. Posted by erazma at 02/28/2009 @ 08:38am

    Well said.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2009 @ 09:15am

24. US Geological Survey threatens capitalism:

    [A major U.S. government report on Arctic climate, prepared with input from eight Canadian scientists, has concluded that the recent rapid warming of polar temperatures and shrinking of multi-year Arctic sea ice are "highly unusual compared to events from previous thousands of years."

    This past summer also saw further dramatic evidence of the unusual warming of the Canadian Arctic, including record-setting high temperatures in Iqaluit, Nunavut, rapid erosion and flooding of a glacial landscape on Baffin Island, the re-opening of the Northwest Passage, an unprecedented clearing of ice from the Beaufort Sea, and the collapse of hundreds of square kilometres of ancient ice shelves on the northern shore of Ellesmere Island.

    "The current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates. However, some projections of future human-induced change exceed documented natural variability," the scientists conclude. "The past tells us that when thresholds in the climate system are crossed, climate change can be very large and very fast. We cannot rule out that human-induced climate change will trigger such events in the future."]-http://www.canada.com/Technology

    /story.html?id=1186593

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2009 @ 09:20am

25. Gosh, I sure wish I could have been at the meeting of Global Warming Hoaxers and Liberal America Haters when they jiggled the numbers so that they could destroy capitalism via attempts to get us to use less fossil fuels. Don't they know that if we use less fossil fuels our grandchildren will despise us and Al Qaeda will win the GWOT?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2009 @ 09:24am

26. an attack on the United States, against its perpetrators in the country where it was plotted?

    the attack was plotted in Hamburg Germany and in Florida. the Taleban had nothing to do with the attack of 9/11. they had no advance knowledge.afghanistan was one of several nations which supported Al Qaeda.

    we could equally have attacked Saudi and Pakistan, among others.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 12:26pm

27. As long as the Taliban go around throwing battery acid into little girls' faces because they want to go to school, then there is sufficient moral grounds to use force to oppose them. What actions should feminists support to protect these girls?

    girls and women are under threat in many countries. we are not the world's police. war is too blunt an instrument in this case. killing tens of thousands does not help those women.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 12:29pm

28. I, however, do worry that the Afgans can make of the US what they made of the soviets, Great Britain and everyone else who thought it a good idea to invade and occupy this land.

    Posted by erazma at 02/28/2009 @ 08:38am

    But are we not there for different reasons?

    The Taliban is not Afghanistan and Afghanistan is definitely not the USA or NATO or the UN, but if the Afghanistani feel we all are for Afghanistan's success, they will turn on the Taliban. That is psych 0p's and political responsibility.

    Unfortunately, all the UN plus regional cooperation via troop number commitment increases to match the USA's to secure Afghanistan's border will be necessary.

    The problem to be resolved, amongst the multitude the disaster of an admin hsuB/cHeney left Obama/Biden, is the Iran - Israel conflict. That will turn international attention to solving the Afghanistan situation.

    A majorly tall order.

    But after 8-12 years of the new con repub blood sucking tick delusional intellect leadership producing decisions to any possibility of a solution into a worse situation, this a difference we are not used to experiencing...

    Ironically, Obama/Biden admin may want to employ hsuB's pappy... if it's not too late.

    But is HW too protickive of his son to open a hand?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 12:34pm

29. er, But after 8-12 years of the new con repub blood sucking tick delusional 'intellectual' leadership producing decisions, to any 'possible' solution, into a worse situation; this 'is' a difference we are not used to experiencing...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 12:40pm

30. But are we not there for different reasons?

    I agree. We are there for different reasons. Plus, we are there at a different time. The old axiom that 'those who misunderstand history are doomed to repeat it' goes only so far. Clearly, Obama can be successful in Afganistan if he is able to measure success in realistic terms.

    Bush/Cheney were unable to adapt to what the situation demanded (I know, gross understatement). For Obama, then, Afganistan is really a crap shoot. He could be FAIRLY successful, or the situation could be a....continued quagmire.

    Posted by erazma at 02/28/2009 @ 1:01pm

31. emile duBois: The governments of Saudi (sic) or Pakistan did not support UBL or AQL. There were, however, factions inside those countries that did. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan and actively supported UBL and AQL. Not having prior knowledge of 9-11 is not relevant. Operational security limited knowledge of the attack to very few people. You should probably stop making excuses for the Taliban unless, of course, you actually do support them.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/28/2009 @ 1:32pm

32. Why are the troops going? What is their mission? For how long?

    Also to what degree does the following, mutate the dynamics of the situation as to make it academic?

