About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search

The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

When Your FRIEND Is Committing Political Suicide??

by: elwood

Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:49:28 AM EST


(Good idea Jack.  Bumped. - promoted by Dean Barker)

The ancient rule  of politics is, "When your enemy is committing suicide, don't get in the way." Piling on can only make you look bad without leaving the opponent any more doomed. That provides no help in figuring this one out.

Tuesday, the orchestrated leaks tell us, President Obama will announce that he intends to push for a major escalation in the Afghanistan War. The number that is floated seems to be about 34,000 new additional troops, at a ten-year cost of some 340 billion dollars.

That is probably enough to starve domestic programs of funding. Any proposals to strengthen the financial base for Medicare and Social Security will be much more difficult in the face of either still greater deficits or new taxes dedicated to Obama's War.

In the very short term politically - from now to mid-2010 - it will force Obama to woo Republicans and write off progressives. He needs to get funding for his war passed, and the most likely votes are under the control of Mitch McConnell. McConnell's political stock just increased; liberal Democrats moved into an awkward opposition slot.

In the middle term - 2010 to 2012 - this will, I predict, restore Republican rule in Congress. Democrats running in 2010 will no longer be talking about health care and jobs. They will be talking about how much or how little they support the War in Afghanistan. It will be child's play for Republican candidates to strike a more independent and skeptical pose on the war. This is how Nixon became President in 1968, after all.

In the longer term it may well be a turning point in some sort of realignment whose new form isn't even hinted at yet. This will demonstrate the futility of involvement in the political process to many who supported the young President.

Obama takes this move from an embarrassingly weak position as Commander in Chief. He chose to keep Bush's Secretary of Defense. He doesn't dare to - or care to, which is worse? - end Don't Ask Don't Tell. Yesterday we learned that he will not join most of the civilized world in banning land mines. General McChrystal's call for another 40,000 troops has been publicly proclaimed for months. The same Administration that preaches about the need for a President to receive private counsel in defending Bush era secrecy claims lets him stay in place. All of this seems to show a President too weak to assert civilian control of the military.

There really ISN'T much we can do to keep the administration from jumping. I guess we just quietly untie the rope, so we are not pulled down after him. And start thinking about how to pick up the pieces.
elwood :: When Your FRIEND Is Committing Political Suicide??
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
When Your FRIEND Is Committing Political Suicide?? | 207 comments
A few points (4.00 / 3)
1. If healthcare and jobs really hinge on Afghanistan, why did we elect a Democrat in the first place?

2. I don't think Afghanistan is the left-unifying issue that Iraq and healthcare are. Obama himself has been pretty consistent in saying Iraq was a mistake because it left Afghanistan unfinished. (That was probably a political calculation, at least in part.) But the upside is, I'm perfectly comfortable separating my positions on these issues. A Democratic administration knows the party is diverse, or ought to.

3. Please don't feed the GOP talking points. "Embarrassingly weak Commander in Chief?" No -- he made the decision. Like you say in the diary, what we hear is controlled by the administration. Do we really think McChrystal was freelancing when he first brought this up? Remember Bush talking about listening to the generals on the ground? We never called him "embarrassingly weak." Maybe we should have.

4. DADT is a separate issue. I'm with you on throwing it out. It seems like a no-brainer.

5. Land mines are also a separate issue and opposition to them also seems like a no-brainer to me. Maybe we use them more often than we care to admit?


In response - (4.00 / 1)
  1. I didn't say that social programs "hinge on Afghanistan." I said that the ability to move forward, or even  maintain the status quo, on social programs is crippled by an expensive new war commitment.
  2. Agreed - Afghanistan is the issue that will divide Democrats, not unite them.
  3. Yes, I think McChrystal was freelancing. He even built up his own little National Security Council to advise him directly - prominently featuring the Kagans of PNAC / American imperialism fame.
  4. Neither DADT nor landmines are a separate issue. You don't want to acknowledge the factor that ties them together: Obama is too weak to challenge the military.
  5. It's Waist Deep in the Big Muddy time. Too bad if challenging tragic decisions helps Republicans.

[ Parent ]
To clarify (0.00 / 0)
You said --

He needs to get funding for his war passed, and the most likely votes are under the control of Mitch McConnell. McConnell's political stock just increased; liberal Democrats moved into an awkward opposition slot.

First, I seriously doubt any GOP senator would vote against any military spending. Second, we still control Congress. McConnell can be made irrelevant. But mainly, I don't think there's anything awkward about opposing the Afghan War. The funding taken from other stuff is an issue, but it always is, and I just don't see why they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

On this --

You don't want to acknowledge the factor that ties them together: Obama is too weak to challenge the military.

I'll admit that I wouldn't want to acknowledge that, if it were true. Sorry, though, I don't think you've made your case that he's a weak president. You say it with conviction, but I need more than this.

Put another way: What president stood up to the military in the way you want Obama to? If he's weak, then presumably another president was stronger.


[ Parent ]
Harry Truman. (4.00 / 2)
That was easy.
[ Parent ]
Touche (4.00 / 1)
Give 'em hellwood.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[ Parent ]
Excellent Commentary, elwood (4.00 / 1)
...and we are repeating Vietnam in Afghanistan.  Those of us who lived through Vietnam or read about it can read between the lines.  Saying that our President "...wants to finish the job..." in Afghanistan sounds so much like LBJ and Richard Nixon.    

Your commentary is an excellent telling of the political problem that President Obama is creating.  He is now setting November, 2010 up to be disasterous for Democrats.  I think the military complex of Washington has cornered him in to having to support continued war action.

I've written the first draft and will finish today about the more "human side" of the decision to increase our military adventure there -- the way we are creating even more deaths; ours, and theirs.  But the political toll should be obvious to many of us.

This makes no sense, nor did the decisions of other Presidents decades ago to "finish the job" in Vietnam.  

It's too bad that in Afghanistan (4.00 / 1)
there are no North Vietnamese that can impose an effective and legitimate government.
[ Parent ]
One Of Our Problems... (0.00 / 0)
...is that as Americans, we think everyone in the world wants be what we "are," and have what we "have."  We tend to define the world in our terms.  "Freedom" means different things to different people, as does "democracy."  There are varient forms of each.

I went to Russia for a couple of weeks a decade ago -- spending most of the time in Severodvinsk, Russia, which is on the White Sea.  The sun doesn't set in July; it doesn't rise in January (I went in July!). It has the largest nuclear submarine shipyard in the world.  It is a "closed city" in that one, even in Russia, must have permission or reason to go there.

I found the conditions in stark contrast to America -- the pollution, the standard of living, the "freedoms" -- at least by my standards.  But I was surprised that despite quite a lot of knowledge about the positives of America, the people who I stayed with and met loved their country and what they had, and had no desire to move to the United States.  Some have visited since, but seem quite happy to return to their home.

Those of us who think everyone wants to live by our standards, or wants to live in America, should keep in mind that we can't run the world -- and there's good reason for that.  Afghanistan will have to evolve, and as we try to "nation build" there or elsewhere we have to be careful how we employ military force.  It has to happen at their speed, not ours.  Their terms, not ours.  

[ Parent ]
You have to feel awful for the Afghans (4.00 / 3)
but we shouldn't condemn their neighbors to their plight.

I'm really, hugely, strongly against looking at Afghanistan as a U.S. thing. The U.S. is a big country with a big military, but half of the soldiers over there are NATO allies.

Stability in the region is more important to me than building a nation in Afghanistan.

[ Parent ]
no Jim, but almost (4.00 / 3)
I disagree. It is too simple to say "...and we are repeating Vietnam in Afghanistan.". You pull out the cloak of our supposed collective understanding of one War lost, Vietnam, and point to that experience to suggest that it predicts the outcome here.
I would aver that we are repeating Afghanistan in Afghanistan.
The country has been a crossroads and a battleground for the ages...from Darius to Alexander, Genghis Khan to back in the U.S.S.R., it has been overrun by the invading armies of history's great powers. On the other side of China, Vietnam had a 1,000 year history of repulsing outsiders, keeping a distinct culture and identity, separate from China.

http://www.terragalleria.com/v...
Timeline...after beiung a Chinese 'protectorate'
939: Ngo Quyen frees the country (Dai Co Viet) by vanquishing Chinese armies at the Bach Dang River.

After initial invasions they repulsed the Chinese, the Mongols, the French, and the Americans. Though both were unwinnable, Vietnam is different than Afghanistan, as different as mountains and deserts are from deltas, jungles and swamps. There are many similarities. The biggest is  success of the military industrial complex to continue it's domination in D.C., with either party in power. As John F'ing Edwards used to say....the lobbying firms just send a different group of lawyers to the Hill. Add Islam and call me in the morning.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

[ Parent ]
Losing hearts and minds (4.00 / 3)
Jim, calling Afghanistan "Vietnam" is just wrong. Politically, it's a losing argument.

Yes, they're both wars, and yes, they're both wrong. But I hate the climate tossing around the term Vietnam creates -- it's essentially a charge that can't be defended, like calling someone a Nazi. There is no reply. I think it turns off moderates, and it absolutely hands a weapon to Republicans. I have no right to tell you to stop, and only a marginal right to ask you to stop, but I'm asking you to stop.

I know, those who forget the lessons of history and all that. But one of the lessons of history is that things change.


[ Parent ]
Vietnam and Afghanistan (4.00 / 1)
There are lessons of Vietnam too many of us have forgot.  The "...I'll finish it..." comment by the President makes the analogy -- which we can go through a phase of denial but which is real.  

And I'm not handing a weapon to the Republicans.  President Obama's increasing military commitment is handing that to them.  

The politics of all this concerns me, but takes a back seat to the fact that is is the wrong thing to do.  More people, including our brave soldiers, will be killed.  More civilians will be killed.  More people will hate America and Americans.  

If we really support our troops, we should only use them where absolutely necessary -- and Afghanistan, just like Vietnam, isn't an engagement where we need to use our military.  

[ Parent ]
Let's agree to disagree on the rhetoric (0.00 / 0)
We should probably focus on how to get out.
[ Parent ]
Is it so? (4.00 / 1)
More people will hate America and Americans.  

You just plop this down, like it is without dispute.

What? Short term? Long Term? All? Could it be some,  but not others?

PS. Thanks for the rhetorical shift. You didn't think I'd notice, did you?
isn't an engagement where we need to use our military.   :v)



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
was waiting for you to weigh in n/t (0.00 / 0)


We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
Afghanistan is not Vietnam. (4.00 / 3)
In Vietnam, we had nothing to lose but Vietnam.  It was all about the domino effect fallacy.  The fate of Afghanistan is relevant to the stability of the region, and especially to Pakistan (with loose nuclear weapons and over a hundred million people).  This isn't the domino theory; the violence is spilling over.

That's not to say I agree with continuing the war; I'm skeptical that there's anything to be accomplished.  But while I'm far from giving Bush credit, it is true that Iraq got better after 2007, for whatever reason.  Maybe Obama thinks he can make that kind of moderate improvement in Afghanistan; let's wait to see what he says on Tuesday.

I'm not for continuing the war, but as long as he acknowledges his responsibility to make this a nation at peace by the end of his (current) term, I can see where he's coming from.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

[ Parent ]
Adding: (4.00 / 5)
Dear Mr. President,

You'll be travelling to Oslo in two weeks to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Please try not to make it awkward.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

[ Parent ]
I'll agree with both sides here - (4.00 / 3)
In critical respects Afghanistan is not "like Vietnam." For example, there really isn't a Cold War fear campaign about cascading dominoes.

But in important ways it is scarily reminiscent. Jim and I are about the same age (he's about a year older, nyah nyah). The resemblance is almost atmospheric, and maybe this is a case where "you had to be there."

  • The new President and the inherited war.
  • The history of other countries failing in that same area: the French in Indochina, the English and Russians here.
  • The collapse of a multinational coalition supporting us.
  • The haunting echo of Eisenhower's caution against "a land war in Asia."

But still, the situations are very different in important respects, and one cannot be a roadmap to follow - positively or negatively - for the other.

[ Parent ]
I've always heard that caution (4.00 / 1)
attributed to British General Bernard Montgomery.
[ Parent ]
You forgot that we propped up the government in Saigon... (4.00 / 2)
and we are also propping up the government in in Aghanistan.
[ Parent ]
Choice of words (4.00 / 1)
The president did not use the words Victory or Win.
That may be significant; until I hear him actually say what the policy is, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Finish the job may mean accomplishing the goal of de-clawing the terrorists. To finish the job requires winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan. Military victory is not possible.
I am told George McGovern and Bob Dole have suggested providing one meal a day for the children of Afghanistan. That would finish the job, taking all the wind out of the sails of Al Qaeda.
I was deeply involved in the war against the war in Vietnam, therefore I am greatly concerned.
But Obama is a very bright man, and unlike LBJ, he can learn from Vietnam. I still have hope.

No'm Sayn?
Winning Hearts And Minds (0.00 / 0)
"...winning the hearts and minds of the people..." by killing more people?  I can't give him the benefit of the doubt because that's exactly what we gave John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, until their commitment was too big and they felt forced to make more of a commitment.  None of them want to "lose" a war.  Once we commit annother few dozen thousand troops and lose another few hundred soldiers, do we withdraw then?  

I like George McGovern's meal-a-day.  We don't win with bombs and bullets.  

[ Parent ]
My heart sunk when I heard (4.00 / 2)
I want out of Afghanistan.

We have a rising debt load and, imo, the money is better spent domestically. America is hurting.

What does Obama know that I don't?

PS. Pish posh on the Vietnam analogy. It's bogus!

