House Members to Obama: Rethink Afghanistan Surge

Congressional Democrats and Republicans are signing on to a letter urging President Obama to reconsider his plan to surge tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan.

"Mr. President, in reviewing the past history of Afghanistan and the nations that have failed to conquer it -- Russia spent nine years in Afghanistan and lost many billions of dollars and more than 15,000 Russian soldiers-- we urge you to reconsider the decision to send an additional 17,000 troops and to resist pressure to escalate even further," reads a "Get on the Right Side of History" letter that has attracted the support of House Democrats Representative Neil Abercrombie, of Hawaii; John Conyers of Michigan; Bob Filner and Mike Honda of California; Steve Kagen of Wisconsin; Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

Also signing the letter are Republicans Roscoe Bartlett, of Maryland, Howard Coble and Walter Jones Jr. of North Carolina; John Duncan of Tennessee; Ron Paul of Texas, and Ed Whitfield of Kentucky.

The full letter from the House members reads:

Dear Mr. President:

We have noted with some concern your announcement that an additional 17,000 US troops would be sent to Afghanistan. As the goals of our seven year military involvement remain troublingly unclear, we urge you to reconsider such a military escalation.

If the intent is to leave behind a stable Afghanistan capable of governing itself, this military escalation may well be counterproductive. A recent study by the Carnegie Endowment has concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element d riving the resurgence of the Taliban."

The 2001 authorization to use military force in Afghanistan allowed military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." Continuing to fight a counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan does not appear to us to be in keeping with these directives and an escalation may actually harm US security.

In a tape released in 2004, Osama bin Laden stated that al Qaedas' goal was to "bleed.. .America to the point of bankruptcy" in Afghanistan. He continued, "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note..."

We would do well to pay attention to these threats and to avoid falling into any such trap through escalation of our military presence in Afghanistan.

We are also concerned that any perceived military success in Afghanistan might create pressure to increase military activity in Pakistan. This could very well lead to dangerous destabilization in the region and would increase hostility toward the United States.

Mr. President, in reviewing the past history of Afghanistan and the nations that have failed to conquer it -- Russia spent nine years in Afghanistan and lost many billions of dollars and more than 15,000 Russian soldiers-- we urge you to reconsider the decision to send an additional 17,000 troops and to resist pressure to escalate even further.

In addition to the House members who have signed on, the letter has also been endorsed by religious, political and policy advocates from across the ideological spectrum, including:

Michael D. Ostrolenk, President, American Conservative Defense Alliance

Mary Ellen McNish, General Secretary, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)

Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, co-founders, CODEPINK: Women for Peace

Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy In Focus

Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)

Tom Hayden

Phyllis Bennis, New Internationalism project, Institute for Policy Studies

Robert Naiman, Senior Policy Analyst, Just Foreign Policy

Yifat Susskind, Communications Director, MADRE: Rights, Resources, and Results for Women Worldwide

(Rev.) James Kofski, Associate, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Simone Campbell, SSS, Executive Director, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Dave Robinson, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement

Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action

John Leinung, Steering Committee, September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows

Charlie Clements, President and CEO, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC)

Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ is a coalition of 1,400 national and local organizations.)

Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator, U.S. Labor Against the War

Kevin Zeese, Executive Director, Voters for Peace

Former Congressman Tom Andrews, Director, Win Without War (WWW is a coalition of more than 40 national groups, many with religious affiliations.)

Susan Shaer, Executive Director, Women's Action for New Directions

Comments (76)

1. Uh-uh.

   Any of those guys on that list of "People seeking the imminent impeachment of George W. Bush"?

   Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 11:02am

2. mask, 'no surge' is the right thing to do. you know it. i know it. we all know it.

   Posted by darladoon at 04/02/2009 @ 11:19am

3. 1. We heard the surge in Iraq was not going to work... .those who said so were wrong.

   2. The minute you see the boy wonder, Dennis Kucinich, on a list of people advocating something...you then know the opposite approach is the correct approach.

   Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 11:19am

4. Posted by darladoon at 04/02/2009 @ 11:19am

   This isn't Bush's Surge though, DD. No open-ended strategy. No "If we start talking about getting out too soon".

   It's about going to the bargaining table from a position of strength, but it's still going to be a bargaining table and guys like SJCHER will scream like stuck pigs when the agreement is reached, despite their tacit support now.

   Obama wants out of Afghanistan before 2012, Dubya was happy to leave Iraq to his successor.

   There's a difference.

   Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:10pm

5. This isn't Bush's Surge though, DD. No open-ended strategy. No "If we start talking about getting out too soon".

   It's about going to the bargaining table from a position of strength, but it's still going to be a bargaining table and guys like SJCHER will scream like stuck pigs when the agreement is reached, despite their tacit support now.

   Obama wants out of Afghanistan before 2012, Dubya was happy to leave Iraq to his successor.

   There's a difference.

   Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:10pm

   Keep rationalizing that Mask. You just can't admit that Obama is doing more like Bush than an anti-war president.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 12:18pm

6. It's about going to the bargaining table from a position of strength, but it's still going to be a bargaining table and guys like SJCHER will scream like stuck pigs when the agreement is reached, despite their tacit support now.

   Obama wants out of Afghanistan before 2012, Dubya was happy to leave Iraq to his successor.

   There's a difference.

   Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   So what troop strength is going to be sufficient to bring Taliban to the table?