    "The Mossad's Plan to Stop Iran"

    http://tinyurl.com/cjb2oo

    It could also be titled "Here It Comes! MCCain gets his 100 Years!," or "BiBi responds to Obama cabinet picks."

    Notice what constitutes the apriori assumptions of the piece. How said assumptions were pretty much, and for all intents and purposes rejected. Unless it was meant for Obama, as an intellegence piece (at least for, and on, the progressive left) it failed.

    How dose the above effect/affect the geometry of the subject under discussion?

    Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 1:33pm

33. Bibi has been a unable to form a govt.

    this is what a multi party system looks like.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 1:46pm

34. I am going to bet that they are a lot more concerned about Afghanistan than Ruben thinks

    Posted by Breckenridge at 02/28/2009 @ 1:48pm

35. [url=http://www.google.com/]google1.com/[/url] [url="http://www.google.com/"]google2.com/[/url] [[http://www.google.com/ google3.com/]] [url=http://www.google.com]Google4[/url] [url=http://www.google.com/[/url] <a href="http://www.google.com/">real estate</a> | <a href="http://www.google.com/prdhp?hl=en&tab=if">second realty</a> | <a target="_blank" href="http://www.google.com/" title="google.com/">realty title</a> **** http://www.google.com/ ***** <br>***** <a href="http://www.google.com/" target="_blank">realty folow</a> *****<br> [L=test real11]http://www.google.com/[/L] [link=http://google.com/]mwkgdufezzlp12[/link] <a href="http://www.google.com/"><br>CO real estate</a> http://www.google.com/ [Keystone |http://www.google.com/] [URL]http://www.vasya.com/[/URL] (http://dfuh7er4.cn/ass-licking-stories.html) jonah a veggie tales movie

    Posted by Breckenridge at 02/28/2009 @ 1:50pm

36. I am going to bet that they are a lot more concerned about Afghanistan than Ruben thinks Posted by Breckenridge at 02/28/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    a sandwich thinks?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 2:16pm

37. Please, John Nichols. Moveon showed their true colors with their handling of the Barbara Lee Amendment in 2007. They have never been supportive of the peace movement, and they have played a role in effectively undermined it within the Democratic party. They are, and have always been, part of the problem.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/28/2009 @ 2:22pm

38. I'd bet that AQ/UBL are concerned with the better than not odds that the Obama/Biden admin will be even moderately successful as AQ/UBL, to survive, need to radicalize Islam. And Islam is largely passive to staunchly moderate.

    Believe it or not Islam has its problems with their own new con blood sucking ticks...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 2:40pm

39. I'm not sure that an instant withdrawal of troops is feasible or advisable, but I do think we have to question the concept of the massive surge of troops, given the mounting civilian casualties attributable to the U.S./NATO as well as the Taliban.

    I think after years of provoking the massacre of Iraqis by an ill-advised overseas adventure trying to export democracy, we need to pause here and fix our own fences. I think regional dialogue and trying to find incentives to get Russia and Central Asia on board haven't really been tried in depth. I think the UN could actually help and frankly so could OSCE if the US pays its dues there and puts some muscle into it again. Invite Afghanistan to join OSCE and get to work. Change the name to Organization for Security and Cooperation in Eurasia.

    It's long past the sell-by date for moveon.org to do so. It has never anything but a propaganda outlet for very sectarian leftists seeking for legitimate cover. I really do not feel that moveon.org has ever been an accountable movement.

    Contrary to a widespread notion of it, it doesn't represent new media or social media. It has no open forums, no open comments, no interactive features, no podcasts, no Twitter engagement -- nothing! It's a push media site to push half-baked leftoid memes without authentic grassroots accountability. It can't manage a conflict within the movement like how to deal with these wars because it has no authentic liberal democratic mechanisms, preferring just mounting hate attack ads on YouTube instead of building slower.

    I hate the infantile socialist infatuation with "the masses". You have no masses. Not even with "new media" where you can get a million hits on YouTube or have 60,000 Twitter followers. Stop broadcasting and find ways to listen.