PPS. We are courting India. Alex, ya care to spell out the regional geopolitical logic for this. I'm struggling with my own qualms about all this. I certainly don't have the patience to explain it to the barely persuadable.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

Pish Posh? (0.00 / 0)
Vietman.  Afghanistan.  In each, many have tried to "invade."  Many have tried to "change."  America got involved in both, with good intent perhaps.  Then built up our military force.  Lost soldiers.  Then sent in more troops.  Then more.  America had/has Presidents who don't want to "lose" there. They wanted to "...finish the job..." to use President Obama's words from yesterday.  

Analogy?  You bet.  Sure, there are differences, but the lessons of history abound.  

[ Parent ]
This is the news from Pakistan: (4.00 / 3)
"India fuelling terrorism in Pakistan: Quresh," The Nation

Quresh is the Pakistani foreign minister, from Pakistan's democratic government that the U.S. made such a big deal about supporting.

"Singh's unabated duplicity with Pak," Pakistani Observer

It doesn't really matter how much this squares with our perception of reality, India's role in Afghanistan is a huge concern to Pakistan.

What's scary is the Indian press emphasizes basically the same hostile attitude, as though they're giving props. What's the big news aboutSingh's visit? From the Hindustan Times: "India will not redraw borders in Kashmir: Manmohan Singh"

This last article is a recap of his interview in Newsweek, which was not very reassuring. He made no overtures to Pakistan. The Pakistanis are reading the same interview through the lens of their own situation. Singh also emphasized any attempts to tackle major international issues with Pakistan would remain bilateral and he's not interested in any third party trying to help, which may or may not be a good thing.

[ Parent ]
I'm of two minds about the war in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)
I think it's a waste of money and I don't think the government can do it right (which suggests maybe they shouldn't do it at all). But, I also think abandoning the country creates an even more dangerous situation in a part of the world that can't afford greater instability. And it's this second issue which weighs on me more heavily.

I need to see the Kashmir question adequately resolved and Indian-Pakistani tensions soothed before I'm comfortable with abandonment. I don't think 30,000 more troops is very many. Our military has 1.4m people, all voluntary, and dispersed in parts of the world that aren't a priority. I think some of the desk jockeys doing the planning should be sent to Afghanistan so they can get a sense of what the hell it is they're doing. In any event, we continue to have more in Iraq than Afghanistan, despite "phased withdrawal" from Iraq, and Afghanistan having a considerably larger territory.

Iraq doesn't bother me because Iraq is the Iraq problem is contained. If Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess, Iran has a huge problem, but right now a historic belligerent neighbor has been de-clawed. I have confidence in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to prevent violent spillover into their territory.

But what does an abandoned Afghanistan mean for Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan--and by extension--Russia, which sees a historic connection between their last Afghan war and the crisis in Chechnya and the Caucasus? OK, that's to the north. I don't know what policies Afghanistan's ex-Soviet neighbors would play. Would they fill the U.S. vacuum and support the ethnic minorities currently in power? Would they maintain ties to the groups that were pro-Soviet (and now pro-U.S.) last time? Are they basically insulated from spillover because of the mountains?

To the west, you have Iran, which is concerned with (1) the huge flow of heroin from Afghanistan, (2) the continued opposition to the Ahmadinejad government, (3) Balochi separatists, (4) Afghan refugees (like Pakistan, after the Soviet-Afghan war, Iran absorbed huge numbers of Afghan refugees and did a somewhat better job of integrating them into society), (5) destabilized Iraq, (6) the western world giving them a hard time. Abandoning Afghanistan threatens the security of Iranians.

To the east, you have a big problem with Pakistan, and by extension, India and China. Pakistan is fighting (1) an internal insurgency, (2) guarding against Indian exploitation of its current weak position, (3) trying to protect the part of Kashmir it occupies. It is receiving some support from China, which is concerned a little bit about India. India and China have had military clashes in the past. China borders Kashmir and supports development in Pakistan and in some way is acting as an implicit guarantor of Pakistani security with a view to Pakistani fear of an Indian threat, which is a historically valid one. Pakistan also has some level of a Balochi separatist problem like Iran. And the part of China we're talking about is the one where we saw the major ethnic riots recently.

Soooooo, whether it made sense to go in and screw things up in the first place--and if there were another terrorist attack after withdrawal, we'd probably be right back there--this is the geopolitics we're into now. The US/NATO troops act as a security subsidy to Afghanistan's neighbors, who are in a tough and very dangerous position if Afghanistan is allowed to get worse.

Not signing the land mine treaty makes Obama a dick. I wrote Judd Gregg about my support of it, maybe a year or two ago, and never expected a Democratic president to skip out on that one.

Landmines? (0.00 / 0)
I don't follow this issue, so maybe someone with some passion on the matter could clue me in.

I carried around a Claymore, my whole time in Iraq. I never deployed it. For the Infantry, landmines are either used as a perimeter defense weapon or a mass casualty producing offensive weapon, used during ambushes.

Are these the types of things that would be banned? Or are we talking about expolsives that can be splayed out via artillery or plane drop?

For me, a finite deployment of mines in a fixed area is OK. I don't like the idea of just raining things down on swaths of topography.

What are we squawking about?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

Here is the treaty text (4.00 / 1)
http://www.icbl.org/index.php/...

Basically, it's designed to limit "landmine hangover," after a conflict. I think the treaty text was designed not to include claymores, because it wanted signatories and the U.S. was involved in drafting the language and is apparently de facto compliant:

The United States generally abides by the provisions of the treaty. It has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported any since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997, Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, told a briefing on Monday.
Per Reuters, "US will not join treaty banning landmines"

By not signing, we're undermining the arms control regime which prevents other arms manufacturers like Russia and China feel no pressure to join. It's a situation of "We don't want to do this, and if the U.S. isn't going to do this, we sure as hell aren't"

[ Parent ]
DMZ (0.00 / 0)
Landmines play a major role in the North/South Korean DMZ and elsewhere.

Regardless, this represents one of the most blatant examples of the Hope and Change agenda vs reality.  In the Senate, Obama votes against Bush and in support of the treaty and then touts that position on the campaign trail.

Now, as Commander in Chief, he is finding it tough to backup the rhetoric on this and a score of other issues. As one of 100, or out on the stump, he could ignore the facts when he found it politically expedient.  Not as easy when decisions have consequences.

Elwood, your diary is a welcomed recognition that folks are starting to get it.  The recognition can also be seen the President's slumping approval numbers among independents and ever worsening and widening gap between people who strongly approve vs disapprove of his performance.  

[ Parent ]
Regarding Afghanistan (0.00 / 0)
Obama's "Hope and Change agenda" always was about leaving Iraq in a responsible fashion and returning to Afghanistan.

From a Campaign PDF I have saved on my hard drive:
Focuses on the Broader Middle East and Central Asia

Refocuses efforts on the wider Middle East including preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and placing a higher priority on Afghanistan, where more American forces and resources are needed to defeat a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The properties tab tells me this PDF was created on June 04, 2007.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
Here's a different approach I half agree with (0.00 / 0)
http://smallwarsjournal.com/bl...

...and is maybe a compromise for the "fewer troops" crowd.

My biggest objections are the notions that the Pashtuns need to feel in charge of everything...maybe a confederal approach with strong regional autonomy would be better than a central government which necessarily pits minorities against the Pashtuns? Kabul basically doesn't control the country right now, even though it's designed to, and the sort of de facto local and regional arrangements are probably better for the minorities.

Also, it kind of seems to suggest that the whole map can be withdrawn on a whim, but creating "success stories" could be something done alongside some of the on-going other stuff.

Here is an option for ya (4.00 / 1)


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
Nice Find, Jack... (4.00 / 1)
...I "enjoy" those kind of interviews, because they expose so much.  I especially like the polar bear explanation and Alaska being "right across the street."  Kind of sad.  Palinmania at its worst. Love the image, forget the substance.

All the more reason that we have to make sure President Obama succeeds, and doesn't create problems for himself and the rest of us in 2010 and 2012 by continuing an unneeded war action that instead can be addressed by other policies.  

[ Parent ]
If push comes to shove (0.00 / 0)
You said, "continuing an unneeded war action ."

I said above, "I want out." However, I'm willing to hear POTUS out on this. He is said to be putting together a prime time pitch, early next week.

I'll be pushing Sen. Kerry based on my reaction to the strength of Obama's logic. Kerry will not blindly follow on this. Obama better be convincing.

Your oppostition is a forgone conclusion, I guess. Not me. I'd venture to say, my position is shared by the majority of Americans.

Oh, ya. On Palin and the Palinistas:


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Kerry is a key player in Obama's foreign policy (4.00 / 2)
Did you see this in the New York Times? "After a Humbling Spiral, Kerry Returns to Form"

It's a soft piece, but has some insight:

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he has been a diplomatic point man in Central Asia, recently persuading President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to agree to a runoff election.

...

It's clear he is back in stride - he's harnessed up," Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in an interview, adding that he talks more to Mr. Kerry than anyone else on Capitol Hill. (Mr. Kerry has met with President Obama 14 times since he took office, according to the senator's office.)

...

Mr. Kerry was stung by the rejection, and was not convinced that becoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee could be a worthy consolation.

"I think it took him a while, meaning a couple of months, to realize how influential he can be," said Mr. Biden, who preceded Mr. Kerry as the committee's chairman. "I remember having this discussion with him before we were sworn in. And it was like, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, Joe, I know. I mean, goddamn.' "

As it turned out, the Obama administration has offered Mr. Kerry unusual influence...

Kerry's providing input into the process and acting as the administration's agent abroad. If Kerry were to break with the Obama administration on Afghanistan, it would be huge. Especially as a former presidential  nominee, Vietnam veteran, etc. I also think it would be unlikely, because his role behind the scenes in developing foreign policy appears fairly significant. Obama is not ignoring congressional input like his predecessor, and should be credited for that.

[ Parent ]
read that n/t (0.00 / 0)


We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
Yes, My Opposition Is Solid... (0.00 / 0)
...because I think that if President Obama does increase the troop commitment and our involvement in Afghanistan, it's largely because of the influence of the military-industrial complex, which is so very strong in our government.  

My read of The Pentagon Papers taught me the reality of government; that those who benefit from an action or made a directive for an action early on will do all they can to maintain that action.  Members of the military hierachy remain from the Bush/Cheney years and they want to maintain their positions of power.  To do that they think they can't change course.   The Pentagon Papers showed how we got deeper, and deeper, and deeper.  

I wish President Obama wouldn't do what we hear he's about to do, and his speaking ability won't sway me.  Short of giving us a message that he is creating a new policy away from military involvement in favor of another approach, I will be part of the loyal opposition.  

I'm hoping that we on BlueHampshire and Democratic leaders here and nationwide will avoid being cheerleaders for whatever policy he determines -- at the least, let's talk this through during the next few weeks and months.

[ Parent ]
Would you oppose something (0.00 / 0)
like Mehar Omar Khan suggests in the article I posted above?

Here is a direct link to the PDF, which doesn't have the user comments at the bottom like the other link, which I think are also interesting for their commendations and criticisms.

I can't really give a good summary of his article, because it's fairly brief. Essentially he suggests creating model "islands" of good governance as examples at the district level, and expanding out from there. His basic premise is that "Coalition troops can never reach the numbers necessary to extend adequate protection to the populace across Afghanistan." This, I think, is increasingly a political reality.

[ Parent ]
For Immediate Release (4.00 / 2)
President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks
Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord.   The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year.  Based on the President's work on climate change over the past 10 months - in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations - and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India's Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen.  The President's decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.
-snip  



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
O ye of little faith (4.00 / 2)
Reading comments like this leaves me saddened that so many progressive Democrats are so quick to bail on a president who inherited two wars and the worst financial crisis and recession since the Depression.  Can progressives at least wait until they hear what he says on Tuesday before criticizing him on what is a very difficult situation in Afghanistan?

   

I agree, but don't make this about progressives as a group. (0.00 / 0)
The world does not fit on a one-dimensional spectrum; it's not as if everyone willing to hear the President out is to his right.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin
[ Parent ]
little faith? (4.00 / 2)
I don't care who is selling me a war - whether it be Bush or Obama. I don't want war - either of them.

Millions have been killed, at least a trillion has been spent, and we haven't won a goddam thing. There hasn't been a war fought in my lifetime that had anything to do with our freedom, no matter how oft the warmongers tout that phrase. Democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint - and given how poor a state our own democracy is in, I don't think we're in any position to try to tell anyone else how to run their country.

What these endless undeclared wars are really about is the transfer of taxpayer dollars to military contractors and weapons manufacturers. We may be #37 when it comes to the health of our people, but we are #1 in weapons manufacturing. These endless undeclared wars are bankrupting our treasury. Obama actually increased the already bloated defense budget. That, chrisv, is not progressive. It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

For that matter, Obama is no progressive, and anyone who thinks otherwise didn't look at his record, or listen to him during the campaign.  

[ Parent ]
It's Our Job... (4.00 / 3)
...as Americans to voice objection to a war, regardless of who is President.  The military-industrial complex certainly is speaking out in favor of war, and our President has been hearing that in Washington.  

The fact that enough "friends of JFK" and Democrats during LBJ's early years didn't speak out against Vietnam is one of the reasons we became so entrenched in that.  Vietnam went on to destroy much of what President Johnson had tried to do with the "Great Society."  

And we're not just talking politics here, nor "bailing out" on President Obama.  We're talking about lives lost, ours and others, for a war policy that has other options -- options that people have to speak out for.  There's a large anti-Afghanistan War movement out there for that very reason.

[ Parent ]
It's been leaked (4.00 / 1)
He's going to ask for more troops and more money.

It was deliberately leaked, to give us time to react to it.

Jim Splaine is right -- we're activists, and we say what we think. If not, what is the point?

All of this is a long way from "bailing" on the president. We still support the president.