   Surely you don't think an additional 17,000 troops is going to cut it. Is it more like 600,000 that Murtha believes will be necessary?

   Taliban has already told Obama to get lost.

   Interested to hear your "benchmarks" for success.

   Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 12:37pm

7. Afghanistan is just another mess to be cleaned up... left over from the Bush administration's confused confrontation with the realities of the world...

   ...and I'm in complete agreement with Mask on this one.

   What is mind-bogglingly amazing, is how many 'to do' items there are...

   ...and how the 'right' ignores its culpability (I'm being polite here)... and its responsibility... in the timing of the content of the hand-off of power and responsibility.

   Bush did nothing in his last months of lame duck lasciviousness... flaunting his power by flouting his fatuous farce of leadership and guidance... and as a nation held hostage by his ideological dispute with Government's actual 'employer'... ourselves... voted for diametric change, he did nothing but offer us a poorly conceived three page economic recovery 'suggestion'... which, in it's opaque implementation, may have done more harm to the system than we can accurately ascertain.

   Meanwhile... Afghanistan festers... therefore providing terrorism a toehold that should have been 'broken off' and secured by 9-20-01.

   Thank you President Obama!

   Posted by ttr at 04/02/2009 @ 1:01pm

8. okay, antisoc, OneVote...we'll see.

   I have this suspicion that by the end of 2010 your positions will FLIP.

   Suddenly we're negotiating with the warlords and Taliban for a withdrawal and Larry is telling us that "Obama is surrendering Afghanistan!!!!" and OV is praising him.

   Or do you guys BOTH really think that Obama is going to "stay until 'victory' (always nebulous)" as Bush and McCain promised on Iraq????

   Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:07pm

9. The goal of the surge is to give the Afghan Army and police a chance to evolve from their current dysfunctional state into a security force supported by the Afghan people. This is the only way to defeat the Taliban for the long term. It also involves Pakistan and sure, it's going to be complicated, but it is worth the effort. The alternative is to let Afghanistan devolve back into the hell-on-earth it was with the Taliban back in charge, providing a whole country as a base for AQ.

   Posted by pyeatte at 04/02/2009 @ 1:07pm

10. Thank you President Obama!

    Posted by ttr at 04/02/2009 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Nope. This is Obama's war going forward. Sorry. 2012 he is going to look pretty silly using Bush as a scapegoat. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam?

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 1:08pm

11. Or do you guys BOTH really think that Obama is going to "stay until 'victory' (always nebulous)" as Bush and McCain promised on Iraq????

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes. I think this is his long term plan, but it must be sold to us incrementally.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 1:13pm

12. by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 1:08pm...

    Yep... I'm old enough... and I picked up a a piece of rubber bullet off the sidewalk in Berkeley while my eyes were streaming from the tear gas still in the air of a vacant and deserted street on 'the morning after'...

    Obama is no LBJ...

    I think you are trying to put Bush's brain into Obama's head... and it just isn't going to fit...

    I'll be more open to your interpretation if things get 'out of hand' over the next 6 months... but until then... I will accede to Obama's general knack for sound cautious judgment.

    Posted by ttr at 04/02/2009 @ 1:23pm

13. Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 1:13pm

    Then join sloper and the Pure Progressives, OV, in the "Not Good Enough! (And Never Will Be)" Crowd.

    Dennis Kucinich nor Ralph Nader will ever be President of the United States...and if MoveOn and Center for American Progress are "neo-cons" now...

    you guys are in for a lonely political life.

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:28pm

14. Posted by ttr at 04/02/2009 @ 1:23pm: Are you trying to say Obama's head isn't big enough?

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/02/2009 @ 1:32pm

15. Or do you guys BOTH really think that Obama is going to "stay until 'victory' (always nebulous)" as Bush and McCain promised on Iraq????

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:07pm

    I'm hopeful

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:41pm

16. by pyeatte at 04/02/2009 @ 1:32pm...

    ;^)... no, not really... its like comparing windows 95 to Vista... they run on totally different principles...

    Posted by ttr at 04/02/2009 @ 1:42pm

17. Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:41pm

    And I'm hopeful, you'll sing a different tune in less than 12 months as soon as "Obama surrendered Afghanistan" (i.e. got us out with negotiations not the mysterious "victory" which nobody can offer a detailed definition of).

    OV may be too far gone; the Purists usually are.

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 2:00pm

18. Obama's strings are being pulled by the Military Industrial Complex - there is a lot to be gained for these people, military war machine contracts, private mercenary contracts, nation building and halliburton contracts and the list goes on.

    What remains to be seen is whether Obama is a complete puppet and if the elite have ultimate control over Obama and the Fate of America

    OR,

    If Obama will break out the shears and cut himself loose of those strings - but I am sure even IF he wants to in the back of his mind he has to be thinking about what happened to Americas last real president, JFK!

    Only time will tell. Until then it is up to us, We The People to DEMAND the CHANGE that his speeches were so full of.

    http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com

    Posted by kristofeR! at 04/02/2009 @ 2:03pm

19. you guys are in for a lonely political life.

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Almost Orwellian Mask. Those who do not subscribe to Groupthink will be lonely - ostracized.

    'Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[1] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group's balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.'

    Source: Wikipedia

    As far as Nader and Kucinich go, perhaps these gentleman exemplify the type of leaders we should have - those that speak truth to us, not lies. Your idolatry of those who are politically savy (whatever works to get elected and hold power) is perhaps a symptom of the decay of our political, economic and social systems. These men should be your heroes, not your clowns.