    Posted by Prokofy at 02/28/2009 @ 2:46pm

40. the attack was plotted in Hamburg Germany and in Florida. the Taleban had nothing to do with the attack of 9/11. they had no advance knowledge.afghanistan was one of several nations which supported Al Qaeda.

    we could equally have attacked Saudi and Pakistan, among others.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 12:26pm

    So, bin laden was in Hamburg? And Germany not the Taliban refused to turn him over?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:58pm

41. UHMMmmmmm:

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 20-22, 2009. N=1,013 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Turning now to the situation in Afghanistan: As you may know, this week Barack Obama ordered the deployment of 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?"

    __Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    ____65_______33_______2

    **************

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 19-22, 2009. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    "Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to send approximately 17,000 additional U.S. military forces to Afghanistan?"

    __Support___Oppose___Unsure

    ____64______33_______3

    ***************

    CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 18-19, 2009. N=1,046 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Regardless of how you feel about the war in Afghanistan in general, do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to send about 17,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?"

    ___Favor____Oppose___Unsure

    ____63_______36 ______1

    *********************

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Thinking now about U.S. military action in Afghanistan that began in October 2001: Do you think the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, or not?"

    __Mistake__Not Mistake__Unsure

    ____30_______66 ______ 4

    "If the United States and its allies withdrew their forces from Afghanistan, do you think Afghanistan will or will not fall under control of the Taliban?"

    ___Will_____Will Not___Unsure

    ___ 70_______ 21 _______9

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 3:00pm

42. 'truthandjustice"makes the most sense to me.(2/28/09,@8:47am).

    The danger in Afghanistan/Pakistan is extremely critical. The key to how critical is suggested by Obama's statement to the Marines that he wouldn't put them in harms way uless it was necessary.

    Military solutions are not essential to peace and progress , but sonetimes they become necessary.

    Posted by gepetto at 02/28/2009 @ 3:08pm

43. Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 3:00pm

    And there ladies and gentlemen ... you have it.

    Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 3:16pm

44. Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 3:00pm

    Once more showing Bush was right. It just depends on how the media spins it.

    pro-Obama and negative Bush

    No bias there (lol)

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 3:16pm

45. Also the people would be well served to initiate, to push for, open a dialogue on, transitioning to a police paradigm ... slash, tactics.

    Switch mindsets, as it were. To have the innocent, the civilian lives become the PRIMARY concern of our operations, versus thinking in a purely or even majority, military context.

    Give them (to us) a morally acceptable center, help it grow with some aid.

    And get the fuck out ...

    Seems to be what the consensus says to moi.

    Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 3:35pm

46. Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 3:00pm

    Once more showing Bush was right.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 3:16pm

    Nope, showing hsuB/cHeney highly honed incompetence to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 4:28pm

47. "We had big spending under Bush and now we have big spending under Obama," Gingrich said. "And so now we have two failures."

    "I wish the president would have laid [a stimulus package] out before he left office, so that in September, October, November, December, there would have been a stimulus plan," former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said Friday in an interview with POLITICO, adding that the GOP has yet to come up with unified policy proposals or a clear, positive voice.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, like Romney an unsuccessful candidate for president in 2008, pointed to the Bush administration's failed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

    "You know what kind of conservatives we need most? Competent conservatives," Huckabee said in a speech Thursday. "It's when we lose our competence, that Americans lose their confidence."

    "We're no longer Reagan's shining city on a hill; we are the ruined city by the sea," he added.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 4:52pm

48. WOW:

    http://www.filmbaby.com/films/3603

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 5:19pm

49. This does explain a lot:

    http://tinyurl.com/cw4o5l

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 6:44pm

50. The prospect of making Afghanistan into a prosperous democracy is long past. Military force will not accomplish that. What it should be focused on is stopping the flow of al-Qaeda and Taliban between Pakistan and Afghanistan and protect civilians inside Afghanistan from attacks launched from the border area. That can create breathing space for the Afghan government to negotiate with amenable insurgent elements, and to build a regional coalition to root out extremists inside Pakistan.

    Posted by scottbp at 02/28/2009 @ 7:57pm

51. balataf at 03:50am said:

    >> As long as the Taliban go around throwing battery acid into little girls' faces because they want to go to school, then there is sufficient moral grounds to use force to oppose them. . . . This is a morally justified war <<

    But when Iraq's insurgents rammed exploding cars into civilian crowds, that was not a morally justified war?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/28/2009 @ 8:37pm

52. What part of this sentence from Obama's Sept. 12, 2007 speech, Tuning the Page in Iraq, did you not understand?

    "When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

    It was after this when Move On members were asked to choose a person to support and we chose Obama. Move On memebers read and understand which appears not to be the case for most of the media.