[ Parent ]
Oh, grow up. (0.00 / 0)
When some politician launches a trial balloon, you bitch that people react to it??
[ Parent ]
I strongly support the mission (4.00 / 6)
to capture/kill bin Laden and those that assisted him on the attack on our civilians.

Unfortunately, I think George Bush fatally crippled that mission as early as the Tora Bora days, because of his un-American fetish for invading a country that didn't attack us:

Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

So, what to do eight long years later?  What does "Taliban" mean at this point?  Does it have a meaningful connection to international terrorism that way it did in 2001?  Why are we spending so much money nation building abroad when our own nation desperately needs it at home?

To be clear, a failed state, or a hopelessly corrupt state, in Afghanistan would be a terrible legacy for us to leave.  There is no getting around that in the history books. The Afghan people, and our women and men in uniform who have sacrificed so much, deserve better.

But at the same time, let's be clear about the most critical reason for an Afghan failure - the vacuum of American priorities known as the Bush Administration.

birch, finch, beech

Excellent Points, Dean... (0.00 / 0)
...and consider this, because it's another similiarity between today's debate about Afghanistan and the debate four decades ago about Vietnam:  

With just one change in words, your final paragraph could read:  "To be clear, a failed state, or a hopelessly corrupt state, in Vietnam would be a terrible legacy for us to leave.  There is no getting around that in the history books. The Vietnamese people, and our women and men in uniform who have sacrificed so much, deserve better."

One of the major reasons for the continued buildup in Vietnam was the belief, by the Kennedy and then Johnson Administrations, that since so much had been invested by that point in money and lives lost, it would be a terrible legacy for us to leave without "winning," however that term was interpreted then.  So we sent more troops, then more.  Because neither President wanted to lose.

Both The Pentagon Papers, and then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamera, attested to that reasoning being a driving force for the decision-making.  

In this case, as we send more troops and continue a policy of more killing, we create more terrorists.  Do we really, REALLY think we're going to find and kill all the Taliban and all the other terrorists in Afghanistan?  We can't kill everyone who hates us, but we can keep from making even more enemies.  

[ Parent ]
No, that's not true: (4.00 / 1)
Vietnam was never going to be a failed state, it would either be a divided two state thing in violation of postwar treaties, like Korea today, or it would be one state controlled from Hanoi, as things turned out.

The Vietnamese had been fighting for a unified state since before WWII. Ho Chi Minh was supported by the Chinese nationalist KMT before their notion of China was forcibly limited to Taiwan. There was always the semblance of a legitimate, albeit Communist for geopolitical reasons, state alternative.

The Taliban are not a state alternative, especially because anybody who shoots at NATO is automatically "Taliban," regardless. That's actually what you suggest when you lump the Taliban in with terrorists: that they're not a coherent organization that can run a state.

There is no winning and losing in Afghanistan in traditional terms. It's a question of how do you keep the problem from destabilizing the region.

[ Parent ]
Jim didn't "lump the Taliban in with terrorists." (4.00 / 2)
They did that.  
[ Parent ]
OK, maybe I misread this (0.00 / 0)
"Do we really, REALLY think we're going to find and kill all the Taliban and all the other terrorists in Afghanistan?"

That reads like "Taliban" is included among the larger group "terrorists."

[ Parent ]
How much involvement does it take? (0.00 / 0)
It's a felony to harbor a felon. The Afghanistan government under the Taliban went beyond that - there was no, "You found us coppers! Let's talk!".

Do you see some other metric here?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I actually I do (4.00 / 2)
have very specific metrics that I can't cite it right now because I don't have access to a paper I wrote in high school that discussed my thoughts on moving from a provisional government to an independent government after a conflict.

I do remember discussing Russian General Alex Lebed, who  identified several categories of "opposition" in Afghanistan: shoot at all foreigner nationalists, petty criminals, religious whackos, and others. I think he came up with 7 categories in all. He was in charge of Soviet paratroopers and tried to figure out who the "bad guys" are and which of the guys shooting at you aren't necessarily the enemies of achieving your objective. It's outlined in his memoir, "My Life and My Country," which I also don't have access to right now. As an aside, Lebed's memoir is just another among the wealth of information (in English even!) about Soviet fighting in Afghanistan that's passed over in favor of more familiar American writings to compare to, like the Pentagon Papers.

I don't think your comparison to felonies is apt, but the only other case I can think to apply it to is that of Pancho Villa in Mexico, and the U.S. intervened there, too, on basically that logic.

What constitutes Taliban today is distinct from Taliban pre-2001. And Taliban is distinct from AQ. If you read anything from the Soviet Afghan war, it's clear that there were huge underlying tensions between anti-Soviet "foreign fighters" and the anti-Soviet Pashtuns who largely constitute some vague entity called Taliban today (what I want to say here is that who the Taliban identifies as Taliban and who NATO identifies as Taliban is not the same).

AQ thinks globally, Taliban thinks hyperlocally. Taliban does horrible things to civilians to maintain order, AQ's acts of terrorism are designed to create disorder and provoke response.

I'm reading a book on Paraguayan history and right now am on the chapter about the War of the Triple Alliance, which basically led to the elimination of Paraguay's male population in the 1860s. All actors were state actors, and horrible things were done to the civilian population for political reasons. The reason I raise this comparison is because after President Francisco Solano Lopez was all but defeated, and Brazil installed a provisional government in Asuncion under the Paraguayan flag, Lopez raised an army of boys, old men, cripples, wounded, whoever he could find and essentially resisted Brazil and their provisional government until the last man. There is a degree (smaller than it appears, I think) to which Taliban today do have some legacy of Afghanistan's ancien regime and are in rebellion against an occupying power, which is not true when AQ attacks whatever civilians wherever for its hugely different political reasons.

You begin to get into the one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter issue, but all the opposition actors in Afghanistan shouldn't be jumbled together as "terrorists"--at least, in my opinion.

[ Parent ]
The Sunni Awakening (4.00 / 1)
A good example of "the one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter issue."

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
"Does horrible things to civilians to maintain order" (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps the distinction you're making is, the Taliban are not "global terrorists." But by one common definition, that tactic qualifies them as terrorists on a smaller stage.
[ Parent ]
Governments and rebels (0.00 / 0)
do equally terrible things to civilians to maintain order and for politics, but it's awkward to label them terrorists.  
[ Parent ]
The distinction is where they are on (0.00 / 0)
a spectrum from: a) charge someone with a crime and provide due process, to z) do horrible things to citizens chosen at random, to make everyone fear.

Most governments are on the a) side. I thought you were acknowledging that the Taliban ruled on the z) side.

[ Parent ]
We Can't Kill All Those Who Hate Us (0.00 / 0)
And if we did, we'd make others hate us.  Unfortunately, I think that's what we're doing in Afghanistan.  AND Iraq, where by the way we're still entrenched, with no end-game in sight.  Our commitment there remains, three years after the 2006 election.  
[ Parent ]
Do the Japanese hate us? (0.00 / 0)
We nuked 'em. TWICE!

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
I dont think they've forgotten. (0.00 / 0)
I listen to a Japanese public radio newscast and almost every day there is at least one story that mentions Hiroshima, Nagasaki,and the subject of nuclear disarmament.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  
[ Parent ]
Sigh. (4.00 / 2)
New news on Tora Bora.

Turns out Rums really did fail. What a surprise.

Imagine the world that would have been if:

a) BushCo had actually heeded Richard Clarke and the summer 2001 intelligence.

or

b) We had someone else than Rumsfailed in charge during Tora Bora

or

c) The boy king had not gotten it into his head to invade a country unrelated to 9/11.

birch, finch, beech

[ Parent ]
you go to War (4.00 / 1)
with the Defense Secretary you have.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
I Don't Think... (0.00 / 0)
...that getting Bin Laden would have stopped terrorism, or that it will stop it once he is captured or killed.  He'll just become a rallying point for some.  

When you look back, the French were right in telling us not to invade, and in refusing to join in the adventure.  I wonder how many still believe they're proud of renaming "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries."  The French were trying to save thousands of lives, that's all.

[ Parent ]
as I've said many times (4.00 / 2)
how will we know when we've won?

Will the terrorist all come out of the terrorist clubhouse waving white flags? What will winning look like?

Susan -- You Hit The... (4.00 / 1)
...central issue here.  "Winning" in any conventional sense is, I think, impossible to achieve.  We are just making more terrorists there and elsewhere every time we send in a drone to kill someone, everytime we drop a bomb, and shoot a bullet.  We need a different kind of foreign policy in that area, because military action doesn't "win."  
[ Parent ]
Woodstock? (4.00 / 3)
Is that your plan?

It seems widely understood that a dynamic balance of military and humanitarian effort is required. Initially, it may need to rely heavily on the military to suppress violence, but the humanitarian will have to follow quickly on it's heels. Eventually, the military should withdraw, leaving only a security effort, preferably a multinational force that will protect aid workers while Afghan security forces do their jobs with a stable, soveriegn state.

The region is a house of cards. Please note the subtext of Gallichon's many posts.

Or is there an element of isolationism running amok on this thread. Pulling back to within our borders, whether driven by recession or not, and turning our back on this region will be a far greater error than staying purposefully engaged.

America is a nation of immigrants. Hit this nail. We are connected to the world.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
"How To Win Friends And Influence People"... (0.00 / 0)
...doesn't include a chapter on killing people.  I think there is much that we can do to assist and influence other nations, including Afghanistan, without putting our military on the ground -- and in this case having a policy that means more killing.  Sorry, Jack -- we have different views of the world and human relationships if on that we disagree.  

I wonder what Gandhi would say.  Or Martin Luther King, Jr.  There ARE other approaches.

[ Parent ]
I see the usual (4.00 / 2)
American imperialism at work. Only the good ole USA can fix the problems of the world, by raping, pillaging, and killing. Yeeha!

Tell me, Jack - what will winning look like? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How many more trillions of dollars? Is winning in Iraq/Afghanistan more important than the health of US residents? More important than schools, libraries, roads, etc? Are you in favor of continuing to increase military spending? And why is it, that we spend more on defense than all other countries in the world COMBINED we can't seem to win wars?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, and the Canadians (4.00 / 1)
Brits, Danes, French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Poles, Turks, Australians, Spaniards, Swedes, et al., are engaging in imperialism in Afghanistan....only the good ol' USA....
[ Parent ]
why won't one of you war advocates (4.00 / 1)
answer the questions?

what will winning look like? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How many more trillions of dollars? Is winning in Iraq/Afghanistan more important than the health of US residents? More important than schools, libraries, roads, etc? Are you in favor of continuing to increase military spending? And why is it, that we spend more on defense than all other countries in the world COMBINED we can't seem to win wars?

Alex, did you support the war in Iraq?  

[ Parent ]
My first comment on this thread (4.00 / 1)
My heart sunk when I heard (4.00 / 2)
I want out of Afghanistan.

We have a rising debt load and, imo, the money is better spent domestically. America is hurting.

What does Obama know that I don't?

PS. Pish posh on the Vietnam analogy. It's bogus!

PPS. We are courting India. Alex, ya care to spell out the regional geopolitical logic for this. I'm struggling with my own qualms about all this. I certainly don't have the patience to explain it to the barely persuadable.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:31:24 AM EST




www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
No, I didn't support either war (4.00 / 2)
because the war planners had less of an idea than I did about what they were getting into. But, hey, I was 13 in the Afghanistan bandwagon period and 14 or 15 in the Iraq bandwagon period and only had access to public source material. So, what could I know? I have no problem leaving Iraq to its fate, because it's contained. It doesn't threaten a wider war that screws up the lives of even more people. Not true of Afghanistan.

As far as your questions, winning is an Afghanistan that is not a threat to its neighbors. This means a semblance of government--preferably not subject to Kabul--along the borders, run by the people who inhabit the area. Probably better to have strongmen than democrats--democracy is too divisive and instability is probably best met with order and firmness. Then, in that very good article I keep referring to, some level of district-level model entities that can offer a good alternative and expand outwards toward the borders.

There are 1.4m people in the military that voluntarily agreed to take on the risk that they might be sacrificed. Getting shot at is what they signed up for, and I have never heard anyone in a volunteer military tell me otherwise (distinction: conscripts did not sign up to get shot at, it just kind of works out that way for them). I think it's probably safer for each individual to have more alongside them. But, the problem with boots on the ground in Afghanistan is they don't live with the Afghans in their villages. They're aliens. In that very good article I keep referring to, the economy of force to secure model districts, I think is politically more acceptable because it does not require bigger numbers.

I don't think an American human being is intrinsically worth more than an Indian or an Iranian or a Chinese or a Pakistani human being. So, yeah, a stable outcome is more important to me than schools, roads, libraries in a first world country that takes the availability of these things for granted anyways.

How much is it worth in dollar terms? Increasingly more as the dollar slides. I don't know how to do a cost/benefit analysis against a hypothetical future outcome as big as this, but I do know that a wider war would lead to economic crisis. I mean, people still talk about the potential of the "BRIC" countries and after Afghanistan is abandoned, risk shoots up for Russia, India, and China--everybody but Brazil. Oil prices are destabilized because of Iran... how much are these things worth to the global economy? That's my dollar amount. But....it shouldn't cost that much....I continue to disagree with the current approach taken by the U.S. and NATO....and really if you look at it from day one, it was never "worth" a dime to create the problem in the first place--but it was as useless for me to have an opinion on day one as it is now.

I am not in favor of increased military spending, I believe in slashing it radically, probably cutting "nice" things like veteran's benefits and preferences that are available to non-combat veterans. I think combat veterans should be taken care of, but not given any preferences beyond remedying any injury caused to them as a result of their service. As it stands, the only rational thing to do in the U.S. is join the military. They take care of you. It is the biggest social safety net in the world. Otherwise, you can't really get ahead, because you're not on an even footing with those people. I think people who made other choices are just as valuable to society and cost the taxpayer significantly less and shouldn't be punished for that; the system thinks otherwise.