    I just can't make myself happy in illusion. Sometimes I wish I could.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 2:07pm

20. And I'm hopeful, you'll sing a different tune in less than 12 months as soon as "Obama surrendered Afghanistan" (i.e. got us out with negotiations not the mysterious "victory" which nobody can offer a detailed definition of).

    OV may be too far gone; the Purists usually are.

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Don't you see the inherent contradiction?

    You are hopeful, but not certain.

    My view is based on US imperialistic blunders of the past. This at least gives me some footing for my belief that our grand plan for Afghans is not likely to work.

    Your view is trully based on hope - hope that things will be different this time. I don't think I am being a purist, I think I am being realistic, and not blinded by ideology.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 2:18pm

21. Or do you guys BOTH really think that Obama is going to "stay until 'victory' (always nebulous)" as Bush and McCain promised on Iraq????

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:07pm

    I'm hopeful

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Count on it.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 2:25pm

22. We have a serious problem on our hands. Evidently our elected officials are dumber than a pile of rocks.

    We haven't and can't solve Iraq's problems though we sure added to them, and we can't solve Afghanistans problems and we definitely can't militarily. Going after Bin Forgotten and AQ is one thing, but hanging around in a country that hates people from other countries occupying their country is just plain stupid.

    The U.S. can't even get it's own act together let alone trying to straighten out another country across the globe. All of this is to justify spending our increasing debt on useless defense projects, the pentagon and military hardware defense contractors have come to not only expect, but demand that the American tax payer dole it. And, half what these contractors produce doesn't work as advertised.

    In our current state of affairs, we should make serious cuts in our budget and the first cuts should be Iraq, Afghanistan, propping up other countries and producing military hardware for countries such is Israel, Saudi Arabia and so on.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/02/2009 @ 3:10pm

23. As far as Nader and Kucinich go, perhaps these gentleman exemplify the type of leaders we should have - those that speak truth to us, not lies. Your idolatry of those who are politically savy (whatever works to get elected and hold power) is perhaps a symptom of the decay of our political, economic and social systems. These men should be your heroes, not your clowns.

    I just can't make myself happy in illusion. Sometimes I wish I could.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 2:07pm |

    Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately Mask is right. If things are going sour in Afghanistan, Obama, first and foremost a politician, will do what he thinks will get him relected, in short he'll get the hell out of there.

    W, on the other hand, knew that his politcal army had has back covered and was able to push through any amount of B.S. to further the oil industries interest in Iraq as well as enriching Cheney's Halliburton subsidiary KBR at the same time. Note that KBR is repairing all of the electrical shower problems they themselves screwed up in the first place.....for a fee of course.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/02/2009 @ 3:17pm

24. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/02/2009 @ 3:17pm

    EXACTLY, Wolf.

    Call it CYNICISM if you like. But Obama isn't going to stay in Afghanistan through 2011 and see his re-election chances go in the toilet.

    Even if you don't accept that he's got a plan and it's goal is to get us out ASAP....it seems a cynic like OV would consider THAT possibility. That Obama isn't some neo-con ideologue who wants to "win it in Afghanistan" at the cost of his Presidency.

    Hmmmm, OV????

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 3:45pm

25. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/02/2009 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    EXACTLY, Wolf.

    Call it CYNICISM if you like. But Obama isn't going to stay in Afghanistan through 2011 and see his re-election chances go in the toilet.

    Guys - have you examined your logic lately?

    Viewing 2011 through the prism of today?

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 5:26pm

26. 1. We heard the surge in Iraq was not going to work... .those who said so were wrong.

    2. The minute you see the boy wonder, Dennis Kucinich, on a list of people advocating something...you then know the opposite approach is the correct approach.

    Posted by sjchermak.

    1 As I recall the SADR army quit fighting before the surge even occured. So did the surge work or did one side stop fighting? I think the latter.

    2. A little closed minded aren't you? I can't think of anyone who's wrong 100% of the time. Even Bush was right one time.

    Posted by notsleepy at 04/02/2009 @ 5:37pm

27. Hmmmm, OV????

    Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    LBJ ring a bell to you?

    'After the Tet offensive of January 1968, his presidency was dominated by the Vietnam War more than ever. As casualties mounted and success seemed further away than ever, Johnson's popularity plummeted. College students and others protested, burned draft cards, and chanted, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"[48] Johnson could scarcely travel anywhere without facing protests, and was not allowed by the Secret Service to attend the 1968 Democratic National Convention, where hundreds of thousands of hippies, yippies, Black Panthers and other opponents of Johnson's policies both in Vietnam and in the ghettoes converged to protest. Thus by 1968, the public was polarized, with the "hawks" rejecting Johnson's refusal to win the war, and the "doves" rejecting his continuation of containment. Support for Johnson's middle position continued to shrink until he finally rejected containment and sought a peace settlement. By late summer, however, he realized that Nixon was closer to his position than Humphrey. However, he continued to support Humphrey publicly in the election, and personally despised Nixon. One of Johnson's well known quotes was "the Democratic party at its worst, is still better than the Republican party at its best".[56]'

    So - things aren't going according to plan in Afghanistan in 2011. Obama is just going to pull the troops, advisors, close down the military bases, new embassy, cut off aid to Pakistan, stop all new construction projects, etc., and leave it all to the Afghan Army?