    Obama is doing just what he said he would do. I know this may shock some since it is a new concept.

    Posted by hkeirc at 02/28/2009 @ 10:39pm

53. "I stopped opening MoveOn's emails when they didn't flinch after Obama reversed himself (i.e., he lied) last summer and supported FISA and Telecom immunity."

    Posted by Non_CompassionateLiberal at 02/28/2009 @ 05:16am |

    I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS MESSAGE. IT MADE MY DAY. obama was our Senator and did little for our state. He lacks courage and vision and his mindless followers are a Democratic version of a republican cult member. Yes, obama LIED and supported bush's FISA, which is a crime in itself. It is sickening and amazing to watch obama supporters still tolerating his inability to lead and be strong. When he supported the FISA bill, and was too cowardly to support IMPEACHMENT of the bush crime family back in 2006, I knew he was the wrong choice for America. He actually believes that bush and cheney did nothing wrong while in office. He does not represent what his supporters want.

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 02/28/2009 @ 10:55pm

54. http://tinyurl.com/by56gr

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/28/2009 @ 11:58pm

55. I don't get it: there is not one independent Afghan women's group,not one independent Afghan Human Rights Group, not one independent Afghan Political group who wants an increased U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. So, who the hell do Obama and these so-called "progressives" think they are? Well, I guess that's a rhetorical question. Cause, in my dictionary, they are U.S. Imperialists, just like the Bushies they supposedly abhor. But then again, they have already put out the opinion that their secret torture prisions are just fine and dandy and above the law, with nary a pip or squeak from MoveOn and their ilk.

    Posted by theo51 at 03/01/2009 @ 12:50am

56. Now, why would MoveOn Oppose giving Afghans the same club scenes as the Baghdadis are now enjoying? From that radical liberal network and the Democratic Post:

    MSNBC

    The Washington Post

    End to Baghdad's 'dark era': Nightclubs reopen

    Bars in Abu Nawas Street are popular again -- even with U.S. troops

    Baghdad's Book Market Thrives Two Years After Devastating Bombing

    In Baghdad, signs of a rebirth

    An improved security situation has led to many signs of growth and stability in the Iraqi capital.

    By Sudarsan Raghavan updated 4:08 a.m. CT, Sat., Feb. 28, 2009

    BAGHDAD - The American soldier stepped out of the Baghdad nightclub. In one hand, he clutched his weapon. In the other, a green can of Tuborg beer. He took a sip and walked over to two comrades, dressed as he was in camouflage and combat gear.

    Inside the club Thursday night, U.S. soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division ogled young Iraqi women who appeared to be prostitutes gyrating to Arabic pop music. A singer crooned soulfully through scratchy speakers to the raucous, pulsating beat -- an action that Islamic extremists have deemed punishable by beheading.....

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 12:53am

57. Posted by theo51 at 03/01/2009 @ 12:50am

    Quite.

    Starting to smell as if MoveOn has been coopted by the Money Men, as a way of diverting critical energies away from the imperial project, much the same purpose Common Cause served for them during Nixon's reign & after.

    Posted by sloper at 03/01/2009 @ 05:57am

58. MoveOn is in it now for the money. They are challenging nothing. Progressives need a truly independent group that is committed to a 3rd party.

    Posted by afrothetics at 03/01/2009 @ 07:15am

59. Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 12:53am |

    (Wanna see HAPP lie through his teeth?)

    So, HAPP...given a free airline ticket would you go to Iraq for a week or two??

    (BTW, no squad of 101st to protect you)

    Posted by Mask at 03/01/2009 @ 07:52am

60. pro-Obama and negative Bush

    No bias there (lol)

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/200

    If Chimpy McFLightsuit had stayed in Afghanistan instead of tromping off to "save us' from a non-threat elsewhere, maybe he would have left office respected by more than just some utopian history. Maybe Obama would not have to pick up after him.

    ------

    So, HAPP...given a free airline ticket would you go to Iraq for a week or two??