The reason the U.S. spends more than any other country in the world is because (1) it can (less and less), (2) that's the way the political system works, at least, that's what it looks like when a defense contractor is the largest employer in your area(3) the Pentagon decides to please all the people who work there who think they're going to fight big wars, small wars, in between wars, nonwars, electronic wars, and everything under the sun rather than prioritizing based on what it actually needs and what the geopolitical situation reflects.

Have I adequately answered your questions?

Has anyone read this really good article yet: http://smallwarsjournal.com/bl... (PDF)

[ Parent ]
I read it and it is interesting. (0.00 / 0)
Not sure if it is realistic and I have to wonder about the source-- a Pakistani military officer, who may or may not be connected to the intelligence forces that have supported and protected the Taliban for years. I do see signs that some elements of what he is proposing-- the recent empowerment of tribal Pashtun leaders comes to mind-- may be a part of the evolving NATO strategy.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  
[ Parent ]
I want to add (4.00 / 2)
that I sure as hell have never advocated any war.
[ Parent ]
Ol' Blood 'n Guts (4.00 / 2)
The only one of your questions that I can answer is my opinion on military spending.

I would shift the $$ spent on purchasing high tech systems to military pay raises and quality of life assets for military families. If the gadgets are truly needed, I would increase spending to provide for service members and their families. I would also calculate the cost of war to include care for veterans.

Your other points seem to be more like a series of statements with ?s stuck on the end.
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?
How many more trillions of dollars?
Is winning in Iraq/Afghanistan more important than the health of US residents?
More important than schools, libraries, roads, etc?

I don't think we can "win" this "war" until the seeds of extremism are gone. Poverty, hopelessness, despair. Note the words of Kahn from the article linked above:

First and foremost, believe that it's not God that drives these people crazy; it's poverty. Believe that Pashtuns don't submit to the Taliban out of sheer love for the one-eyed Mullah Omar; its deprivation and fear that drives this herd to the first man holding the flag of power and promise.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
thanks, Jack (0.00 / 0)
the seeds of extremism will never be eliminated at gunpoint. We will never win this war, and we will be there forever.  
[ Parent ]
What about provoking a situation (4.00 / 2)
where more people die?

Is it better as long as someone else is doing the killing that another facilitated?

[ Parent ]
Winning Picture? (4.00 / 1)
I'm waiting for someone to paint what "winning" would look like.

In the early '80s there was that film War Games, remember? The only way to win is not to play.

By simply feeding the kids in Afghanistan one meal a day, we could destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Screw "winning," let's do what works to make America genuinely safer!

I am concerned about the big WH state dinner for Pakistan's greatly feared enemy India. What message does that send?


No'm Sayn?

Burt, I Think You Hit It Right On... (0.00 / 0)
...and non-military ends win hearts and minds and souls much more than killing or the threat of bullets and bombs.  Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi changed nations, and in very real ways the entire world, without using either.

Perhaps at the military colleges they don't teach the "don't shoot" approach.  I'm sure there is a lot of pressure being put on the military, and the Obama Administration, by the war industry to use their wares.  If there isn't a war, there's not so much demand for the weapons of war.  

[ Parent ]
Lets' buy them off , it's American way. (4.00 / 1)
Vietnam never attacked the U.S. Vietnam was about Capitalism and the Domino effect supposedly...protecting rubber trees etc., not about America under direct attack. The Chinese needed to know that America would protect it's interests abroad...etc etc. Epic fail based on the incorrect assumption that China would roll over Vietnam in the 1960's, something it had not done in almost a 1000 years.

The Taliban on the other hand allowed OBL to set up his training camps for the 9/11 attacks, direct attacks by Islamo-Fascists against America's Capitalist bastion of Wall St. So a big difference there. We know that if we pull out tomorrow, the next day Afghanistan will devolve further into chaos and anarchy...and will be a great danger to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and nuclear weaponed Pakistan, yundertsan ?

We have a responsibility to train the Afghans to take over their own defenses, while stabilizing the country economically so that poppies are not the main export.
They are proven tough and gritty fighters and can do the job. George Bush completely failed on that score, no real training has been done. If we do that under Obama, perhaps in a few years time we will be better off, and so will the Afghans. Like in Iraq we can buy off the warlords, it's American way.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

Lessons Of Vietnam (0.00 / 0)
Good points, JohnnyBBad, but I've heard all that before.  We were in Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves.  We had to be there to stand up against communism, and bring stability to that part of the world to protect South Korea and Japan and the Philippines.  

THOSE are the lessons of Vietnam we haven't seemed to have learned.  The United States going into a foreign nation "teaching" people with our training methods -- and our culture, which is often resented -- backfires.  It's not unlike troops of another nation coming to the United States, choosing what group they want to "win," (the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party folks?) and "training" them to run the country.  What do you think the rest of us -- those not chosen to lead -- would do?  We'd consider the foreigners to be invaders and occupiers, and resist them.  

Nation-building by military is a very difficult thing to accomplish.  History is full of that lesson.  Nations and cultures have to evolve.  We need non-military policies that guide and influence, but not force.  

[ Parent ]
we have a responsibility? (4.00 / 2)
to train Afghans and stabilize their economy? Since when? I don't remember voting for that.  

In what country have we ever done that successfully?  

We have a responsibility to stop selling arms to other countries. We have a responsibility to stop running CIA training camps to train future terrorists and dictators. We have a responsibility to stop behaving like a rogue nation.  

[ Parent ]
if we leave now (4.00 / 1)
We will have let the country go to hell, without the,'you broke it, you own it' responsibility...if we just get out.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
I Heard That Before Too... (0.00 / 0)
...yet another lesson of Vietnam.  The "...we broke it...we have responsibility..." syndrome.  How much MORE do we sink into it?  How many MORE lives -- we're nearing 1,000 American troops killed there, and tens of thousands of others, many civilians who are the bystanders of our policy.  We have to get out.  
[ Parent ]
Why do you think (0.00 / 0)
leaving would be the more peaceful outcome?
[ Parent ]
I Heard That One Too About Vietnam... (0.00 / 0)
...and yes, our exit in 1975 created a horrible situation for years; but does our remaining in Afghanistan promise anything better?  Or, might it well be much worse?  I think worse.  That society must evolve.  We're neither wanted there, nor welcomed by most.  We're interfering -- and looked upon as invaders or occupiers by much of the population, just as we here would look at an invading or occupying army from, say, Afghanistan.  
[ Parent ]
Did it? (0.00 / 0)
Vietnam was in a good enough position as an organized, effective state to put an end* to the Cambodian genocide as early as 1979.

*as an aside, this was condemned by the U.S. at the time as Vietnamese aggression...

[ Parent ]
You didn't answer my question (0.00 / 0)
by the way... I am persuadable to a convincing argument...

Right now, I've seen enough minor causes of big wars in history to prefer continued occupation. On the other hand, in Vietnam, U.S. presence there was more likely to provoke a world war than withdrawal. It looks the opposite to me in Afghanistan.

[ Parent ]
What Would MLK, Jr. and Gandhi Suggest? (0.00 / 0)
So Alex, let's say we commit another 25,000 troops at a million dollars each to Afghanistan.  That brings our commitment there to close to 100,000, plus other "allied" troops.  Let's remember that at this point we have already lost about 300 of our brave soldiers just this year -- and many more seriously injured, and that we're at about 930 lost and we're about to go over 1,000 body bags that have been returned from Afghanistan.

What happens if and when in a year or two we find that we're not "winning," or meeting our mission goals as set forward by President Obama next week, after those 25,000 additional solders.  Do we THEN get out?  That's unlikely, because by then we will have made even more of a commitment in finances and lives lost, and the military will want to invest even more to "win," or to meet mission goals.  

THAT is how we're similar to Vietnam in this war.  Mission-creep is setting in, and the more we invest, the less a President will want to get out.  Until, of course, people rise up and say "enough."  

This is becoming Obama's War.  And in November, 2010, and in November, 2012, we'll pay.  Worse, of course, is that more people will die for a war we shouldn't have started, and shouldn't continue.  

Very sad.  I ask again -- what would Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi suggest?  They changed nations and the world.  I'd follow them before I follow George W. Bush or Richard Cheney, who started this war, or our military-industrial complex, which has lots to do with pushing to expand this war.  

[ Parent ]
I'll ask again (4.00 / 2)
where have we done it successfully?

We can't even stabilize our own economy.  

[ Parent ]
European Theater twice, specifically Japan and Germany post 1945 n/t (4.00 / 1)


We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
really? (4.00 / 2)
We invaded Japan trained their army, and restored their economy - then left? We did that in Germany, too?

Wow, my school got some crappy history books.  

[ Parent ]
we bombed them into submission (4.00 / 1)
declawed their armies, then

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/rxforsurvival/glossary.html
Marshall Plan:
   Formally known as the European Recovery Program, a U.S. program of loans and economic assistance -- some $13 billion worth -- implemented between 1947 and 1952 to aid rebuilding efforts in Western Europe following World War II.

Elwood, we destroyed Germany and rebuilt it. Have you seen pictures of Berlin 1945 ? There was no industrial state or industry left to speak of.In Italy either. What had been, had been completely obliterated. They had to start from scratch.
I am not so thick to not see the differences but it is absurd to draw the conclusion that something that happened before in another situation is exactly analogous to what is going on now.
I am still waiting for an answer. What will be the right thing to do, for the Afghan people and their neighbors ?
Doing nothing, given our bloody hands, is not an option.
You would agree that pursuing the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 was correct,wouldn't you?I don't think we should argue about whether the two are the same, but rather what should we do now.
I don't know anyone who thought Vietnam was going to attack us (again) ...but I give credence to those who argue that left to its own devices Afghanistan will be a center for terrorism in the region and a training ground for anti-U.S.
action. It has proven that already.



We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

[ Parent ]
"From scratch." (0.00 / 0)
No, they didn't.

They had educated workforces used to industrial work. They had large corporations. Volkswagen and Siemens, Fiat and Olivetti were there before the war and here today. We didn't fully destroy these nations (or want to).

Doing nothing?? After nine years you claim that leaving would be doing nothing??

[ Parent ]
9 years (0.00 / 0)
during 8 of which Bush ignored Afghans cicvil and military needs in favor of pursuing Saddam and killing the man who tried to kill his daddy. We have never committed to Afghanistan...either to win or to leave, so we are stuck don't you think? If we pulled out tomorrow...what would be the result ? In the end I can't determine if that is that a moral or political or military decision.I would like it to be over. Get out of Vietghanistan now ! But what then if it goes further under the control of warlords and poppie sellers?

Maybe we should just leave the Middle East entirely.Bring troops home from Korea, Europe, too. The Military Industrial complex will just go along with that, dontcha ya think ?

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

[ Parent ]
Warlords and poppy sellers (4.00 / 1)
might be a good alternative if they can assure order.

Cash crop and iron fist is an optimistic outcome.

[ Parent ]
Upwards Of Half A Million Troops? (0.00 / 0)
Consider this -- it would take upwards of a troop commitment of half a million to stop the warlords and the poppy sellers, as you want to.  Do we want to make THAT kind of commitment?  And then, what when they finally leave, after many more thousands dead?  

Staying in Afghanistan doesn't make sense.  It is a useless gesture, similar to having stayed in Vietnam so long.  

[ Parent ]
I advocate (0.00 / 0)
sending the Training help Bush never did, with a clear understanding that 10,000 special training and advisory forces come in, but only if the Afghans (Pashtuns) agree to take over their own defenses. It would be a deal breaker if they refuse. If this occurred I would advocate for a slow but steady wind down of combat troops...out in 18- 4 months.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
THEN WHAT? (0.00 / 0)
Okay, we send your 10,000 "special training and advisory forces," they train, and THEN the Afghans don't take over their own defenses, or they try and don't succeed.  THEN what?  The more forces we send in, the more we box ourselves into a corner.  That's yet ANOTHER similarity to Vietnam.  
[ Parent ]
The what ? (0.00 / 0)
Like Iraq, we leave, once they can take on the defesne of their own country

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
Ummmm, We Haven't Left Iraq... (4.00 / 2)
...we're still encamped there, and may be called on to engage much more again.  And we're still losing soldiers there.  The killing continues.  We just don't read about it so much because there's more killing in Afghanistan.  
[ Parent ]
Is this factual? (0.00 / 0)
I haven't looked at any data, but would be interested in seeing some which suggests there's more killing in Afghanistan than Iraq.

I thought the change in media coverage was because Iraq is already "over" for them, because of this withdrawal that's apparently going to happen one day, and the administration's recent emphasis on Afghanistan.

[ Parent ]
icasualties.org (4.00 / 1)
There have been about 300 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan this year; about half that in Iraq.  The deaths in both wars is staggering, and continue to grow.  Plus there are others killed of course, our "allies," and "our enemy," as well as civilians -- who are dying in their own countries because of our war policy, and I find it hard to say they all deserve to be killed.

A good count can be seen on several WEBSITES on the Internet.  Check out icasualties.org

[ Parent ]
OK, (0.00 / 0)
of "coalition forces" not including any internecine violence.
[ Parent ]
I support my President (4.00 / 1)
He kept Bush's Military advisers initially, then if you were paying attention, he dumped them and put in his own people.
Gen. McChrystal came on board, then came the report leakages ...I  still give Barack unconditional trust; he and his people will chart a new course for ending the war in Afghanistan that won't mirror the wind down in Iraq.

Bush built the Embassy..Barack inherited this.
On Tuesday we will learn his plans for extricating us.