    Whew - do you suppose there might be a little pushback?

    "Mr. President, the war has almost been won...just a little more time."

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 5:54pm

28. It's such a discusting crime how the compliant media in the U.S refuses to inform the willfully ignorant American people that it was the American government that formed and trained al-Qaeda (A.k.a. Muhashadeen) in the late 1970's and early 1980's to fight the invading Russian armies in Afghanistan. The Taliban were trained and armed right along with the Muhashadeen by the CIA and other covert U.S. government agencies. The Taliban were allies with the U.S. govenment up until mid 2001, when tribal leaders of the Taliban refused U.S. oil interests from the North through Afghanistan. Bush flat out ignored history, Obama would rather turn a blind eye to it. America creates it's own monsters. It's only when they are of no use to the U.S., that they are labeled terrorists. American is fighting an un-winable war on two fronts against a foe in which it has trained and armed.

    Posted by slavetoart at 04/02/2009 @ 7:05pm

29. America is fighting an un-winable war on two fronts against a foe in which it has trained and armed.

    Posted by slavetoart at 04/02/2009 @ 7:05pm...

    ...and then the MIC has the narcissistic audacity to assume that it is a Holy war... because the citizens of sovereign nations often take offense at the US's imperialistic impositions... eventually thereby treating us like the intruders we inevitably become.

    Funny that... we could be genuinely creating Democracies... and by letting them, and encouraging them, to trust us... we could generate long term relationships that are based on mutual understanding and respect.

    Or... we can seek to crush their cultures underfoot... leading to an eternity of anguish and trauma.

    Love is letting go...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 04/02/2009 @ 7:46pm

30. You know, y'all, every nation and its pet ducks have tried to "surge" on Afghanistan, and every one of them has left in defeat, bloodied, bruised and beaten. What makes us think we can do better? Stay the hell out of Afghanistan and its business, and let's tend to our own knitting. We've got plenty of dropped stitches right here in these United States we can repair, without butting into Afghanistan's business. For once, let's stop bossing the world around and fix what's broken in our own backyard - there's no shortage of what we can do right here at home.

    Posted by Gail Moore at 04/02/2009 @ 8:27pm

31. Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work. Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month.

    But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:

    Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)

    Attacking others

    Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces

    And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months

    http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/30/iraq_the_unraveling

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2009 @ 9:47pm

32. <i>Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 5:54pm </i>

    I'm not defending the "we totally had Vietnam" side, but it's interesting to note that Tet was a PR nightmare, but in reality a strong US success.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2009 @ 9:48pm

33. Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2009 @ 9:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    True - VC took heavy casualties. But in the public's mind, it was a turning point. Control the press very important to selling and maintaining war.

    Tet, 1968 One of the chief criticisms levelled against the news media (both then and later), was that it had misinterpreted both the Tet Offensive of January 1968 and its outcome. These critics blamed the media for altering the American public's perceptions of the war and shifting it into an antiwar stance. When the first large-scale deployment of U.S. troops had taken place in 1965, a majority of the American public had supported it. Yet, even at that early stage, public opinion polls revealed that 25 percent opposed the U.S. commitment. Over the following three years majority support for the war declined steadily, finally being surpassed during the third quarter of 1967 - well before the onset of the offensive. According to historian Clarence Wyatt, "Tet was less the occasion for a sudden shift in such opinion than it was a confirmation of characteristics and trends that had been around a long time."[47] This undercut the popular notion that Tet was "the turning point" of the war as far as the American public was concerned.[48] Surveys taken post-Tet only indicated that, for the first time, a majority of Americans opposed the war. When viewed over a four year period, Tet had only reinforced a growing public perception that U.S. involvement in Vietnam had been a mistake.[49

    Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 11:09pm

34. I remember something of Obama promising to bring our troops home while he was campaigning. Maybe that was my imagination.

    Posted by Lyrik at 04/02/2009 @ 11:59pm

35. "Mr. President, the war has almost been won...just a little more time."

    Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 5:54pm

    OneVote, Consider this though. Obama is not stupid. First, he knows that the Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan. Second, he knows that the Iraq venture was a complete failure. If it wasn't a failure, we wouldn't have to continue to place soldiers in that country and they'd be able to secure things themselves. Also, keep in mind our economy is on the brink of failure.

    My take on this is that Obama is trying to humor the right wing folks as well as the pentagon and at the same time hope that they can find Bin Forgotten and try to stabalize Afghanistan. I would predict that you are right and that this Afghanistan thing will blow up in all of our faces just like Iraq did. But, Obama, if he's smart, now has hindsight of Iraq and Vietnam from the U.S. standpoint, and also Afghanistan from the Soviets standpoint. All of them were and are losing scenarios. If he wishes to win in 2012 and body bags are coming back from Afghanistan in large numbers, he'll pull out of that country.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 06:29am

36. We need to get out of Afghanistan and help the rapists and murderers back to power. Only then will Afghanistan return to normalcy.

    Posted by abell12ct at 04/03/2009 @ 08:03am

37. See? Guys like abell already have their talking points ready.

    Again, a year from now, the posts will be reversed. The Right, praising of Obama for "sticking to it", in Afghanistan will be claiming he's "surrendering to the Taliban" as we negotiate a peace and start to get out.....

    MOST of the Left praising him for doing it....a few (like OneVote) saying "Should have done it a year ago like I wanted".