    (BTW, no squad of 101st to protect you)

    Posted by Mask at 03/01/2009 @ 07:52am

    Watch it! If you ask HAPPY why he won't go to Iraq, he puts you on ignore. What we needed more then overpaid mercs in Iraq was good Americans that could spread the Word and teach the benefits of our systems over those of the "dead enders". But, alas, the mongers would rather send someone to kill than send someone (or go themselves) to teach. Asking these folk to step up for their country is way overboard, just look at how fast JOMAMMA wants to leave "the greatest country on Earth" during it's time of need.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/01/2009 @ 11:13am

61. What HAP WILL NOT do is answer a simple question:

    Why won't you go to Iraq?

    It is as peaceful as California, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/01/2009 @ 11:15am

62. The USA has a President and a Pentagon. Question: who actually does run the country of the United States of America? The President or the Pentagon? Who runs the Pentagon? Who ran the Pentagon between 2002 and 2008? As the question goes in a murder mystery: Who stands to gain from this death? maran

    Posted by colsum at 03/01/2009 @ 11:42am

63. The USA has a President and a Pentagon. Question: who actually does run the country of the United States of America? The President or the Pentagon? Who runs the Pentagon? Who ran the Pentagon between 2002 and 2008? As the question goes in a murder mystery: Who stands to gain from this death? Posted by maran at 03/01/2009 at 12:52pm

    Posted by colsum at 03/01/2009 @ 11:50am

64. Inside the club Thursday night, U.S. soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division ogled young Iraqi women who appeared to be prostitutes gyrating to Arabic pop music.

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 12:53am

    alright!

    drunk g.i.s are america's best ambassadors.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2009 @ 12:26pm

65. Inside the club Thursday night, U.S. soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division ogled young Iraqi women who appeared to be prostitutes gyrating to Arabic pop music.

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 12:53am

    but haven't you spread the leftist based moral decay?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2009 @ 12:27pm

66. but haven't you spread the leftist based moral decay?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2009 @ 12:27pm

    Me? No, it's el Presidente Obama (ie, you leftists) ....most of these clubs have opened in just the last few months....but if McCain won, he would deserve the same `credit'.

    BTW, I don't consider going to bars where women (for-pay types or not) hangs out to be "moral decay". It's a time-honored way for the male of our species to `appreciate' women....and I'd think, the US isn't alone. How many Mexican cantinas you've spent time in, have mostly male waiters or real female customers?

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 1:27pm

67. drunk g.i.s are america's best ambassadors.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2009 @ 12:26pm

    Very true....so long as they are having a good time and not firing their weapons!

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 1:28pm

68. MoveOn's lack of political sophistication is so stifling that I had to dump them, even though I did volunteer work for them in the 2002 mid-terms and we even housed a MoveOn volunteer here for 2 months.

    However, in the last election, they dumbed it down to "Democrat good, Republican bad". They blindly accepted everything the Obama campaign threw at them without question, including the "faith-based initiative", the FISA vote, the Iraq position, the Afghanistan position, the flip flop on "talk to anybody", and all the rest.

    I removed myself from their mailing list and ended up voting for Nader. Obama still won in my state, but at least I cast my vote for the best candidate.

    -Wexler

    Posted by WWWexler at 03/01/2009 @ 1:34pm

69. I am bothered both about MoveOn's way of going (I'm a member) and about the battery acid in girls' faces. MoveOn needs to be accountable and take a better stand on Afgh. I realize that Obama has been consistent on Afgh for some time, but I think he's wrong. It was inconsistent for him to call for an accent on diplomacy and a policy review and then send more troops. I don't want us responsible for the deaths of one more civilian there. There are enough indications that the Taliban will negotiate to make it worthwhile to drop the attacks and start talking. Just about anyone will negotiate if you ask them to in good faith. Surely we've learned from Vietnam that bombing the hell out of people is counter-productive.

    Posted by mimsky at 03/01/2009 @ 4:05pm

70. Afghanistan is were delusions of empires go to die and fade away. It is a bottomless pit for money and guns.

    NATO's presence and support of corrupted warlords is feeding the countries' corruption and enmity against the "West".

    The enlarged taliban is only a temporary coalition set up to fight against the non-muslim foreigners.

    Taliban and Al-Qaida pact is also very fragile. There is no world-wide threat from the mafiaesque taliban and the mass support and base-less Al-Qaida.

    9/11 did not involve one single Afghani and did not require any kind of territorially-based or state-sponsored logistics and support.