I am heartened by progress on many fronts, including the limited but real scale back in Settlements announced Wed. night after an overwhelming vote in the Knesset to suspend further settlements in order to re-start Peace talks with the Palestinians.
George Mitchell is back at work, because Obama appointed him Special Envoy. With a new team of old hands Obama is pursuing more Smart Power...I have hopes that as in the case with Israel, he not only reaffirmed U.S. support, put also placed new conditions of curtailing settlements and working towards a two state solution as pre-requisites for U.S. approval. The Obama Administration's shift towards Israel, though some would call it slight,(Avard Insert Here) cosmetic etc., has had the effect of putting pressure on Bibi to get peace talks moving.

These are baby steps, but the possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority makes primary the need to talk about Peace Now. Thankfully they are moving ever so slowly and deliberately in that direction. It proves that Obama power is in the first stages of changing the game for the use of American power abroad.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

[ Parent ]
McChrystal (4.00 / 1)
is an embarrassment. He was right in the middle of the coverup of Pat Tillman's death. He's a known liar - so why would anyone trust him to tell us the truth about what's going on over there?

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. This is precisely what you war boosters are advocating - the perpetual state of undeclared war, for the benefit of the military industrial complex, and to the detriment of the US infrastructure and social safety nets.

Continuing headlong down this path will guarantee that the US won't remain a superpower. We'll have nothing left at home to defend.

[ Parent ]
Too Many "Ifs" To "Win" (0.00 / 0)
I think you're correct, Susan.  IF we could succeed at stopping the Taliban, and IF we were able to stablize the Afghanistan government, and IF all that contributed to stabilizing Pakistan, and IF we'd defeat the terrorism movement by doing so (let's remember that they're not just based in Afghanistan, but we're putting so much energy in there), and IF we weren't creating even more hatred of America and Americans by our war actions there, THEN I might consider staying there and even increasing our commitment as having a purpose.  

But short of sending half a million troops, and short of making a several decades commitment of involvement there, we're just not going to meet those "goals."  This is not like Korea where we can achieve a stalemate.  This is more like Vietnam, where we're in what amounts to a civil war and we've taken sides.  There have to be other, non-military options.  

[ Parent ]
Here ya go, Susan : ) (4.00 / 1)

BILL MOYERS: Some people have suggested that the increasing reliance on military contractors in Afghanistan underscores the fact that the military is actually stretched very thin. General McChrystal said, this week, he admitted that he doesn't even know if we have enough troops there to deal with the situation as it is now. Does that surprise you?

JEREMY SCAHILL: No. It doesn't surprise me. Because this is increasingly turning into a war of occupation. That's why General McChrystal is making that statement. If this was about fighting terrorism, it would be viewed as a law enforcement operation where you are going to hunt down criminals responsible for these actions and bring them in front of a court of law. This is turning into a war of occupation. If I might add about General McChrystal, what message does it send to the Afghan people when President Obama chooses a man who is alleged to have been one of the key figures running secret detention facilities in Iraq, and working on these extra judicial killing squads. Hunting down, quote unquote, insurgents, and killing them on behalf of the U.S. military. This is a man who's also alleged to have been at the center of the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death, who was killed by U.S. Army Rangers.

BILL MOYERS: But he apologized for that this week be before Congress.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, it's easy to apologize when your new job is on the line. It's a different thing to take responsibility for it when you realize that the mistake was made, or that y

Too bad we're going to lose Bill Moyers on PBS. I guess that means that petulant, privileged, bow-tie brat may be getting his show back. Shit.

[ Parent ]
Interesting (4.00 / 1)
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Someone might say that about people who comment on this thread, me included.

[ Parent ]
Actually, Johnny B... (0.00 / 0)

Re: McCrystal... Jeremy Scahill said it best "It's easy to apologize when your new job is on the line. It's a different thing to take responsibility for it when you realize that the mistake was made, or that you were involved with what the family of Pat Tillman says was a cover-up.

McCrystal has to go. If the current campaign is really about fighting terrorism, then it should have always been initiated as a law enforcement operation where you hunt down criminals responsible for acts of terrorism and bring them in front of a court of law. That's not the way it is right now. To me, it's an occupational war and the new embassies they are building  are an indication of that.

Obama is escalating the war and as president, if what you say is true, he should've stopped building the embassies Bush had in place. What concerns me is the sheer size of them. What embassy is 80 football fields long? Why do you need that in Kabul? And most of all, why do you need to continue that same Bush policy in Islamabad and Peshawar, Pakistan? I don't see that as getting out of Afghanistan soon. The troops may come home, but that still means we'll have a mercenary presence there for a long time afterward.

As for the Mideast.... well, I'd like to respond but I'll take all day. Thanks for the plug though : ) What about DD, man? : )  

[ Parent ]
no hache n/t (0.00 / 0)


We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
that's working out so well, John. We the taxpayers built the largest embassy in the world in Iraq. It's bigger than the UN complex in Manhattan. Why in the world would we do this? Simple. We ain't leaving.  
[ Parent ]
Vietnam may be a flawed metaphor but (4.00 / 2)
Germany and Japan for postwar reconstruction are gut-busting hoo-haw absurd.

It is one thing to rebuild and modify an industrial state with a political infrastructure after a war.

It is a completely different thing, a completely different category of thing, to try to "fix" a feudal state with a feudal economy and feudal politics.

We don't even know what "fixing it" would mean.

This is like "I rebuilt a '67 Mustang once, so I can rebuild this oxcart to do 0 to 60 in 8 seconds."

[ Parent ]
Absolutely (4.00 / 3)
You're dead on balls here, elwood.

Unfortunately, I think we lateralize the discussion, thus devolving from Afghanistan, when we respond to comparisons and the use of words like "never."

Well, there are examples of post war occupation success, so we can flush the word never. As far a comparison to Vietnam, I'd like to move beyond the gut wrenching propaganda of "body bag imagery," if we are going to dwell on this. We all know that lives are lost in war. We try to minimize it, but it is part of the process. We know that driving cars kills Americans. Do we all walk?

Now, back to elwood's astute comment- "I rebuilt a '67 Mustang once, so I can rebuild this oxcart to do 0 to 60 in 8 seconds."

It's a bit of a stretch, but we are blogging. Yes, the region is effectively dwelling in bygone days. This needs to be clear. And Jim's point that the US should not try to impose western mores & values on it is sound. Not sure how the burka sits with Susan. It will be hard to cherry pick what we "fix" over there.

However, I haven't heard any proposals to turn Kabul into a mini-Ginza. There are some high fallutin ideals about a sustainable level of "common human dignity." That is something I believe in. Being poor is no shame, but destitue and in despair, breeds extremism. This needs to be squelched.

The appoach that seems to be catching on is described as the "oil spot strategy." That is what Kahn was describing above. In short, efforts and assets are dropped in a concentrated place and the effects diffuse outward. Eventually, proponents say, the fringes of the "oil drops" merge.

Some reading:
Pakistani Capabilities for a Counterinsurgency Campaign: A Net Assessment
This is dated September 2009.
Please note in the Executive Summary: The most optimistic scenario would allow Pakistan to redeploy only two-thirds of its forces from the Indian border (no more than 250,000 troops) to conduct COIN operations in the FATA and NWFP, which are projected to last two to five years.

Concept for Unified Action Through Civil-Military Integration

Purpose
Aimed at increasing interaction between planning partners from all government, non-government, international agencies, and the private sector, this concept is designed to help military planners better understand how they can work together with partners--other government agencies, international organizations and allies--in the design and execution of campaigns.
-snip

Summary
Although the U.S. has a long history of involvement in complex contingencies, the record of success is mixed at best. With each new conflict, the U.S. started "from scratch" and invented a new group to work civil-military coordination-instead of building on and refining groups that were already formed. When even limited success was achieved, it came through some sort of comprehensive campaign. History shows that the scale of the operation has no bearing on the issue.

The recent focus on multi-agency collaboration and cooperation will be necessary, given the estimated 21st century Joint Operating Environment. Because U.S. military officers have recently and intensely experienced COIN campaigns, they may be more likely to appreciate the need for combined action by military-civilian collaboration than civilian officials. Regardless, multi-agency design and the "whole of government approach" will be futile without ongoing support from civilian agencies in personnel, resources and training, that will give them sufficient surge capacity when contingencies arise.

Whether the campaign is large or small, the comprehensive
campaign that is planned, executed, and coordinated by a multiagency team is most likely to succeed. Collaboration among the full US government spectrum appears to be of obvious benefit to all involved. The key responsibility of the military commander is to eliminate friction between partners and create a positive environment in which effective integration can take place at all levels.

The need for collaboration in a complex crisis is well-documented. In such circumstances, unless all agencies involved agree to work toward the same goal all will suffer from inefficiency, creating friction for both U.S. and Host Nation personnel. All formal estimates suggest that the future operating environment will require military planners to incorporate civilians in their planning and execution of complex contingency operations. The purpose of this concept is to help Marines work as effective partners in this kind of multi-agency effort.



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
and here's the buying off story right on tick (4.00 / 1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: November 27, 2009

Afghans Offer Jobs to Taliban Rank and File if They Defect
JALALABAD, Afghanistan - The American-backed campaign to persuade legions of Taliban gunmen to stop fighting got under way here recently, in an ornate palace filled with Afghan tribal leaders and one very large former warlord leading the way.
"O.K., I want you guys to go out there and persuade the Taliban to sit down and talk," Gul Agha Shirzai, the governor of Jalalabad, told a group of 25 tribal leaders from four eastern provinces. In a previous incarnation, Mr. Shirzai was the American-picked governor of Kandahar Province after the Taliban fell in 2001.

"Do whatever you have to do," the rotund Mr. Shirzai told the assembled elders. "I'll back you up."

After about two hours of talking, Mr. Shirzai and the tribal elders rose, left for their respective provinces and promised to start turning the enemy.

The meeting is part of a battlefield push to lure local fighters and commanders away from the Taliban by offering them jobs in development projects that Afghan tribal leaders help select, paid by the American military and the Afghan government.  

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

[ Parent ]
102 Comments (0.00 / 0)
On a dairy that was posted on the sidebar.

I'd like to suggest this diary be bumped. Imo, the conversation on Iraq is spent, but maybe there are other tangents that could be further explored.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

104th Comment: Let's Not "Bump" This Conversation (0.00 / 0)
Part of the reason why we're so engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we haven't yet critically thought enough about either -- making this yet another similarity with the Vietnam War.  For most Americans, until our commitment there was such that it could not be ignored, Vietnam was a far-away conflict that didn't gain attention on the national mindset.  Until about 1966, discussion about whether we should be in Vietnam, or not, was "bumped" by other issues.  

I'm pleased to see we've been talking a bit more about Afghanistan in recent days.  Starting this coming Tuesday, I expect that the action of President Obama will be putting it on the front burner of many Americans -- more of whom, in time, will be questionning our involvement there.  

[ Parent ]
The Discussion Continues... (0.00 / 0)
Oh I see, "bumped" means putting the Blogpost and thread back at the top.  Good.  Because I'd like to know something about President Obama's likely decision on Tuesday, and I'm hoping he addresses it:  

WHAT do we do if he commits another 25,000 or so additional troops, bringing our commitment there to nearly 100,000 troops, and then in another few months or a year things aren't all that much better?  What next?  Do we send in yet another few thousand?  

All I see with the additonal troop commitment is that we will be seeing the deaths of more people -- ours, and theirs.  More Moms and Dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters killed because of our American military policy.  And that means many more people who will hate America for decades to come.  

I'd like to know from President Obama, or anyone else, that "what next" as the next step.  Because that is one of the many similaries of Afghanistan to Vietnam -- the "mission-crawl."  

[ Parent ]
Quiz for Jim. (4.00 / 1)
What is the "oil spot strategy?"

What is the potential significance of giving India mad props?

How is the military adapting to collaboration with USAID & NGOs?

Extra Credit: Can a strong rationale be made for likely blood shed throughout the region, should the US and its allies vacate? Hint:Think lack of military action in Africa.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
"Justification" For War Action (0.00 / 0)
If we had got involved in military action in Africa -- and there was "justification," I know -- we'd still be involved in military action in Africa, and perhaps even more would be dead now.  Certainly we would have lost many American soldiers.  

Almost any "war action" can be justified in some way, by some people.  That's why a limited mission, which I don't see evolving in Afghanistan, and an exit strategy, which I hope President Obama explains on Tuesday, is so important.  Otherwise, we're into mission-crawl.  And THAT is another similarity of Afghanistan and Vietnam.  

I have a question for you:  What would Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. do or say about increased war action in Afghanistan?  I think I know.  I bet you can speculate too.  I'm on their side.  We have options other than more war and killing, bombs and bullets.

[ Parent ]
Please Prove (4.00 / 2)
that you are trying to think through this.

I maintain that you invalidate your perspective, if you are merely repeating foregone conclusions.

I have no qualms with the individual conscientious objector. It is not, however, a viable strategy for a world super-power.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Chessboard Foreign Policy (0.00 / 0)
Jack -- I've thought it through during the past few decades.  And I have nothing to prove if you don't believe that.  I do think that a lot of our problems in working with other nations is because we have a Chessboard Foreign Policy mindset.  We over-analyze, and thus we get ourselves into trouble.

I come to this issue with the realization that we can't kill all our enemies, and we can't kill all those who hate us, and we can't stop all bad things.  Other world super-powers have got into much trouble by having that Chessboard Foreign Policy as well.  That's where I'm coming from.  Where are you coming from?  

[ Parent ]
Chessboards to Cookie Cutters (0.00 / 0)
This is me wasting my time as you have stated that you are no longer considering the data.