    But Barack Obama doesn't want to go into 2012 with an unpopular vote on his belt.

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:11am

38. Sorry...."vote" should be "war".

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:11am

39. that Tet was a PR nightmare, but in reality a strong US success. Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2009 @ 9:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    it was for the US a pyrrhic victory.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 08:42am

40. we're smarter...and we have MUCH nicer toys.

    As I've posted elsewhere, I believe the right move was not to have invaded either country during Dubya's reign...lest someone run up and hurl poop at my pragmatic pacifism.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 07:22am

    I don't know if you've ever boxed or played any type of sport where if you underestimated your opponents strengths you pay the price directly, but never over-estimate your strenghts and never overplay an enemies weaknesses. First of all, the weaknesses you believe they have may not truly be a weakness. You may be walking into a set-up.

    Do you truly think we are smarter than the Soviets were? Why? Our country is on the same path they were on in before their demise.

    Another thing to consider is that high tech weapons don't work so well in middle of dust storms. We may have all of the nice toys, but once again, like in Vietnam and Iraq, they have the numbers. It's their home, not ours.

    In response to Abell12 I'd say that the current leader we are backing in Afghanistan has put forward a law saying it is alright for a husband to rape his wife. So, even if we win over there, which we won't, laws like that will still be on the books....unless you would like to transport all of the women and children out of Afghanistan and put them up in your home state at your expense.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 09:13am

41. Surely there is something the left can do to lose in Afghanistan. We must not let Afghanistan become another Iraq! Victory is no substitute for defeat!

    Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 09:13am

42. In response to Abell12 I'd say that the current leader we are backing in Afghanistan has put forward a law saying it is alright for a husband to rape his wife. So, even if we win over there, which we won't, laws like that will still be on the books....unless you would like to transport all of the women and children out of Afghanistan and put them up in your home state at your expense. Posted by Wolfgang1

    I had not heard of that but you are correct. I withdraw my comment.

    Posted by abell12ct at 04/03/2009 @ 09:28am

43. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 09:13am

    So your solution is no solution. Have no influence, no affect on the future there. Simply let it continue to be a training ground for terrorists who will later attack us?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:44am

44. MOST of the Left praising him for doing it....a few (like OneVote) saying "Should have done it a year ago like I wanted".

    But Barack Obama doesn't want to go into 2012 with an unpopular vote on his belt.

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Most of the left consisting of John Podesta eh Maskie?

    Here we go again!!!

    Posted by OneVote at 04/03/2009 @ 10:17am

45. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 06:29am | ignore this person | warn this person

    what was the saying by Mark Twain - 'predictions are very difficult - especially about the future.'

    Posted by OneVote at 04/03/2009 @ 10:19am

46. this one sounds more like Yogi Berra.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:36am

47. It's a little humorous watching all the liberal commentators trying to come to grips with the idea that President Obama is doing a lot of the things Bush did. What did they think? That the "we're gettin out of this mess as soon as I'm in" stuff was anything but campaign rhetoric? The world's bigger than that.

    Obama will choose better methods than Bush did to accomplish what is essentially the same goal: the elimination of terrorism and the safety of Americans here and abroad. Rachal Maddow, for one, seemed not to get that the other night, spending considerable unprofessional time trying to dis repubs over everthing under the sun. It was all the poor girl had!

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/03/2009 @ 11:10am

48. Miscellaneous comments:

    1. Wolfgang1 says "...Obama is not stupid.."

    Comment: We know that. We also know Obama thinks the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are.

    2. emile duBois and OneVote commented about Tet, for example "...it was for the US a pyrrhic victory....." . One Vote seems to have said that perception of Tet being a turning point (regarding opposition to the war here at home) is not necessarily the case....that it had been trending that way or was bound to begin trending that way and become more overt anyway.

    Comment: No mention was made of people like Walter Cronkite, who declared the war unwinnable. The North Vietnamese themselves have told us in recent times that Tet was a turning point, they were thinking before that perhaps their goal of conquering South Vietnam was not going to succeed, but once they saw they could win in the court of public opinion in the U.S. they realized they just had to hang in there and eventually, with the help of people like Cronkite, they got the win.

    3. emile duBois said "....this one sounds more like Yogi Berra...."

    Comment: This country would be a lot better off right now if Yogi were President.

    4. notsleepy said ".....I can't think of anyone who's wrong 100% of the time....."

    Comment: Apparently notsleepy did not think of Algore or Jimmy Carter.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 11:22am

49. <i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 09:13am </i>

    Technically, many states in the US had those kinds of laws until pretty recently. For an extremely long time, rape was defined as being "with someone not your spouse." That's not to say they're not awful (they clearly are), but that maybe SOME perspective would be helpful.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/03/2009 @ 11:44am

50. with the help of people like Cronkite, they got the win.----Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 11:22am

    SJ, oddly leaving Richard M. Nixon out of the mix. Didn't know Cronkite had negotiated the Paris Peace Accords??!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 11:57am

51. That's not to say they're not awful (they clearly are), but that maybe SOME perspective would be helpful.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/03/2009 @ 11:44am

    Right you are. And this country has a lot of conflicts on the books. How can a woman have equal protection under the law and at the same time have it be legal for her husband to beat her with a stick or rape her?