    That is why NATO needs to pull out of Afghanistan for the well-being of Afghanis, the financial health of NATO member budgets and for the diminishing of the number of causes for Al-Qaida fanatics and taliban supporters.

    NATOs departure will lead to the breaking up of the alliances around the Taliban (called the neo-taliban) and therefore diminish its strength.

    Once the "infidels" are gone, Al-Qaida will become even more hated.

    The other thing NATO or (more to my liking) the UNs security council should do is attack the opium trade: the poppy fields, the dealers and the buyers.

    Tarish the source of taliban independance from mass popular support and watch the organisation grow in unpopulartity.

    Posted by Karim_B at 03/01/2009 @ 8:48pm

71. " Just about anyone will negotiate if you ask them to in good faith.."

    Posted by mimsky at 03/01/2009 @ 4:05pm

    You mean like Hitler and Chamberlain?

    " Surely we've learned from Vietnam that bombing the hell out of people is counter-productive"

    I remember the bombimg did get the North to the Peace table..and when we stopped and left, the real slaughter began.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 03/01/2009 @ 11:35pm

72. MoveOn is in it now for the money. They are challenging nothing. Progressives need a truly independent group that is committed to a 3rd party.

    Posted by afrothetics at 03/01/2009 @ 07:15am *********** I agree and I'm hoping Howard Dean, dissed again, will lead the way to a truly progressive party. I'm a Deaniac from way back. ***************** Yes, Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises. I disagreed with him then, especially on foreign policy, and I still disagree. He talked about a "smart war" and to me, that's an oxymoron.

    Posted by tanguera at 03/02/2009 @ 03:13am

73. Afghanistan was a victim in the chess game between the USSR and the USA. The USA was happy to spend a billion dollars to bleed the evil empire, but not ready to invest in the country once that battle was won. We have all paid the price since then. We (the west) have a moral opbligation to put right the situation there given that we contributed so much to the cause.

    I am not convinced however that increasing troop levels is going to help. There is no quick fix military solution to this problem.

    One thing that might help would be to rethink our drugs policy. The war on drugs has been about as successful in achieving its aims as the war on terror. If drugs were legalized and controlled their prices would drop, removing the attraction to the criminal elements from Afghanistan to Colombia. The Taliban actually halted the heroin trade until the invasion when they reversed their position. Deprive them of their main source of income and it will be easier to persuade those currently in their employ to come back to the table and "unclench their fists" as it were. It was this tactic of paying former enemies that helped the Anbar awakening succeed. It was the Anbar awakening that did much more good in Iraq than the surge.

    Posted by audacity at 03/02/2009 @ 08:31am

74. Posted by YourJomamma at 03/01/2009 @ 11:35pm

    And now...you're doing business with them.

    What's the problem?

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2009 @ 2:22pm

75. Wm Pfaff raises a good Q re Afghan & provides a rational answer ... heard anywhere else?

    http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=383

    Another Q: why does the US need a war anywhere?

    Posted by sloper at 03/03/2009 @ 02:11am

76. Go to www.Peace-Action.org to sign our petition to stop the troop surge into Afghanistan, today!

    Posted by BJBinDC at 03/03/2009 @ 11:24am

77. When it comes to the issues of the global politics and the way it is perceived by the masses, a lot of things can be viewed as half-truth or false information wrapped into shiny paper to attract the attention and make people look away from the real problems. Unfortunately, most of us read only the headlines, and don't pay attention to what is really going on in the places like Africa, Gaza strip or the Balkans. Do we think about what is really done to improve the situation in those places by the organizations that are founded to interfere where it is needed and secure the lives of innocent people? Do we engage in dialogues only when we are the ones being endangered, or do we have a conscience that says that this world is a home to us all, and every nation suffering should be given a helping hand? We should understand that if some conflicts do not effect us directly, indirectly we are all effected as a species that seems to work hard against its own survival. I found some very interesting thoughts on this subject in the book called The Age of Nepotism, you should look it up and read about current affairs in the world from the perspective of Iranian American entrepreneur traveling through the Balkans. There is also a site www.theageofnepotism.com

    Posted by nikolina at 03/04/2009 @ 05:43am

78. Sign the petition to stop the surge into Afghanistan at www.peace-action.org.

    Posted by BJBinDC at 03/04/2009 @ 10:50am