I think you should recalibrate. Imo, the US gets into trouble based on a policy of colonialism by proxy, not killing people. We have fought and killed many and we get along fine with bunches of them, from "the South" to Japan (who we nuked).

Actually, we seem to struggle most with folks like Russia, Iran and N.Korea. How many of them did we kill?
..................................................

You keep mentioning Gandhi and MLK. I want to address that. First, they were both killed. Second, their followers carried on because they lived in nations that would accomodate such lofty ideals. In places with brutal regimes, the soil is rich with the blood of anonymous martyrs.

Afghanistan? Close to America, circa 1960?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Sorry You're Wasting Your Time... (0.00 / 0)
...listening to logic as to why we shouldn't be there.  

Afghanistan in 1960 close to America?  Do we expect that Afghanistan will be close to America in 2030 with all the dead people we're leaving behind there?  Don't you think there will be payback for our military actions there?  Will Moms and Dads and sons and daughters ever forgive us?  

What would happen if a superpower landed in New Hampshire, choose a side to support, killed some of our population, occupied us for who knows how long?  Many of us would forever resist and hate what they had done.  And the "change" they brought would likely not be permanent -- because to change a society or culture needs years, and change has to evolve.

I'll keep mentioning Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  We cannot force "our ideals" onto other nations.  We cannot make countries with "brutal regimes" over in our image.  

[ Parent ]
Logic? Where? (4.00 / 1)
Your assertion is that war creates an unbridgable chasm between the US and the host nation. That is simply, historically inaccurate. You should go to Korea. Within two generations, their relationship with the Japanese has profoundly evolved. Do you remember what the Japanese did to the Koreans?

Have you been following the MA Senate race? Mike Capuano has staked out a firm position on Afghanistan.

Mike remains gravely concerned about the conduct and the prospects of our operations in Afghanistan, and about the future of neighboring Pakistan. It would pose a serious danger to world peace if its nuclear arsenal fell into the hands of extremists or non-state actors with no regard for human life. But, just as he refused to give a blank check to President Bush, Mike voted in May 2009 against a proposal by the current administration that would have provided additional war funding without an adequate plan for bringing either conflict to an end. While he trusts that President Obama is sincere in his commitment to new approaches, Mike felt that a vote for additional funding demonstrated an acceptance of the status quo. Mike has now called for the responsible redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan because he believes that we should seek out al-Qaeda where they are, not where they were, and according to Obama Administration officials, the number of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan now stands at less than 100. The United States must craft an exit strategy and bring our troops home, not increase our number of forces there. While he does not believe these problems are simple, he does believe Congress must participate in their solution.

Let's talk in terms of a "voter referendum." Obama will deliver his strategy, exactly ONE WEEK before the Democratic Primary. You a betting man?

And even if MA liberals put Caps over the top, do you really think NH is like minded?

Bottom line for me, I respect your noble intentions. We need folks like you to give us our bearings as we forge ahead. However, your ideals alone are not fit to plot our course by. They are not grounded in a reality of the world that is.

As much as I believe that "We are stardust.We are golden.",

I also know, "We are all the part of the same compost heap."

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
you're looking at old school history Jack (0.00 / 0)
it's a different world today, thanks to mass communications. Korea and Japan happened a long time ago.

I'm truly amazed at the thinking expressed on this thread. War is the only answer. Killing and bombing people into submission will make us beloved around the world, and solve all the problems.

It never has. It never will.

The future depends on thinking outside of the old "war" box. It's depressing to see so many embracing war as a necessary solution because it now belongs to Obama.  

[ Parent ]
As I see the argument (4.00 / 1)
It is, "Which course does the least harm?" We're all thinking about getting outside the war box.

I can't speak for anybody else, but when it was 2007 and Iraq was Bush's war, I opposed immediate withdrawal. I was wrong, and I later admitted that, but the presidential ownership of this war is not the deciding factor in my position.

[ Parent ]
Streeeeeeeeetch (4.00 / 2)
No matter how hard you try, you will not find me or anyone else here saying,
War is the only answer. Killing and bombing people into submission will make us beloved around the world, and solve all the problems.

What I did say is that Jim's points are not the end-all-be-all. You then take that and twist it into my support of the opposite.

It may be easier to make a charicature out of us as "the Group W bench." It's a lie, though.



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
after reading hundreds of your posts (0.00 / 0)
it seems to me that you are on the side of war, Jack. I don't say this in a mean spirited or critical way - I'm merely making an observation.

I don't expect anyone here to say that war is the answer. No one who supports this escalation is that honest.  

[ Parent ]
In my opinion (4.00 / 3)
The future of Blue Hampshire depends on regular posters not putting each other in old boxes. :)
[ Parent ]
Warriors (0.00 / 0)
Susan, I imagine you as the type that ties yourself to the gates of Seabrook. You may have even said that you had. I am not mocking you. Truly. That is courageous. And to use a word that Christian mentioned, it is honorable.

Some things are worth fighting for. We can disagree on what those are. I believe there are things worth dying for and things worth killing for.

You may not. Many may not. It is what it is.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Fighting And Dying (0.00 / 0)
Of course some things are worth fighting and dying for.  Afghanistan and Iraq ain't two of them.  
[ Parent ]
Speaking of conscientious objectors... (4.00 / 2)

Support the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans Against the War. If there's one step in pulling out of Afghanistan, support the troops speaking out against the Afghani occupation. They need all the help they can get and they're just as American as just as brave and patriotic as others. Too bad we as Dems who support a responsible plan/withdrawal also don't speak out in their support or go to rallies. Why is that? That's putting principle and responsible activism into action.

Before I ramble, back to the discussion.  

[ Parent ]
Positivity or The Silver Lining (4.00 / 1)
There really ISN'T much we can do to keep the administration from jumping. I guess we just quietly untie the rope, so we are not pulled down after him. And start thinking about how to pick up the pieces

We start "picking up the pieces" by adding better pieces.

Big pieces - Paul Hodes, Carol Shea Porter & NH2.

This is the battle MOST at hand.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

What about... (0.00 / 0)

supporting the soldiers who speak out against the American occupation of Afghanistan? Jack, let me ask what would it take you, as a former Iraq war veteran, to get behind groups like IVAW? What's preventing you doing so and what would you like to see before you support them? I think the more we support current and past servicemen who are speaking out against the American occupations of Iraq and (more importantly) Afghanistan I think that would be a great step in changing public opinion toward the occupation and create more pressure in pulling out. It's not the end all solution, but I think supporting current and former soldiers in their trials, at rallies, and in front of the media, is a bold, brash statement and if things go right, they can shake things up.

I still don't get why groups like IVAW, etc. are all alone in the wilderness. How much media attention do they get? How many people do you see at their rallies in northern New England? It's the same old people you see at all the other peace rallies. It's a shame. I think a lot could be done by getting behind those who speak out against what the US government made them do. There's honor in that.  

[ Parent ]
You talk of honor (0.00 / 0)
This is just a word like "freedom" and "liberty." It gets bandied about and co-opted by agendas.

This is a word I take very seriously.

There is honor in protesting against war and informing the american public. I applaud whistle blowers, too. I have no problem with groups like IVAW gaining high public profile.

Oh. Btw, the parent comment is not related to this.



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
OK, you answered my question. Thanks. (4.00 / 1)

I agree there are "nutsos" out there who misuse freedom and liberty. I see those on the left. I see a lot of them in Brattleboro too : ) I don't think groups like IVAW get enough support as they should. By that I mean the public and the media. There's a stigma attached to them because they speak out against what they did and oftentimes its small groups of supporters who get behind them. I've seen this and that needs to change. My hope is the Democrats get behind their efforts and not be worried about how this "might" make them look in front of the GOP and other jerks. It's not about looking good, it's about doing what's right.  
[ Parent ]
Both (4.00 / 1)
Hodes and Shea-Porter stood tall against Bush's war.

They are both remarkably silent on Obama's wars.

[ Parent ]
A Primary? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe we need a primary for US Senate to make sure that we have some real discussion about Afghanistan.  We'll see after Tuesday.  
[ Parent ]
My bottom line, only vaguely informed position (4.00 / 2)
1. Immediate withdrawal, while perhaps not causing more problems, allows too many problems to continue.

2. Forget "victory." We need a clearly defined, achievable goal. Something we can't see now will interfere with that goal, but once we set it (I don't know what it is, or should be), we need to be ruthlessly committed to getting our troops home.

3. Whatever political arrangement we make with whatever politicians in Afghanistan needs a firm deadline. Yes deadline, as in timetable, schedule, and bleeping DATE. No permanent commitment.

4. One rumor has it that the plan is for 10 years. That is absolutely unacceptable. If it takes 10 years, we should leave today.

2016 (4.00 / 1)
I'd prefer we be mostly gone by then.

McCain said, 'Why not 50?' Yikes. His point being that there are examples of long term American presence that few angst about.

I'd realy like to see the 2016 election cycle be about something other than the continuing war. That would be exceptionaly depressing, so POTUS needs to wrap this up to the degree that things are stabilized, meaning the oil spots are firmly saturated in, and NATO has a minimal presence there in terms of force.

Reconstruction efforts will have to be shared with allies. Sorry KBR.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
And If In 2016... (0.00 / 0)
...we're still involved, as I think we will be if we continue the increase in troops, THEN WHAT?  We're putting ourselves into a box, and some people are throwing wishful thinking at it and that's putting us solidly into a box.  

Who would have imagined in 2002 that we'd still be there in 2010, and increasing our troop commitment? (In fact, in 1961, who would have imagine we would still be engaged in the Vietnam War a dozen years later? -- yet ANOTHER similarity of Afghanistan and Vietnam.)

And is this what we voted for Democrats to do in 2006 and 2008?  

[ Parent ]
But Jack, (4.00 / 1)

Seems like we're going to be there longer than 50 years. Maybe.  Have you been following independent journalist Jeremy Scahill? He's reported & confirmed that the US is building an "embassy" that's 80 football fields long. It's just as big as the one they're building in Iraq as well as in Pakistan.  What embassy is 80 football fields big?  Does the US really need tens of thousands of state department officials in Kabul? If so, why?  It just doesn't add up. On top of that, Blackwater/Xe will running security operations. So in a sense, and Scahill confirms this, this means we're leaving a large mercenary force there (and Baghdad, and Peshawar, and Islamabad, and other places I'm sure).

I just think if Obama was really serious about ending the American/NATO occupations of Afghanistan, his administration would be going out of its way to build this monstrocity. It's not needed. If so, what other intentions does the US government/military have? That's concerning.

I think that what we're doing in Afghanistan increases the likelihood that there's going to be another attack. We're killing innocent civilians regularly. When the United States goes in and bombs Farah province in Afghanistan, on May 4th, and kills civilians, according to the Red Cross and other sources, 13 members of one family, that has a ricochet impact. The relatives of those people are going to say maybe they did trust the United States. Maybe they viewed the United States as a beacon of freedom in the world. But you just took you just took that guy's daughter. You just killed that guy's wife. That's one more person that's going to line up and say, "We're going to fight the United States." We are indiscriminately killing civilians, according to the UN Human Rights Council. A report that was just released this week by the UN says that the United States is indiscriminately killing civilians in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. That should be a collective shame that we feel in this society. And yet we have people calling it the good war.

- Jeremy Scahill on Bill Moyers



[ Parent ]
Self fulfilling speculation (0.00 / 0)
Wow. Very damning.

Or they are using a similar design because it makes sense to do so. Maybe Scahill, who I have no problem with, should ask why they are designed that way.

It sure sounds scary. Yet, I'm not scared.

I think it is widely understood that bad stories get a lot of mileage. Scahill has learned a thing or two from his trademed peers. He must have a mortgage.  

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Not speculation... (4.00 / 1)

... more like reality. Afghanis don't like the Taliban and they don't like Al Qaeda.  The other thing they don't like are the American/NATO occupiers. That's how a majority of them see us. Afghanis don't like the Taliban, yet they're on the same side as them because they're fighting the American/NATO occupiers. The longer we stay, the more unsafe America and Americans will be. That's been a historic pattern for us when we occupy a country or deploy military forces abroad. It's what breeds extremists and extremist actions.

Bad stories get a lot of mileage because these are about issues American government and military officials continue to bury under the carpet or not deal with head on. If it deals with how America plays a role contribute to the problem, it's not taken seriously by the traditional corporate media and US officials in general. I think our country and our reputation abroad would improve if we (especially our government and military officials) seriously look at how American military presence/actions make negatively impact relations in the Mideast.


[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 1)
That's been a historic pattern for us when we occupy a country or deploy military forces abroad. It's what breeds extremists and extremist actions.

When was the last time the US was attacked by the Vietnamese?

American government and military officials continue to bury under the carpet or not deal with head on

Posted in Stars and Stripes.
GRAFENWÖHR, Germany - Four Germany-based soldiers charged with conspiracy to commit premeditated murder in Iraq allegedly took male detainees to a canal and shot them, according to details released by the Army on Tuesday.

seriously look at how American military presence/actions make negatively impact relations in the Mideast.

100%? No.

You are cherry picking from a mixed bag to select the data that fits your forgone conclusion. Republicans pick data that will keep us there indefinately and Liberals pick data that support immediate withdrawal.

I trust Obama. He ain't perfect, but he is the best we got.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Re: (0.00 / 0)

Apples and oranges. This is the Mideast, not Vietnam. What happened to American forces in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983? What about when American troops were attacked in Saudi Arabia in 1996? The embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998? The WTC bombings in 1993? Or what about September 11, 2001? That's what I'm referring to.

I'm not sure what four Germans charged with a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder has anything to do with the fact that the US government and military continue to deny that we are seen by Afghanis as occupiers, not liberators and our presence there is exacerbating the problem.