    Most states now have attorneys on the payroll to check the validity of legislation passed to stop making future stupid mistakes like this, but the existing laws should be stricken down as unconstitutional. Only a few church goers are into the wall to wall counseling for their children and wives and believe that wives should submit to their husbands any time they want a roll in the hay.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:00pm

52. So your solution is no solution. Have no influence, no affect on the future there. Simply let it continue to be a training ground for terrorists who will later attack us?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:44am

    No, my solution would be to remove our military personnel. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

    If the U.S. actually helped the poor people of these countries instead of propping up corrupt dictators and helped them build roads, schools, hospitals etc. they'd look upon us as friend versus the way they look at us now....an enemy that occupies their countries and kills innocent people due to missing the target, using bad information to drop bombs on the wrong house etc.

    Our military is not geared up for urban warefare in other countries nor is their a military in the world that is. Look at Israel in the Lebanon ordeal. They accomplished nothing other than killing a lot of people and leveling building and causing mass destruction. They did manage to get more people mad at them on the other hand and exponentially created more enemies.

    Calling in the military should be a last ditch resort because everything else we tried failed. As far as I know, we haven't tried anything in the ME but blowing things up. Not a good way to make friends.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:07pm

53. Mask,

    The mix I was talking about was the mix of anti-war sentiment in this country... which is what kept the N. Vietnamese going and also the Viet Cong... remember in my post I mentioned that they have said they may have given up after Tet but they saw anti-war sentiment would eventually force the U.S. to end the war so they gave up.

    How is Nixon involved in that mix?

    You probably should not have brought up the Paris Peace Accords.... because you would have thought that would have meant a truce and end to the war where basically N. Vietnam and S. Vietnam stayed in place the way they were, except no more war or hostilities..

    It of course was supposed to mean that and for a while it did mean that... until the communists started fighting again.. with no provocation from the United States or any thing we did or did not do that they could cite as a "excuse"...

    They went back to fighting because they knew they could get away with it... and by that time Democrats in the Senate had prohibitions in place regarding us even helping the S. Vietnamse let alone going back to war.

    You do remember, don't you, that nobody on the left ever complains about the communists doing this and nobody on the left ever says this was wrong for them to do, even though many on the left proclaim war is wrong and you should never go to war and you should always give peace a chance.

    So why is the left silent when there was a complete truce and peace and the war was over but then the communists went back to war again?

    Mask, you walked into it by brining up the Paris Peace Accords... what say you about this... were the communists wrong to go back to war?

    YES or NO.... no other answer permitted.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

54. <i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:00pm </i>

    Agreed; those laws need to either be removed by the legislative process or struck down as violations of Equal Protection (because they CLEARLY are). Spousal rape laws generally don't single out women in their wording, but the Supreme Court has NEVER held that to give immunity.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/03/2009 @ 12:56pm

55. typo,

    I said above "....eventually force the U.S. to end the war so they gave up. "

    I meant "....eventually force the U.S. to end the war so they kept going rather than give up."

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 12:56pm

56. Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

    No, actually SJCHER, my question would be ....if it was Nixon signing off on the Paris Peace Accords...and the North Vietnamese breaking the truce...

    why are Walter Cronkite and people like him to blame in your mind?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:01pm

57. Mask,

    I am not sure why you are asking me that question, since I have already answered it twice in my posts above.

    The North Vietnamese have said in recent times that they were beginning to think about giving up, back in the 67-68 time frame. They were beginning to be of the opinion that they were not going to successfuly defeat us or S. Vietnam.

    After Tet, which was a military defeat for them, they could see, however, that there was beginning to be major opposition to the war, in the U.S. They then concluded that all they would need to do is stay the course and eventually there would be a peace agreement.

    The peace agreement that did occur in 1973 was worthless, of course, since they violated it within a couple of years and got their "victory".

    But, if they had given up in 1968 or 1969, in some manner where they quit fighting and did not start up again, then the war would have been over, they would not have their communist Vietnam today, we would have not even gotten to any Paris Peace Accords or anything like that. Things would have been totally different.

    And where Mr. Cronkite, etc. comes into play here is the way the media covered Tet. Tet suprised us, and then Cronkite said the war was unwinnable. I can say from my standpoint of recognition of back then that I had no sense it was a military defeat for the communists. The media portrayed it otherwise and the anti-war movement really got going in this country.

    As you can see, I would have to ask you who is to blame for how the public viewed what had happened regarding Tet, if not the media?

    This is now the 3rd comment, this time including more detail than before. Do you undersand now, or no?

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 3:28pm

58. Mask,

    What about my question to you... were the communists right or wrong to go back to war, YES or NO?

    If they were not wrong, I would like to know why not. (additional question added into the hopper)

    A 3rd question for you to answer, which means a 3rd question you will ignore - why do leftists not say the communists were wrong?

    A 4th question.... given all the other implications about war being wrong over the years by the left.... is the left right or is the left wrong by not commenting on what the communists did? (YES or NO, no other answer permitted)

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 3:31pm

59. A 4th question.... given all the other implications about war being wrong over the years by the left.... is the left right or is the left wrong by not commenting on what the communists did? (YES or NO, no other answer permitted)

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 3:31pm

    SJ, A couple of things on that. The first would be that to the victor go the spoils which means that the victor gets to rewrite history (at least in their country) so that the appear to be all in the right and the other guys are the bad guys.

    Now, the communists in Vietnam may or may not have been "right", but what and how did this effect the U.S.? Once again, were we the self appointed world police? Is it the job of the U.S. to stomp on any and all countries with a socialist or communist form of government? If so, we are a very narrow minded nation.

    Take the U.S. civil war. The British were trying to add the confederates much to the chagrin of the federal troops or more specifically noted, the federal navy. Now, please tell all of us why Great Britain had any business at all the civil war in the U.S. aside from monetary gains for themsevles.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 3:42pm

60. Wolfgang1,

    You question whether we had the right to be the "world police".

    You need to go back to the circumstances in play at the time of the 50's and the 60's.

    We were in a cold war where Krushchev told us he was going to bury us.

    The Soviets wanted a communist dominated world and most believed that eventually that meant the U.S. as a communist nation also.

    It behooved us to try and stop the communism wherever it may have begun to pop up, not only because comminism is wrong to begin with, but because of the implications for our own country.

    All of these years later, things like the domino theory are mocked and consensus among the left is that there was no threat to us. But that is with many years of history having passed.

    We do not know how things would have turned out had we not resisted the communism in Vietnam and other places it turned up. Maybe we would be communist today, or maybe the dominoes would not have fallen.

    Vietnam was a complicated situation and a national tragedy, but I don't think it is quite fair say what we should have done or not done instead, given the passage of time. People back then had to deal with the circumstances back then, as to how things appeared to be happening.

    And it was not really possible to go the other way either, with a massive invasion perhaps of North Vietnam to fight a quick victorious war... because that may have just brought Soviet retaliation, and esclation to the brink of nuclear conflict. And the same for the Chinese, and they were not allied with the Soviets back then (they were at odds with the Soviets) so we had two nuclear powered entities either one of which could have reacted had we tried massive force.

    We were between a rock and a hard place, but not acting as a world "policeman".

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 4:05pm

61. Wolfgang1,

    To add to what I was saying, you question how Vietnam being communist has affected us.. given the circumstances that did occur, by the time Vietnam became communist it has not had a major impact on us.

    But what I am saying is that had we just rolled over in the early 60's and not confronted the communists at all, then maybe it would have been part of a lot of other "dominoes" falling.... the war we fought in Vietnam and the resistance we applied to communism elsewhere may have prevented us from having communism forced upon us.

    I also have some issues with you questioning us (the U.S.) as being world policemen.... that is the concept of moral equivalence in play here... while in no means has the U.S. been perfect in it's history, some people such as me think it is the best country there has been in history, regarding freedom for it's own people and others, as well as economic opportunity and advancement of technology and the standard of living.

    Vietnam is communist, which means the people there are not free.

    I do not agree that we have no responsibilty to try and stop that.

    Another aspect about my question to Mask was the thing about the communists going back to war and the lack of comment by the left about that... that is is not really to do with the comminism in Vietnam so much as the silence on the left... the left always speaks out about war, etc. and many on the left instruct that we are wrong if we go to war .. but there never is any concern or commentary about others who do that...

    In the past two weeks on these blogs there was the article about "No to NATO, etc... a one-sided instruction of all the peace initiatives we must do.. with no demand on those who might be our enemies...

    Why don't they have to adopt "peace" as well?

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 4:15pm

62. Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 4:05pm

    SJ, So, the Vietnam war ended up with the communists winning and that didn't help the Soviet Union one bit. Vietnam is still it's own country. I have quite a few friends from that country and most of them ended up on the losing side and some with not very pleasant stories to tell.

    Do I feel bad for people caught up in things like this? Hell yes. But, the spread of communism in and of itself was and is no threat to the United States. What was more at stake was the same that was at stake with Cuba. Business. If these countries didn't play ball the way the Milton Friedman's of the world wanted, they were blackmaled by the western world, the IMF and World Bank.

    The Russians on the other hand would throw them some rubles in exchange for bases etc. If anyone has been a threat to anyone, the U.S. has been a greater threat to Russia than the other way around. Look at who is trying to set up missile radar sites on the border of Russia now...that would be NATO and the U.S. You would crap your pants if Russia started setting up missile systems in Canada and Mexico.

    These are wars between the Oligarchs and the American neocons. Too bad we couldn't let all of the bastards kill each other so the rest of us could live in peace.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 4:18pm

63. most of them ended up on the losing side and some with not very pleasant stories to tell.

    the victors too had not very pleasant stories to tell.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 4:24pm

64. In the past two weeks on these blogs there was the article about "No to NATO, etc... a one-sided instruction of all the peace initiatives we must do.. with no demand on those who might be our enemies... Why don't they have to adopt "peace" as well? Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 4:15pm

    I see: So, the Warsaw Pact nations are thinking of doing a reunion tour? I mean they formed in 1955 and disbanded in 1991. Rumors were that there were "creative differences" among members. Did someone read something about their getting back together, or see something on Entertainment Tonight?

    Posted by theo51 at 04/03/2009 @ 4:28pm

65. Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 3:28pm

    "This is now the 3rd comment, this time including more detail than before. Do you undersand now, or no?"