This isn't about Obama. It's about our government and military policies that is disempowering and destablizing a country, no different than what the Soviet occupiers did from '79'-89. Different reasons, same results. They are occupied, they want us out. America is the aggressors no more than the Soviets were.  

[ Parent ]
Reread. Not Germans. (0.00 / 0)
OK. So we are beyond Vietnam?

I think this puts us in a more accurate context, Arab/Isreali/US relations. It gets easier. ;v)

Koh tells us what we should not do. Does he/they give us any solutions?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Withdraw ASAP. (0.00 / 0)

This isn't coming from the Hoh's mouth, but that of Malalai Joya, a leading feminist in Afghanistan.  She was asked in an IPS interview that if the US pulls back then the Taliban will take over and do x, y, and z and chaos will ensue. I recall Joya saying in the interview that "it's easier to fight one enemy than two," and those who want democracy and human rights in Afghanistan are fighting two enemies: the Taliban and the United States.

With American troops on the ground as an occupying force, Joya said the Taliban is growing more popular because it is the most visible group taking on "the foreign occupiers" and the US is foreign occupiers. If the United States were to leave, she argued, it would expose the Taliban as the reactionary force that it is, and allow the people of Afghanistan a chance to fight for their own freedom. I say we let them determine their own path. That's the best solution for Afghanis and US security.

A withdrawal does not indicate equate with failure or abandonment. I really think that's some kind of twisted logic that's being applied by right wing media outlets and misinformed legislators. Obama's is a muddled response to the problem.  30,000 extra troops is nothing. It's time to move on and let go.  

[ Parent ]
Taliban a symptom? (0.00 / 0)
...Joya said the Taliban is growing more popular because it is the most visible group taking on "the foreign occupiers" and the US is foreign occupiers. If the United States were to leave, she argued, it would expose the Taliban as the reactionary force that it is,..

Why this sounds plausible. Until you realize that the Taliban governed Afghanistan for about 5 years before Bush Co. invaded.

It would be that period that OBL hatched his plans.

PS. Joya was elected in 2005. If it were not for "foreign occupiers," you would not know her name. Just sayin'

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
all those dudes (4.00 / 2)
who flew the planes on 9/11 were Saudis. Will we, at long last, invade Saudi Arabia?  
[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
Invade SA? Home of Mecca and Medina.  Hell, why not carpet bomb Jerusalem while you're at it?

But you score mad blogger points.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
We don't know that n/t (0.00 / 0)

Yes, they were unpopular then and they are still unpopular now. The problem is Afghanis are on their side for one reason: to get rid the American occupiers. Afterward, in the event American forces "actually" leave, they will continue to lose their legitimacy, as they were in the late 90s, and Afghanis democracy will rise from the ground up. Democracy doesn't happen top-down or imposed by a foreign nation. That's what happened when the US invaded in September/October 2001.

*** If it were not for "foreign occupiers," you would not know her name. Just sayin' ***

Nothing personal, but that just sounds like arrogant American thinking/speaking. It's right up there "we saved your ass in WWII, blah, blah, blah." Whether she was elected or not, Joya would be speaking out. The situation she's lived through forced her to speak out, not because she was elected. Check out her biography, it was just published last month. It had nothing to do with being elected.  

[ Parent ]
I can hang (0.00 / 0)
No it does sound like you say. I'll give some up, as she may have gained international noteriety without the subsidy of the invaders. I'd bet she stood as much chance, if not more, of being raped and murdered in relative obscurity in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

..this extraordinary young woman was raised in the refugee camps of Iran and Pakistan. Inspired in part by her father's activism, Malalai became a teacher in secret girls' schools, holding classes in a series of basements. She hid her books under her burqa so the Taliban couldn't find them.

This is a woman to watch. She has a good crumbtrail. She needs a king maker to back her.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
True... (0.00 / 0)

... but it's still not any better for her with the Northern Alliance in power. I'm sure she would be hiding her books just the same if you substituted the Taliban with the Northern Alliance.  
[ Parent ]
Vietnam (4.00 / 1)

The only parallels I see between Vietnam and the current situation in Afghanistan is a Democratic president and a supportive congress voting to prolong an unwinnable war (by adding more troops on the ground).  The other similarities was that Vietnam evolved into a war of occupation. So is Afghanistan.  I realize Vietnam had to do with the domino theory and all, but this is another unwinnable war with no end in sight and it ishighly unpopular with the American public. Vietnam was also unwinnable and we all know how unpopular it was with the public. I think that's why people may compare the two.

The one difference I noticed, off the top of my head, is there was a much more organized mass mobilization in the late 60s, not so now unfortunately. If the draft ever comes, count on it.  

[ Parent ]
And that's why (4.00 / 2)
We SHOULD have a draft.
[ Parent ]
Or why we shouldn't have a war. (4.00 / 2)
Few things so violate the concept of freedom as does conscription.

On a related note, due to Mr. Bush's insistence on tax cuts at the outset of war, the burden of Iraq and Afghanistan--both of fighting those wars and of paying for them--is entirely on the younger generation and those to come.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

[ Parent ]
This assumes (0.00 / 0)
the government wakes up and realizes it has to pay its bills... which might not happen!
[ Parent ]
I still have Hope. (0.00 / 0)


--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin
[ Parent ]
Yeesh.... (0.00 / 0)

Looking back and re-reading what I just wrote, I can see that I had a bad case of the "department of redundancy department." Sorry,
[ Parent ]
"No Permanent Commitment?" (0.00 / 0)
But JimC, what then happens after we've invested another 25,000 soldiers there when that "political arrangement" isn't followed?  THEN what?  

That's more than a "rumor" about a 10-year plan.  That's what the military has been discussing.  It is unacceptable, but that's it.  What do you think we're building large bases for?  We're in for long-term battles if we don't take other options.  

[ Parent ]
Winning In Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)
1. The Afghan public rejects the Taliban/Al Qaeda insurgency

2. The people of Afghanistan can live prosperous lives free from fear.

Helping them build their infastructure is just as important as teaching them how to protect themselves. This isn't our war, it's theirs. We shouldn't be there, but we have an obligation to be there since we've used them as pawns during the Cold War, which is what in part helped start this.

Well said... (4.00 / 2)

However.... the people of Afghanistan also want American troops out of Afghanistan. Yes, Afghanis hate the Taliban and they hate Al Qaeda, but they also hate the US military because they are seen much like the Soviet occupiers. If there is a US presence, it must be a nonmilitary or else this is going to be a long quagmire with no end in sight.  A continued military presence in Afghanistan will make Americans less safe, not more.


[ Parent ]
Truthiness (0.00 / 0)
You blog with such conviction.

A continued military presence in Afghanistan will make Americans less safe, not more.

Please read my tarot cards, man. I want to buy a lottery ticket.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Go tell that to Matthew Hoh, Jack. (4.00 / 2)

That's the person who made that comment. How little does he know about the situation in Afghanistan? The Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan have also made that statement repeatedly. They've been on the ground in Afghanistan too so they must not know what they're talking about.

Aside from that, a continued US military presence will continue to recruit extremists  to conduct terrorist attacks elsewhere. It will only force Afghanis to support the likes of the Taliban (maybe Al Qaeda) because they're the ones conducting the resistance fighting.

Our troops are too good for this mess. Adding more troops will not improve the situation. Afghanis want us out, period, no matter what may happen after we're gone. I wish we would respect that.  

[ Parent ]
I'll look at this (0.00 / 0)
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/

This thing can't be wished away. We can't click our ruby slippers and vanish.

Rep. Grayson is essentially advocating isolationism here. That won't work.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Here's another good link (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Gration Testimony - 2007 (0.00 / 0)
Scott Gration was a key advisor, along with Samantha Power, during the election cycle.

Though this testimony regards Africa, you get a sense of a key philosophy:
Our goal not only should be to put a stronger hyphen between "mil-pol" or to make it more "pol-mil." It should also be to create an organization that truly integrates the unique strengths pol, mil, econ, and development.

Until recently, I served as the CEO of Millennium Villages, an organization established to help end extreme poverty in Africa and to help developing nations achieve the UN's Millennium Development Goals. During my frequent visits to Africa, I became even more convinced that the continent's security issues are linked to its significant stability challenges. Extreme poverty, the youth bulge, insufficient job opportunities, corruption, and weak governance continue to fuel feelings of hopelessness and despair. This is an environment hostile to effective security programs and it limits Africa's chances of achieving its enormous human and resource potential.

Despite significant obstacles to sustained development, natural disasters and poor leadership in some countries, we must continue to meet our near-term challenges. We should try to collaborate on and compliment activities of partners with similar objectives in Africa, particularly in the context of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). We must consult and cooperate with African and international partners to resolve the situations in Darfur, Somalia, DRC, and the Western Sahara. We must help to coordinate a plan to deal with countries like Zimbabwe, especially for the post-Mugabe period. We must determine where the actions of other external players (e.g., China, Russia, and Korea) compete or conflict with our interests and take appropriate action promptly, while placing an emphasis on how we can cooperate with external powers in Africa. We must confront terrorist threats where we find them and help African countries eliminate terrorist and criminal safe havens throughout the continent.

With this as background, let me state up front that I supported establishing a separate command to deal with Africa when I was in the military and I'm delighted to see it's becoming a reality. I believe we need one unified command to coordinate and synchronize our military activities in Africa. We will get an even greater benefit when this command is truly integrated with all the other elements of US power and diplomacy. With US interests on this continent clearly defined and a united voice in Washington to advocate for requirement and resources, I believe we'll be able to advance America's interests in Africa better and build strong partnerships with African government to eliminate poverty and accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy.



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
But this wasn't the original intention in the first place. (4.00 / 1)

All of this was about fighting terrorism, supposedly. The US toppled the Taliban and replaced it with a puppet regime that's just as bad as the Taliban. Womens' rights are still horrible. I think it would be great to have an NGO presence there. But the military presence must go now. That is the problem.  
[ Parent ]
This, like everything, depends (0.00 / 0)
on who you're talking to.

Is this as true in Herat or Mazar-e-Sharif as Khandahar?

There's a degree to which it can be said New Englanders love the Yankees, because the New Englanders you're talking to are in southwestern Connecticut.

[ Parent ]
"We shouldn't be there, but we have an obligation to be there since we've used them as pawns during the Cold War, which is what in part helped start this." (4.00 / 1)
Did you cut and paste those words from the debate 40 years ago?
It's time to learn from, rather than repeat history.

No'm Sayn?
[ Parent ]
Update: NYT (4.00 / 2)
Obama's Speech on Afghanistan to Envision Exit

WASHINGTON - President Obama plans to lay out a specific timetable for how he sees the American war in Afghanistan ultimately ending when he announces his decision this week to send more forces, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Although the speech was still in draft form, the officials said the president wanted to use the address at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday night to convey his exit strategy and not just the immediate order to deploy roughly 30,000 more troops.

"It's accurate to say that he will be more explicit about both goals and time frame than has been the case before and than has been part of the public discussion," said a senior official, who requested anonymity to discuss the speech before it is delivered. "He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down."



birch, finch, beech
Fingers crossed (4.00 / 1)
Obama likes to take ownership of things. The propagandists have tried to hang Afghanistan around his neck, calling it "Obama's War."

I hope he takes it on with a plan to have us substantially out before the end of his second term. This is not a legacy he should want to bestow upon his successor.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Keep Your Fingers Crossed... (0.00 / 0)
...because if his "exit strategy" is based on getting out by the end of his second term (how many Presidents offer "balanced budgets" based on the end of their second term?) that's a lot of wishful thinking.  And then what happens if at that time the goals still aren't meant, but we had put ourselves in the corner by investing many more lives and many more billions?  

I'm hoping Congress will say "no" to the military strategy -- that's where my fingers are crossed.

[ Parent ]
if Obama escalates (4.00 / 1)
the war in Afghanistn, it becomes his war. It becomes an albatross that will be hung around the necks of formerly anti-war Democrats. It will be the undoing of the Democratic majority, along with the failure to lead on health care, and the failure to do anything substantial about jobs.

There will be no second term.  

[ Parent ]
Absolutely Correct, Susan (4.00 / 2)
Aside from the damage to life and limbs, if Obama does escalate, it will cause immense damage to the Democratic Party.
People took a leap of faith, voted for change, and may get more war, more of the same corporate ownership of the government that is supposed to serve "we the people."They will not vote Democrat again, I fear.
As this long long thread started; what do you do when a friend commits political suicide? It very well may take down the party, and with it, an American dream.  

No'm Sayn?
[ Parent ]
Not a big concern (4.00 / 1)
I'm not to sure if the throngs of Dems you sugggest, actually exist. Considering, Obama is depolying EXACTLY the strategy that he discussed during the election cycle.

To a previous detractor:

Regarding Afghanistan (0.00 / 0)
Obama's "Hope and Change agenda" always was about leaving Iraq in a responsible fashion and returning to Afghanistan.

From a Campaign PDF I have saved on my hard drive:
Focuses on the Broader Middle East and Central Asia

Refocuses efforts on the wider Middle East including preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and placing a higher priority on Afghanistan, where more American forces and resources are needed to defeat a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The properties tab tells me this PDF was created on June 04, 2007.



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
It May Still Take A While... (0.00 / 0)
...but rather soon, as we reach over 1,000 body bags returned from Afghanistan and find ourselves embedded in the mountains and sand dunes there, the American people will come to realize we're in a situation we cannot "win" in conventional terms.  And that yet another President participated in mission-crawl and got us in a corner there.  And that is yet ANOTHER similiarity between Vietnam and Afghanistan.  
[ Parent ]
Let's get to it (0.00 / 0)
Pardon my cynicism, but as a professional pol, I figure you are careful about what you say.