    You will find, SJ, that when faced with a direct question that he does not wish to answer and in fact cannot answer without losing an argument, that MASK will dissemble, distract, deflect, and ultimately in any case fail to address it, no matter how many times and in how many different ways you ask it. This is why I know longer take MASK seriously.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 8:32pm

66. This is why I no longer take myself seriously. Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 8:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 9:03pm

67. This is why I know longer take MASK seriously.-----Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 8:32pm

    Actually you "stopped taking me seriously", when I saved your posts on your election prediction.....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 07:56am

68. I watched The Stephanopoulos show this morning as they crowed about how successful the surge was in Iraq, then announce the several soldiers killed there this week. The only head making any sense on the show seemed to be Arianna Huffington. That is Scary. The others all sounded like ditto heads including my hero Wills. Not a good sign. I surfed the other channels and they were all the same. Those great lines from the movie, "You can't take the truth", and song " Buddy can you spare a dime" kept running through my head. I know the truth, somebody please just admit it.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/05/2009 @ 2:03pm

69. there will be no victory parades on Main StreetUSA.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/05/2009 @ 2:36pm

70. is Karl Rove more evil than Rush Limbaugh?

    yes.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/05/2009 @ 2:41pm

71. "This could very well lead to dangerous destabilization in the region and would Increase Hostility toward the United States"

    You mean like before 9-11?

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/05/2009 @ 3:01pm

72. Obama(the Great Messiah to those low-information voters) campaigned on much rhetoric. He lambasted Clinton for voting for the Iraq war, then had the gall to say he did not vote for it. However, knowing his kum-bay-ya approach to the Rethugs, if he had been a sitting Senator, he would have been first in line. I mean, isn't that like saying he did not vote for the Vietnam War or the Central American Dictatorships that the US installed? What about the Dictatorship that the US installed in Haiti? Then, he had the nerve to elect Joe Bidin, who DID vote for the Iraq War. Going into Afghanistan and Pakistan and supporting Israel as he is doing will only make Al-Quedq stronger and allow them to recrute more and alloe anti-Americanism more than it is already. Sending troops to Mexico, when the the Mexican government Cardonas-the semi-unelected president that Bush W.installed installed), not to mention the CIA and DEA anr being infiltrated into the drug cartels (as they were in Cemtral America lest not we forget Colombia) and the police is lust another war on the people. Thankfully now we have Law Enforcement and Congressmen proclaiming to end the 40 year failed war on drugs. The same violence that has happened with drugs happened with alcohol prohibition relating to the Mafia and political corruption, except the people had a Constitutional vote on it. To add insult to injury Obama had that horrible Rick Warren, right after prop. * was passed part of his inauguration. Obama also is in support and encourages privatized schools and picked a lawyer, mot a Dr. of Education, to be the head of Education. And them there's his free-market boys of the treasury-who have us in as worse condition as Paulson.The US Admin. needs to take responsibility for it's actions.Empire fall.

    Posted by nativerose at 04/05/2009 @ 4:42pm

73. is Karl Rove more evil than Rush Limbaugh? yes. Posted by emile duBois at 04/05/2009 @ 2:41pm |

    Yes, he is just as evil, but does not have the intelligence and will to power that Cheney has. Rush is jealous. Nightly, he prays for Cheney's death. It is the only thing he feels a lit bit of shame about, but, he can't help it. If only he were a bit younger, a bit brighter, he could have been a contender.

    Posted by theo51 at 04/05/2009 @ 11:25pm

74. Defending the surge in Afgahnistan by comparing its potential outcome to that of the Iraqi surge is dangerous. They are two completely different theaters of war. Iraq is a battle for cities. The age old concept of putting "a cop on every street corner..." (a.k.a. the surge)proves true. However, Afghanistan is a battle for labyrinths. Will putting a "cop" on every mountain range, every cave entrance, every village center or each critical mountain pass bring crime down? Yes. Do we have the money, the troops, the equipment or the will to do that? No.

    The more we kill, the more come to fight us. To think that we will make any lasting difference in a country that hasn't changed since the 12th century is a pipe dream.

    We need a policy change, we need better intelligence, we need a sharper focus on the real threats to America and we need to get out of the Middle East. With all of the money we spent on these wars we could've brought our country out of the oil addiction and left the entire Middle East to wither up and die on it's own. Osama and friends would have no one to blame at that point. Leave them to their oil, it'll be gone in 100 years.

    Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to be a check mate on Iran (and the world). It didn't work and now we're doomed unless some real changes start taking root. We're unprepared for the 21st century - an overweight & expensive military, an overweight & broken government, and an overweight & complacent population.

    Nothing is working for us inside of our country so why should we think anything will work for us outside of our country? It's all a terrible joke and the punchline is death.

    Posted by CharlieDoom at 04/05/2009 @ 11:26pm

75. Aghanistan, and failing to nationalize the insolvent banks are the two policy mistakes so far. Hopefully they can be corrected in the future.

    Posted by SK9 at 04/06/2009 @ 10:00am

76. Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:32pm

    "So you would have been completely "neutral" if the South had left the Union and maintained slavery?"

    It's funny how MASK performs his modern day litmus test for political correctness. He is apparently unaware that the Civil War was NOT started for the purpose of ending slavery, so he asks me if I would have supported the South in the Civil War, apparently with the idea that this would indicate that I would have supported slavery. Just for the record and your own edification, MASK, although the ending of slavery was an effect of the Union's winning of the war, it was certainly not one of the purposes of Lincoln's fighting that war.

    And as I had already said, I did support the result of the Civil War and thought that that might have justified the means, although no-one could be certain that that much bloodshed was needed to accomplish that result.

    Moreover, MASK, let's contrast your position on the Civil War with that of the Iraq War. When I asked you whether you did not think that the cessation of mass murder by Saddam's regime was not a good justification for that war, you reply 'But that was not the original purpose!'. It's an interesting contrast.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 3:32pm