If we boil it down, I think you have 1 of 2 positions:
1)Obama is an idiot, being led by the nose...
OR
2)Obama is a stealth war profiteer...

Either way, your assertion is that the military-industrial complex is really behind this foreign policy decision, as they are the beneficiary of a protracted war, just like Vietnam.

Please speak plainly.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
I've Spoken Plainly, And I Will Again... (0.00 / 0)
...just for you.  I think the military-industrial complex is so entrenched in Washington that they can -- and have in past years -- backed a President into a corner and given him limited options.  That doesn't mean the President is an idiot.  I think JFK got sucked in by the military in the Bay of Pigs, and later in further commitments of "trainers" to Vietnam.  I think LBJ followed suit, and it ruined his Great Society efforts.  

I think the military has become so involved in Afghanistan that they have developed their friendships  there, and it's mighty hard for them to look at the big picture.  So they have convinced President Obama that he must stay there.

And yes, that IS like Vietnam, and is one more similarity.  

To counterbalance that, we need citizens to are against greater Afghanistan involvement to speak out.  I'm one of those.  

And yes, THAT TOO is just like Vietnam -- yet another similarity.

We're making yet another mistake because of our powerful military in Washington.  

[ Parent ]
Given all this (0.00 / 0)
that you so plainly recognize, it must be that POTUS sees it too.

This notion of the MIC controlling the options is confusing...

So by staying in Afghanistam, Obama serves the MIC, not Americans. By default, doesn't that make him a "stealth war profiteer?"

Or is it that POTUS' military advisors are corrupt?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
One Can Be Convinced Of Just About Anything... (0.00 / 0)
...and JFK said he was trapped into saying "yes" to Bay of Pigs, and LBJ / Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later said they were balonied into support troop buildups and expanded military commitment in Vietnam.  It can happen to the best of us.  And to the best of Presidents.  
[ Parent ]
Two opposing diaries on DKos (0.00 / 0)

An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore
by Michael Moore

An Open Letter to Michael Moore from President Obama
by Turtle Bay

You seem to be hedging, but I figure you're in the MM camp. The military cabal in DC runs the show, aka "trapped.". Thus, Obama is their stooge.

Bonus for the Poll Trolls.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Jack, Please Don't Try Putting Words In My Mouth (0.00 / 0)
You're using words like "stooge" and "idiot," and terms like "stealth war profiteer."  Please don't try to put words in my mouth, or make this issue personal about President Obama, because it isn't.  My point is clear -- very good and experienced people like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Barack Obama can be led into making decisions which are in the interests of the military-industrial complex by the military-industrial complex.  

Virtually any war action can be justified by some reasoning, and we have had Presidents in past years making decisions which they later regretted.  IMHO, such will be the decision to increase our military commitment in Afghanistan.  

[ Parent ]
Civilian Control of the Military (0.00 / 0)
I'm still confused by your repeated assertion that the MIC has "trapped" some of our best leaders. Either the system works or it doesn't.

Do you believe that POTUS is making well informed decisions that you simply disagree with or is there a veil before his eyes? One that is placed there, insidiously, by the MIC?

It takes some fancy foot work that say that POTUS is making wrongheaded decisions at the hands of the MIC, but that it is not his error because others before him have made the same exact error. Being the student of history that we know Obama to be, it can only be that his choice is predetermined and that he, and by proxy we, are slaves to the MIC.

Walk me through this:
1) You see this, clear as day
2) The MIC has POTUS "trapped"
3) This is the same circumstance that others have been caught in

In law there are two simple concepts, as I understand them, that summarize an individuals actions, negligence and malice. If the escalation of troop levels is, as you maintain, wrong? How can the perpetrator, POTUS, be devoid of culpability? It cannot be chalked up to a boo-boo. There are a bevy of pundits and pols telling him his path is flawed.

It just stands that if POTUS goes forward with escalation that he will be guilty. There is no fig leaf of WMDs to provide cover. Based on this "knowing" that you have, further combat operations in Afghanistan, which will lead to civlian death, dismemberment and misery, will be a willful act by POTUS.

Or, you have a notion? Based on no classified intelligence or expert counsel? You are going with your gut.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
If this reads, the way I think it reads (4.00 / 1)
Or, you have a notion? Based on no classified intelligence or expert counsel? You are going with your gut.

Let's not forget the last time we heard about the opinions of "experts" and "classified intelligence" we don't know anything about.

You read stuff that's come out as a result of FOIA and what was not classified from the same period, and you think a little bit about the context and the actors, and basically you come to the conclusion that the public record is sufficient if you don't reflexively trust authority and otherwise have a good bullshit detector.

[ Parent ]
Parallels (4.00 / 2)
the subtext of the liberal opposition as stated in 'this is Obama's war' is that this is a war of choice. They are alluding to Bush's advance on Iraq. Which, we know, was about war profiteering.

My President is not a stupid fucking asshole, bent on making a buck for Halliburton. We now have a POTUS that is diligent, if not painfully thoughtful.

If I've said anything in this thread, it is I don't like the idea of escalation, but I am willing to hear POTUS out. It is unlikely that I will soundly reject what I hear tomorrow, but it is not a forgone conclusion that I will accept it, either.

If I wanted hardline, kneejerk, cookie cutter talking points to parrot, I'd be a GOPer.

Thank you for your assistance in taking this thread into the realm of the informed. Those that follow links surely appreciate your contributions.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
PS. Ditto to NH Ex-pat (4.00 / 1)
Your citing of credible sources lends to your position. If it doesn't shift my thinking, your point definately filled in areas where I was "squishy." The entire discussion is enhanced.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
[ Parent ]
Not the point, not a detractor! (4.00 / 1)
Who but you knows such details?
The majority of the independent, irregular voters sure didn't know that. Maybe like LBJ, many believed he ran as The Peace Candidate.
No idea the numbers, but I bet a heck of a lot of people who voted for change will be real disappointed if he ratchets up the war.

No'm Sayn?
[ Parent ]
Does Adm. Hutson have buyer's remorse (0.00 / 0)

This is the swing voter that did not vote for McCain in NH, Indiana, N.Carolina, Nevada, ect.

Some will be lost, Burt. I won't claim otherwise. But no more than those that may break on a variety of issues. I'd say the economy is going to be the biggest of all. It is the one thing that binds all of the political stripes.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
Interesting article (4.00 / 1)
in the New Yorker: "Defending the Arsenal," by Seymour Hersh.

Ignore the nuclear aspect of the story, the relevant part is Pakistani attitudes and perceptions.

There is some suggestion that this article is having a big impact in Pakistan. In the article, Hersh quotes Musharraf making some remarks critical of the current Pakistani president. Here is the harder news article in the Pakistani Daily, Dawn: "Publication of notice against Musharraf ordered," by Tahir Siddiqui. Here's a more speculative Indian analysis of the same, citing the New Yorker article which tries to suggest the Hersh-Musharraf-Zardari nexus.

I am not the sort of person to say this, because there's a lot of important stuff out there, but this New Yorker article is a must read.

One of my favorite songs (4.00 / 1)
by one of my favorite artists. These photos are from Iraq, or so youtube tells me.

My favorite lyrics:

Now if the tables were turned
tell me how you would feel
Somebody busted up into your house
telling you to stay still
While the leaders will deny defeat
The innocent lay testifyin', dyin' in the street

Freedom is seldom found
By beatin' someone to the ground
And tellin' them how everything is gonna be now

The terrified look on the face of an innocent child, the single tear of a soldier... I'm not sure anything can justify those images for me. Be it Iraq or Afghanistan, let's stop killing people and sending our troops to be killed in the name of 'freedom'.

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?

not freedom, security (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Whose security? (4.00 / 1)
I know I don't feel anymore secure, and I don't believe the people of Iraq and Afghanistan do either. Perhaps the economic security of all the people making money off these wars?

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?
[ Parent ]
If you read anything I wrote above, it should be clear: (4.00 / 2)
Physical security: Tajiks, Uzbeks, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Turkmen, and maybe the Russians.

Economic security: commodity-dependent economies, economies that trade with any of the above countries (again, INDIA and CHINA). Context of global recession.

The history of the 20th century was basically set into motion by a minor spat between Austria-Hungary and Serbia: the toppling of Europe's great monarchies; both world wars and several small ones; mass migration; the great depression; the rise of Communism and the subsequent Cold War.

I worry that the history of the 21st century is sparked in the nuclear neighborhood of Pakistan, India, and China as the balance of power around Kashmir (bordered by all three;  and unresolved territorial disputes often lead to war) becomes disturbed as Pakistan becomes overburdened and without international support (the U.S. and China being fickle friends). Or, Iran becomes overburdened (restless opposition, separatism, worrying about the collapse of neighbors on the eastern and western frontiers, drugs crisis, international isolation, economic instability) and the shock to oil prices murders an already fragile global economy, which puts more people out there to starve in the streets.

[ Parent ]
I have read your posts, and I still don't see (4.00 / 3)
how our continued presence in Afghanistan will prevent or solve any of these crises. I also don't claim to be an expert on the subject. I do know that I can't justify more and more deaths because of our military presence in sovereign states.

We'll know more tomorrow...

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?

[ Parent ]
Look, I believe in Westphalian principles (0.00 / 0)
pretty strongly. I basically view war as a last resort. I don't generally believe in regime change or humanitarian intervention or anything of the sort.

If you're suggesting my possible scenario is inevitable, I agree, everyone should get out. But then, you're also suggesting that the rest of my life is going to be one of poverty and massive human suffering. So, I'm going to hold out at least for a little while longer with the hope that somebody, somewhere is trying to do something about it--even if that something doesn't work. Right now, that somebody is Obama.

The troop presence in Afghanistan is subsidizing the security of Afghanistan's neighbors. We're giving Iran and Pakistan space to breathe. There's time to work on serious issues, like Kashmir, which is the key to this whole thing. You're probably right that the government lacks the strategic depth to take advantage of these sorts of opportunities provided right now. We need only look at the themes emphasized in relations with Iran to see that this government doesn't take Afghanistan seriously. The Obama administration is incoherent to put pressure on Iran, when they are the most natural partner in the region under the circumstances. Criticizing and doubting Pakistan, while charming their longtime enemy shows lack of interest in being serious about Afghanistan.

And it's sad that this is the case: the U.S. should enjoy close relations with India. It has historic grievances and certain incompatibilities with Iran since the revolution. But these positions do not reflect the seriousness of situation the Bush administration put us into.

I'd like to be told I'm wrong, and everything's going to work itself out and be all right. But I'm not there yet.

[ Parent ]
We Meddle In Others' National Affairs... (4.00 / 2)
...at our own risk.  We cannot solve everyone's problems (we certainly have enough here) and we cannot make over other nations with our culture.  THAT desire on our part is what is much resisted by other countries.  When will we learn that?  
[ Parent ]
Adding- (0.00 / 0)
is the attempted American-driven security of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Turkmen and maybe Russians (if that is what you believe our goal is) justification enough for the continued risk and sacrifice asked of our service members? and the continued risks and sacrifices of the innocent civilians? and the continued, growing, insane cost?

Maybe it is for some people. I personally think it is a failed premise to attempt to provide security through militaristic action.  

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?

[ Parent ]
I'm betting it costs less (0.00 / 0)
than global economic collapse and in the long term, fewer deaths of innocent civilians and service members.

It is NOT American driven, this view belittles our NATO allies. The U.S. has the largest military, and the largest troop commitment. NATO is putting up another 5,000 troops, despite harboring their own doubts about the U.S. commitment.

Without physical security, there is no aid or aid workers. If you can dream up a way to provide physical security without shooting back at the people shooting at you, I'd be welcome hearing it. No one has spelled out how leaving Afghanistan will bring peace and lower risk to the region.

We've done a damned good job of averting another world war so far. This should be the goal of all major powers.

[ Parent ]
Dreams of "Tank Man" (0.00 / 0)

Then reality sets in:


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
We Can't Kill All Our "Enemies..." (0.00 / 0)
...or attack all the countries where bad things are happening.  I remember back in the 1980s when there were some people suggesting that we attack China and help out those fighting the government there.  

If we had the Internet back them I'm sure we would have been blogging about that issue too!

[ Parent ]
Stating the obvious (4.00 / 4)
I'm not sure why you are persistently hyperbolic. Today, there is no such talk or plan to Kill All Our "Enemies..." .

Is Obama not widely criticized by the right for wanting to "talk" to countries like Iran and N.Korea?



www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
President Obama: Please End This "Mission" (0.00 / 0)
Well, we can't kill all our enemies -- but some would like to try.  I'm glad you agree we can't. Since we can't, let's not keep killing "our enemies" or those who we perceive as such in Afghanistan.  Our policy is killing innocent people there, and in Pakistan, making more enemies of America every day.  Why you want to stay there and kill more is beyond me.  That's "persistently hyperbolic." Let's get out.  President Obama should END this "mission," not expand it.
[ Parent ]
Physical Security? (0.00 / 0)
"No one has spelled out how leaving Afghanistan will bring peace and lower risk to the region."  

It is very doubtful that with the hatred America is generating from the bombings and killings of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan that we're bringing peace and lowering risk to the region.  That's quite for sure.  Plus our allies, plus our "enemy," many of whom didn't hate us a few years ago but sure do now.

For goodness sake, we lost 300 American soldiers there in just the past year.

America has enough trouble bringing "physical security" to our own streets in our large cities. We can't police the world, and those nations that have tried re-learn that lesson often.    

[ Parent ]
Where is Marshall Tito when you need him ? (0.00 / 0)
I did love his sun glasses.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.
[ Parent ]
John Nichols (4.00 / 1)
of The Nation weighs in on why this mission accomplishes nothing.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs...
When Your FRIEND Is Committing Political Suicide?? | 207 comments

Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox