home

Trading One War for Another

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
Tags: Afghanistan (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

So you think the new President will end our involvement in foreign wars? I never did, I just thought he'd trade one war for another, Iraq for Afghanistan.

It seems like this will be the case. The AP reports our Marines will be moving from Iraq to Afghanistan:

The top U.S. Marine general says there is a growing consensus among defense leaders to send a substantial contingent of Marines to Afghanistan, probably beginning next spring, while dramatically reducing their deployments to western Iraq.

Get ready for the narco-terror war. When they don't capture terrorists in Afghanistan, they'll bust the drug wholesalers and transporters and say they got terrorists.

No change here, other than one of geography. Whatever happened to "Bring the Troops Home?" Guess that went out of fashion after Vietnam.

< Top Ten FBI Stories of the Week | Monday Afternoon OpenThread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Trading One War for Another | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This is exactly what (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by JThomas on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    Obama said he would support the whole campaign.
    When did he say he would end our involvement in all foreign wars?
    Patreaus has already been pushing for negogiations with former Taliban much like Anbar negogiations with former Sunni insurgents.
    It is hard to know how it will all develope but I do not see our current military leaders nor the future president seeking a long term commitment to maintaining high troop levels.
    I agree that this is complex and fraught with potential complications.

    The Marines have been moving out of Anbar into Afghanistan for over a year now.

    I didn't say he did (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    I was noting my former posts asserting his position was one of  trading one war for another. Lots of people think we should beef up the war in Afghanistan. I don't. And it's one of the reasons Obama's anti-Iraq position during the campaign didn't mean much to me -- it was always accompanied by a "we should be in Afghanistan".

    Parent
    We have (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by JThomas on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    146,000 troops in Iraq right now and about 30,000 in Afghanistan. I am pretty confident that when we wind down Iraq to a few thousand troops, we will not have 175,000 in Afghanistan.

    If we do, then it is trading one big war and a small war for one big war...I agree, not acceptable.

    But if we go from 176,000 in the field to 35,000 in the field...it is not an equal trade of one war for another.
    I prefer having 35k in combat to 176k in combat.
    But of course, I prefer zero americans in combat most of all. But my son has fought in both theatres and is currently in Iraq and his opinion is we have a better mission with more of a successful impact in Afghanistan. Wish they had a crystal ball so they could make the right call.

    Parent

    I'm confident that increased troops (none / 0) (#13)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    in Afghanistan will lead to a debacle worse than Iraq. Confidence is not the answer to questions---information is.

    Parent
    Obama wants to fight 'Charlie Wilson's War' (none / 0) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    all over again; with the USA in the role of the former USSR. (PLEASE see the movie: it's very 'entertaining' and factually informative.)

    Osama bin Laden has expressly said that he envisioned the US collapsing under the stress of an Iraq quagmire in exactly the same way as the USSR did in Afghanistan. I believe he used the expression: "bleed them dry".

    Even bin Laden couldn't imagine that the US would be so idiotic as to dive head-first into the same Afghan quagmire that ruined the USSR.

    Parent

    what happened to bribes? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    I will rent the film this week!

    Is this Zbeignew's influence at work?? he seems obsessed with USSR...

    All the 'learned' thought seemed to be that a great influx of troops to Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake as the mountain passes and landscape make it virtually impossible to nail down those hiding with the tribes of that region...

    I thought we were going the training, and bribery route like so many before us..

    Parent

    You mean that facetiously (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    or are you claiming that Obama has hidden "Charlie Wilson" agenda vis a vis the U.S?

    Parent
    Charlie Wilson is a former TX Congressman (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    Here's my understanding of the back story: the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) came to power during the Afghan Civil war. The USSR went to war in Afghanistan (1978-88) when the PDPA government asked for Soviet help in suppressing resistance from the Afghan Mujahideen.

    The Mujahideen got support from a variety of sources: primarily from the US but also Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations.  

    It was Charlie Wilson who crafted the CIA covert operation, which supplied the Afghan Mujahideen in their fight against the PDPA and the Soviet Union. So, for all intents and purposes it became a proxy war between the US and the USSR, and ended in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    The Washington Post has done a story on this; the following is from Time Magazine:

    Wilson...used his power base in Washington to covertly funnel billions in arms through the CIA to the so-called freedom fighters. For him, the best part came in 1986, when Stinger missiles he supplied arrived to clear Soviet helicopters from the skies. Describing it as a "total high," he says he knew then it was only a matter of time before the Russians would leave. "Who would have thought the 'evil empire' would collapse and, most astonishingly, that it would collapse without a single drop of blood from an American soldier?"
    He also has no remorse over his devotion to the Afghan guerrillas, many of whom later became Islamic warriors and formed the Taliban [and Al Qaeda].

    My point is that the US is now poised to go head to head against a variety of "Islamic warriors" that we armed and trained when they were fighting the Soviet Union 20 years ago. Osama bin Laden envisions that the US will come to the same end as the USSR.

         

    Parent

    It's not a perfect analysis... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    ...if Osama is thinking that will work out the same way.  The Russian Empire collapsed with the little republics breaking away. It took the Soviets twenty years to get those colonies back under Stalin. Maybe the Afghans precipitated the collapse of the soviet union or maybe it was East Germans--or an ill advised coup by a junta. Who knows? Putin is already reconstructing the Russias into a true powerhouse.  Russia has always had it's ups and downs.

    However if the chinese/russians are bright they will test all their military systems against American systems by using the Talibs as a proxy.

    Parent

    Afghan war was key cause of Soviet collapse... (none / 0) (#77)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    The Afghanistan war and the breakdown of the Soviet Union, by RAFAEL REUVENY and ASEEM PRAKASH

    The breakdown of the Soviet Union surprised most scholars of international relations, comparative politics, and Soviet politics. Existing explanations attribute the breakdown of the Soviet Union to the reformist leadership of Gorbachev, and/or to systemic factors.

    These explanations do not focus on the key contribution of the war in Afghanistan. This is surprising since many scholars view wars as key causal factors in empire breakdown and regime change. We argue that the war in Afghanistan was a key factor, though not the only cause, in the breakdown of the Soviet Union.



    Parent
    Funded (none / 0) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:52:30 PM EST
    It was Charlie Wilson who crafted the CIA covert operation

    Charlie Wilson didn't craft the CIA operation,  he procured the money.

    The whole movie (entertaining and worth seeing) is an illustration of how completely disorganized and balled up our foreign relations were during the period.

    Zbig wanted the Soviets tied up there to give them their own Vietnam. But I wonder, if there hadn't been a change in administration would Zbig and co. have allowed the Wilson-Herring-CIA operation to exist.

    Certainly the CIA operation gave us blowback of the worst sort increasing to the instability of an unstable region but maybe even more distressing is the way it came off.

    Parent

    Afghanistan, Soviets, US, Mujahideen... (none / 0) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 05:54:22 AM EST
    Hard to keep the story straight. Zbigniew Brzezinski started meddling in Afghanistan while he was Carter's National Security Adviser. In this 1998 interview he admits that on  July 3, 1979, President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the Mujahideen: the 'holy warriors' who were fighting the Afghan army and the secular, Marxist Government of Afghanistan (namely the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan).

    Brzezinski says the US began this support of the Mujahideen for the express purpose of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan conflict. As anticipated, the Afghan Government subsequently requested assistance from the Soviet Union which entered Afghanistan on December 24, 1979.

    Reagan entered office in 1980; and TX Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson became the architect who procured ongoing, covert Congressional support for funding, arming and training the Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen. The Soviets were bled dry by this decade long proxy war with the US; they were forced to retreat and the USSR collapsed shortly thereafter.

    The triumphant Mujahideen gave rise to the Taliban and the assorted terrorist factions who are now mortal enemies of the US. Evidently, Brzezinsk and Charlie Wilson still think they did the right thing.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil: it's often said that all US escapades in the Midle East are about oil. According to this Time report, in 1977 the CIA produced an erroneous report claiming that the USSR was running out of oil. So, when the Soviets entered Afghanistan, in 1979, there was a belief that they would soon go after control of Middle East oil. This became an additional rationale for ramping up US support for the Mujahideen to crush the USSR.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    I just wonder if the issue would have been pushed to the extent that it reached.  Funding was very low until Wilson became involved (and involved with Joanne Herring). Was the desire to simply make the matter interminable to keep them distracted, that Soviet defeat and withdrawal wasn't the objective?

    I don't know, I'm asking.

    Our foreign policy community never seems to take into account the history of a given region before blundering in.  Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The Russian Empire had close relations with Afghanistan.  The Soviet Union, from Stalin's time, seems no different and no less paranoid than the Czars.  We weren't all worked up when Poland, Lithuania, etc. were provinces of the Russian Empire but our right-wing went ape over Eastern Europe after the War when Communists instead of Czars were involved.

    Wev seem to have a chronic inability to identify what our interests truely are and how how best to serve those interests.

    Parent

    I'm no expert, I've just got a lot of spare time.. (none / 0) (#96)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    You're a great interlocutor (so to speak). If I understand your question correctly, you're asking whether the US wanted to keep Russia tied up in Afghanistan interminably; or whether 'we' wanted to decisively defeat the Soviets, drive them out and crush them.

    Charlie Wilson's statements suggest that he was intent on decisively defeating the "evil empire" in Afghanistan.

    Brzezinski seemed to be going for a 'slow bleed' effect. In this 1998 interview Brzezinski described his objectives thusly:

    Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

    Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    From other sources, it's my impression that Brzezinski and his camp didn't actually foresee that the Afghan quagmire would thoroughly ruin the USSR. I believe they saw a bit of a down-side to it. Meaning, the US military industrial complex needed the Cold War to stay in business; defense spending was cut during the Clinton years.

    *It's ironic that the US sponsored Afghan Mujahideen gave rise to the terrorist factions which prompted the "Global War on Terror'; which  put the military industrial complex back in business - into perpetuity.  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    that's what I wondered and I believe your assessment is correct.

    Interesting; the part about the MI Complex.  At the end of the Cold War Lynn Cheney and others were involved in discussions about who our next enemy could be.  Imagine that, lost without an enemy de jour.

    Parent

    You probably know about the PNAC Report (none / 0) (#98)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 01:02:45 AM EST
    Regarding the Project for a New American Century, this article summarizes the entity and its mission as follows: PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire...

    This is the PNAC website, you can download their reports including the one cited below:

    A White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.

    • Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
    • Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
    • Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
    • Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
    • Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

    For me the most harrowing thing about the PNAC Report was the assertion that America needed some "catalyzing event" like a "new Pearl Harbor" to begin implementation of their plan for world domination. Voila, the 9/11 attacks and the "Global War on Terror". PNAC was in Bush's inner circle the moment he 'assumed' office.

    Note: regarding your comment about "who are next enemy would be" after the Cold War ended; interesting that PNAC formed in 1997, I imagine in preparation for Clinton's departure.

    Parent

    I'm familiar with (none / 0) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM EST
    PNAC.  Wolfowitz, Perle & co.  An arrogant frightening group. Wolfowitz and others in that group were a part of Team B, the mid-seventies group that George HW allowed access to the CIA.

    In some ways they remind me of a group of adolescents sitting around playing a board game.

    Remember they wrote that letter to Clinton urging him to attack Iraq.

    To me it's troubling that these people had and possibly still have influenece in high places and the more alarming part of that IMO is the low quality of the people in "high places" that are too dense to see that the PNAC types are people living in a video game world, crackpots that anyone with any sense would ignore.

    Wolfowitz, with all his impressive academic credentials, said that we'd be welcomed in Iraq.  His reasoning was that our forces were welcomed in France as liberators during the War. Apparently Wolfie missed the class that would have informed him that France was at the time a nation occupied by a foreign power.

    Where do we get these people and still worse where do we get the higher level people who take them seriously?

    Parent

    Just checking in... (none / 0) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 01:02:02 AM EST
    and acknowledging your astute reply. I've got 'nothin new tonight. Feel free to tap back in anytime. Cheers for now.

    Parent
    here's a classic take... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    ...on teh CIA.

    Gosh, say the dewey-eyed liberals, the CIA doesn't like us! They're willing to stab us in the back after we helped them! Oh, sniffle sniffle! Who woulda thunk that an organization that murdured Allende to install Pinochet and helped turn Central America into an abattoir in the 80s would be so callous? I mean, just look at that Valerie Plame! Ain't she a purty lady? Surely a purty lady like that couldn't be deceitful, would she? They wouldn't cynically just be using her for good PR, would they?

    Ah, the CIA, the patriots who directly caused the Iran "problem" of today by overthrowing a Western-educated popular leader (Mossadegh) for not being fanatically anti-Communist enough, to install the Shah, whose brutality led to the revolution that installed Khomeini, and you know the rest. The ones who tortured and murdered at the behest of another photogenic, all-image-no-substance Democrat, JFK, and his successor. (But wait! I thought torture only started under Bush!)

    Yes, we sure do need intelligence. Gosh, if we abolished one of the world's biggest criminal organizations, why, I guess we'd have to make do with one of the who-knows-how-many others we have, such as the NSA. As if the CIA, who famously were taken by surprise by the collapse of the USSR, have ever been about "intelligence" gathering. They're the president's secret little army, the ones who do the things that he doesn't want to brag about in the SOTU address, so that liberal bloggers can persist in their delusions that any major foreign policy decisions come down to a matter of "intelligence" rather than the usual desire of Uncle Sam to throw his weight around.

    And I suspect they have the fould dirty smelly hipplies like BTD and Greenwald in their crosshairs today, after blocking Brennan.

    Parent

    Why can't the Democrats end the wars... (none / 0) (#79)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:17:41 PM EST
    Who said the following and does it make any sense?
    "So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war..."Money talks."


    Parent
    Good Question!! (none / 0) (#85)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 09:48:22 PM EST
    Why can't the Democrats end the wars...

    And the answer is: because Democrats are spineless. And because of this, they are easily goaded into supporting senseless violence because they are more afraid of being called weak by ignorant, psychotic, humanoid violentarian republican/conservatives and their lapdog corporate media then they are of losing their souls mass-murdering innocent people and destroying  countries, the rule of law, and common decency.

    Parent

    Yesterday's NYT stated Kabul (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    must be defended as it is at risk.  Quagmire.

    Maybe......for what it is worth (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    soldiers are ready to go fight this.  Iraq seems to drain their energy just thinking about it and attempting to save some of their spent diginity but Afghanistan is where they should have been five years ago.  I'm not going to be getting any calls at midnight my time with some really tired P.O.d dude wanting to know where the weapons of mass destruction are either.

    Parent
    It is understandable those who (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    risked (and sacrificed) their lives to the honor of the U.S. would like to "win" a war somewhere.  But, experience should tell us Afghanistan is not a good place to try and do so.

    Parent
    It isn't about "win" a war somewhere (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    Training to protect your country and swearing an oath to follow the orders of your CIC no matter what are two different things meant to work in tandem that BuchCo crossed all the wires on.  It still happened though on Sept 11 that America was attacked and innocent people were killed.  People who were in uniform that day will never forget it either because their job is to keep you safe from such things.  Then their CIC made up a bunch bull and sent them to war in another country and it has been nothing but driveling B.S. every single struggling to find your butt day.  It is draining to have to go do a job every day that you must remind yourself why you are doing it.  That promise to follow orders thing.  It is not draining to go do a job every day that is the job you signed up to do and swore an oath to do and trained every single day to do for who knows how long.  That energy to do that job is generated very deep within people in uniform.  Going to Afghanistan is only about finally getting to do the job they all signed up to do and meant to do and sometimes sacrifice their lives to do.  When I think about the type of people this country creates by allowing us to become as fully ourselves as we often care to be, do not count that energy as anything the Taliban theocrats can muster or attempt to even handle.  It sucks to be the volunteer forces in the war made up by a lying fool in the oval office, but we really haven't seen the volunteer forces defending their country yet. I know these people and if I were the Taliban and they were coming for me with a President like Obama running the show I think I would just surrender now.

    Parent
    MT for secretary of defense. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    spokesperson.  Heartfelt. Although I don't think the Taliban are admirable people, I also don't think they are behind the Middle East's attacks on U.S. military or U.S. in general.  

    Parent
    What do think (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    about the reports that Al Qaeda doesn't much like the Taliban, and visa versa.

    So who are we supposed to fight?
    Either way, we are either doing the Taliban's work, or Al Qaeda's work.

    And now we have a war on poppies?

    I would prefer that we get out of there - or if that is politically impossible - stay only under the condition that we are part of a real, viable and idealistic international force. I would like it to be composed of volunteers - like the people who rallied together to fight fascism in Spain. I distrust the motivation of politicians - all of them - who send young people out to kill other people. We have given them too much power over us and our children and they continue to misuse it.

    Otherwise, I would like our troops here.
    If there is another disaster, natural or otherwise, we surely could use help. And our troops could feel proud of what they are being called upon to do.

    Parent

    You and I are on the same page. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:55:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Lessons Learned (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    I'm not going to be getting any calls at midnight my time with some really tired P.O.d dude wanting to know where the weapons of mass destruction are either.

    Yeah, why bother with false Intelligence, bolstered by the MSM, when you can go to war just because, iow, no reason.

    Parent

    I don't think it's an IOU either (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    the extremists in that area are very dangerous and kill lots and lots of people and they killed some of ours too.  I think it says a lot that many nations are still in Afghanistan with us and more will likely join us in greater numbers with Obama at the helm.

    Parent
    Says A Lot (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    About insane expansionist plans, WOD, and keeping a war on to enhance power by US gov over US citizens.

    A lot of Afghanistani people are going to get killed, and we are going to keep the terrorist fires burning.

    Parent

    Facts indicate the terrorist fires (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    burn there with or without our being there.  This has nothing to do with expansionists either.  Please give evidence of such a thing.  It is true that there are very dangerous people in this world and that is why you have a military.  The Real world isn't a fairytale where if you be nice to everyone everyone is nice to you.  I know people are going to die in Afghanistan if we are there, and the extremists will kill many if we aren't there and then they will Jihad on nations in Europe, India, and the United States because that is who they are and what they believe.  This has nothing to do with expansionists.  We are not the Soviet Union in that respect.

    Parent
    Defense Department (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:23:36 PM EST
     It is true that there are very dangerous people in this world and that is why you have a military
    .

    Since when did the name change to Offense Department. We do not need to be the worlds policeman, and I would vote for police work over bombing any day. Besides, if our goals are saving the world from bad guys, I would say Africa needs us more than Afghanistan. Must be that Africa offers us less strategic currency for PNAC aka US world domination.

    Parent

    We weren't attacked by Africa (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    We need to save ourselves from our own bad guys.  They like to hang out in the Mtns between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Sorry, those are the facts.  Other people who have been attacked by them want to help us take care of this business too.

    Parent
    I just don't see how U.S. military (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    can extract the alleged terrorists from this forbidding terrain, especially since the terrorits are purportedly imbedded in the tribes.  Anyhow, didn't the 911 terrorist (before they lived in San Diego, that is) originate in Saudi Arabia?  

    Parent
    You know very well (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    that their base of operations was in Afghanistan.  Just because someone was born in one country does not mean they represent that country.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    Or is it that Saudi Arabia, which funds these groups, is just off limits? Seems to me that the "base" is in Saudi Arabia.

    Parent
    So the military bases in Iraq don't really exist (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    they don't really mean anything significant because they are funded from the U.S.?  We can just leave them there and nobody should give a care if they are there or not because they aren't fully funded from funds in Iraq?  I'm not following your logic on what constitutes a military target and what constitutes actual danger.

    Parent
    In all sincerity, I don't know that. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:54:13 PM EST


    Parent
    We Weren't Attacked (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    By Afghanistan either. Should we start bombing US cities because of the Oklahoma bomber?

    Parent
    We were attacked by (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    a terrorist group that is harbored and nurtured and part of the Taliban.  The Taliban has taken over Afghanistan and rules with an iron fist and intends to continue to nourish and grow Jihad. It isn't going away.  I'm okay with facing it head on.

    Parent
    The Talban (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:50:06 PM EST
    Is the new Al Qaida? Anyone with a turban, or wearing robes, is fair game?

    So much for learning from our mistakes in Iraq.

    Parent

    Oh Please squeaky (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:09:57 PM EST
    You are much too intelligent for this.  Investigate the Taliban and Al Qaeda connections, they are real and you know it.  You are pulling my leg with this argument.  The left must really  make honest factual arguments before we all start looking like as great a bunch of yahoo fools as the right does right now.  There are arguments that can be made as to why we don't need to go to war in Afghanistan and you don't have to fib or play stupid to make those either.

    Parent
    I'm No Expert (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    On Afghanistan, but I have been reading Barnett Rubin, et al, for several years and am certain that bomb, bomb, bomb, teamed up with you are either with us or agin us is a failing strategy.

    The situation in Afghanistan is very complex. We must first win hearts and minds through diplomacy and aid which must include dismantling our rendition/torture program and other BushCo psychotic features.

    We also must get rid of the notion of an axis of evil. Include Iran, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, to develop a feeling amongst the Afghani people that we are concerned about stabilizing Afghanistan for Afghanistan and world peace.

    Here is a loongish text by Rubin and Rashid outlining some ways to stabelize Afghanistan, without bombing the sh*t of them. An excerpt:

    A first step could be the establishment of a contact group on the region authorized by the UN Security Council. This contact group, including the five permanent members and perhaps others (NATO, Saudi Arabia), could promote dialogue between India and Pakistan about their respective interests in Afghanistan and about finding a solution to the Kashmir dispute; seek a long-term political vision for the future of the FATA from the Pakistani government, perhaps one involving integrating the FATA into Pakistan's provinces, as proposed by several Pakistani political parties; move Afghanistan and Pakistan toward discussions on the Durand Line and other frontier issues; involve Moscow in the region's stabilization so that Afghanistan does not become a test of wills between the United States and Russia, as Georgia has become; provide guarantees to Tehran that the U.S.-NATO commitment to Afghanistan is not a threat to Iran; and ensure that China's interests and role are brought to bear in international discussions on Afghanistan.

    Such a dialogue would have to be backed by the pledge of a multiyear international development aid package for regional economic integration, including aid to the most affected regions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, particularly the border regions. (At present, the United States is proposing to provide $750 million in aid to the FATA but without having any political framework to deliver the aid.)

    Foreign Affairs

    You can read more on Afghanistan by Barnett Rubin at Informed Comment Global Affairs.

    Parent

    There's a good argument right there (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    Is fighting the Taliban necessary when this hasn't been tried yet?  That is something I do not know.  It's way above my pay grade and I don't think we are going to be able to get an answer on it before we send more troops into Afghanistan.  Will something along the above lines be undertaken while we are also sending more troops into Afghanistan?  I'm almost certain that it will.  I think the problems in the area that empower the jihadist style of terrorism coming out of the area will be addressed from many different directions at once because I am under the impression that that is the sort of leader our next President is.  P.S......Bombing the sh*t out of them is not the same as sending in more troop and defending NonTaliban entities.  Sadly because of the past president we have all survived our knee jerk reaction to hearing that more troops are going in is that we are going to bomb the sh*t out of them.

    Parent
    Rubin Suggests (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    That sending in loads of troops into a country that has little trust of your intentions is bad business. Look what happened in Iraq.

    The troops have no idea who is taliban and who is not. The area has a complex mix of different people. Once the US troops start indiscriminately bombing and shooting like they did in Iraq, public support for the US goes down the toilet.

    The area between Pakistan and Afghanistan (FATA) is controlled by tribes. It is not all taliban and the taliban is not all terrorist.

    Security and quality of life are issues that Afghani people are interested in improving. At this point none of them trust the Americans because from the American's point of view they all look the same, and they are all the enemy.

    That mentality has made us life long enemies of the Iraqi people. Seems to me that a different approach is in order this time around.

    Parent

    Sorry squeaky (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:22:13 PM EST
    The troops have no idea who is taliban and who is not. The area has a complex mix of different people.

    The first sentence is not fact.  Very far from it.  We have troops in the country now and have since 2002. We have intel that is decent now and we have locals that work with us and for us.....lots of them.  You are making stuff up to support your personal beliefs and desires.

    Parent

    Bad Press (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said it was aware of the incident, which had led to two deaths and six injuries, without being able to confirm if all the victims were civilians.

    But nearby villagers, contacted by AFP by telephone, said the toll was much higher.
    "They bombed two houses, the one where the Taliban were hidden and another one, the house of a farmer, where nine people were killed," Mohammad Islam said.

    A second villager, Abdul Satar, said 10 people, including women and children, were found dead under the debris of the house.
    Foreign forces in Afghanistan regularly kill civilians in firefights or airstrikes on insurgents, provoking anger among the local population and the Afghan authorities.

    AFP

    Before sending more troops, we need to stop the bombing, imo. I don't care how bad the people are that we are trying to take out.  If civilians are getting killed the surviving civilians will hate the US. That is what happened in Iraq.

    We are not liberating anyone, if they hate us, imo.

    Parent

    Afghanistan is not Iraq (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 09:34:56 AM EST
    We have allies who live there that want us there as well.

    Parent
    Looks Like We Will Not Agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    In any case I think Rubin is a great source of information regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    And Iraq obviously is not Afghanistan but we seem to be making the same mistakes, imo.  Whatever allies we have in the local populace will diminish in direct proportion to the amount of troops we send in and amount of bombing campaigns we undertake.

    Parent

    We do agree on a few things (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    One of them being voices such as Rubin's talking a talk that must be heard and acted on when we can.  The second thing I agree with you on right off the top of my head is that we may be making the same mistakes.  I don't think there is any way around us not making some military moves in Afghanistan but it may end up looking like all the same mistakes.  I do know that when abused we must address it in a head on fashion.  We will go and do that and we will employ many more efforts and resources than bombing the F out of them.  I hope things turn out well, prepared for them not to.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    I usually do agree with you, but you have some other stuff to worry about, loved ones, which must give you more hope than I have regarding our Afghanistan incursion.

    I was very unhappy during the primary that both our frontrunner candidates basically said that they would take the war to Afghanistan were they elected.

    I remember the early days after 9/11, hearing about the vengeance that was wreaked in Afghanistan. Stories of rounding up people and putting them in a container in the sun for the day and then machine gunning the container at night or a day later.

    There are bad people in the world but we are seen as really bad at this point. It would seem prudent to pull back and clear the decks, so to speak before continuing the BushCo legacy.

    I do believe that we have or had a great opportunity to drop the stupid WOT. I can not see how this kind of war can be anything but endless.

    Parent

    My grandad fought their grandads. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    And my great-grandad fought their great-granddads.

    My great grandson will probably end up fighting them too.

    Parent

    Oh But Nay, Nay (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    Ending illegal, unnecessary foreign wars is why we have preznit Obama who from his risk-free perch assured us he had the wisdom and fortitude to have resisted supporting the authorization to use force in Iraq. You say now he want to surge Afghanistan and maybe even attack Pakistan...who would have thunk it possible - certainly not the left blogosphere wingnuts shrieking down at everyone how this would never happen under an Obama regime.

    I'm with Military Tracy on this one. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:17:11 PM EST


    We've known (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by AlkalineDave on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    that we are going to Afghanistan for awhile.  We tried to take over Afghanistan a while back and give control of Iraq to the Army.  The idea of those in charge was once Iraq was deemed in control, we would move focus to Afghanistan.  General Conway has been pushing for more Marine focus in Afghanistan.  This has been reported on for months.

    The left needs to shut their mouths! (3.25 / 4) (#5)
    by Maise7 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    What is wrong with people? The right is not happy and now the left isn't happy? Get over it! If anyone expected him to pull out troops in Afghanistan, then they're idiots.

    Stop the fighting and get to work! Why can't we have both parties working TOGETHER to get our country back on track?? Bush didn't want to do it and look what happened.

    I'm so sick of the whining by both sides. Gah!!

    I guess that supports his choice of SoS. (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST


    Sure, blame it on Hillary, who (none / 0) (#93)
    by andrys on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    voted for war ONLY IF Iraq did not admit UN inspectors.  They did.  BUSH went to war anyway.

      From her speech for that vote (again) speech before the 2002 AUMF Iraq Resolution vote:

    "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

      Obama was CLEAR that he was 'moving' the war.  He detailed this several times, including at rallies and in debates.

      Unfortunately, the world is a mess, even not counting what we ourselves (as a nation) do.  Insurgents and plain old/new terrorists will be aiming for destructive action anywhere they can do it.  The groups in Pakistan are apparently hard for that government to control.  I don't know what solutions  the US can find, but I imagine Obama will use more sense in this war than Bush did with Iraq.  I certainly hope so.

      The other problem is that Samantha Power was let go more because she said, in a televised interview, in the UK, that Obama's promise to withdraw in a certain timeframe was actually the "best case scenario" and spoke to what she said were the 'realities' of getting out without chaos as a result.  

      There are no angels here or easy solutions but, yes, the war aims can be distorted.

     

    Parent

    I guess we can't bring home the troops... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    because when they get home they're are too few jobs for them to fill.

    Team "D" will just spin foreign occupations as some kind of jobs program, where as Team "R" spins it as an epic battle for our surivival.  

    Botton line, they're both totally full of it.

    I'm unclear about how we achieve a (none / 0) (#6)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    strategic goal in Afghanistan. Does Obama expect the Pakistani government to help crack down on the Taliban? If so, great---but won't the US presence more likely make the internal Pakistani conflict come to a head? The people in that government who back terrorism against India and the US need to be removed, sure.. but how can we do it without creating a huge disaster?

    I don't know what the Afghan mission is either (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    All I know is soldiers work by the mission.  I don't personally know anyone in my immediate area upset about this other than my son and my own misgivings, I'm still waiting to hear what our mission is in Afghanistan though so we can know what it is we are doing there and what we are attempting to accomplish.

    Parent
    The Afghan mission? Oil, no? Same as Iraq. (none / 0) (#12)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:02:59 PM EST


    Parent
    You really think so? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    I don't think so at all and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

    Parent
    I'm extrapolating from Iraq mission + Iran (none / 0) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    Alan Greenspan and Kissinger have pointedly stated that the US mission in the Middle East is always all about oil (more or less). I can't suspend my disbelief and imagine that an Afghan mission would be driven by a more noble motive.

    See: Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran. Here's part of what what Greenspan said:

    "Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

    His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point," he told the Guardian.

    Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.



    Parent
    Greenspan and Kissinger (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    one who dosnt care how much the economy is f*cked as long as Ayn Rand is eventually proved right; and the other who never saw a delicate geopolitical situation that wasnt an oppurtunity for personal gain and self-aggrandizement.

    Probobly neither sees anything wrong with the idea of the "useful lie" per say; they just dont understand what all the fuss was about when the lie became apparent.

    Parent

    That's a legitimate objective. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    Access to oil is a life and death issue.
    My objection is that I don't see why invading Iraq was necessary, or that it helped, to maintain access to ME oil.

    Parent
    A life or death issue (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    just not worth troubling anyone in the U.S about conservation and wise use about (treehugger talk!)

    Better to just waste a few thousand peeople whenever we need it.

    Parent

    Sure, we have a terrible energy policy. (none / 0) (#48)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST


    Parent
    It wasn't. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    It actually made things worse in terms of instability, which is always the biggest threat in that region.  

    What's the longest period of time that region has gone without a war?  I'm including everyone from Iran, Iraq to Israel.  One year?  Two? Three? Five?

    Parent

    How did invading Iraq ensure access to ME oil? (none / 0) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    Before the invasion, Saddam Hussein controlled access to Iraq's oil; now a US puppet government controls the oil.

    And, in no small measure, the bases the US is now building in Iraq will help maintain future access to oil across the Midle East.

    Parent

    It meant that Shell and BP (none / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:22:11 PM EST
    control the oil and not mobil or citgo.

    Parent
    Basic "Risk, World Conquest" Strategy (none / 0) (#32)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    Afghanistan is the other side of Iran as Iraq is. US troop buildup in Afghanistan allows for a 2-front attack on Iran and will head-off any Pakistani interference.

    Parent
    Another analysis (none / 0) (#69)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    Afghanistan has all the Opium.  Iraq has all the Oil. We would like to control both commodities for fun and profits.

    Parent
    "control"? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    Afghanistan?  Iraq?

    Dream on!

    Parent

    I think I know what the mission (none / 0) (#75)
    by BrianJ on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 06:26:44 PM EST
    In Afghanistan is... namely, doomed.

    A crumbling Pakistani state combined with loss of control of the provinces outlying Kabul means that NATO forces are now, for all intents and purposes, besieged.  There's no way to continue to support Karzai's government if they can't even support themselves.

    I think Obama's as likely to send troops from Afghanistan to Iraq as the reverse;  there's nothing they can do in Afghanistan, but they can be useful in wiping out the last of the violent resistance in Iraq so that a peaceful (if not democratic) American client state remains.

    Parent

    It's war forever... (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    Afghanistan won't be enuff either, we'll have to dig deeper into Pakistan.

    Quite interesting info. I read the article (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    earlier and was surprised U.S. was trekking its munitions through Pakistan.  Should have known though.

    Parent
    And it means trouble... (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    "About 80 percent of supplies for the war in Afghanistan move from Karachi east through Pakistan and on to Afghanistan."

    Parent
    Lightly guarded against theft, (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    not terrorist attacks.

    Parent
    That is one hell of a highway of death (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    It directly reminds me of Elphy Bey's retreat from Kabul.  This long slender route to run away through.

    Americans no doubt recall the battle of Lexington and the running battle that continued back along the road into Boston.

    Parent

    Mmmn Good (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    KABUL, Afghanistan: This ancient land is telling the world that it has a trendy, new replacement for its dreaded poppy crop: sweet, juicy pomegranates.

    The country will stamp a logo on all boxes of the pomegranate for export: a drawing of the sliced, red fruit with seeds spilling out and a label that announces, "Anar, Afghan Pomegranate." Anar is the word for pomegranate in various regional languages.

    [snip]

    It's the latest step in a $12 million, U.S.-funded initiative to modernize and expand Afghanistan's pomegranate industry, which has long depended on domestic sales and small-scale exports to nearby countries. Even these exports have been severely hit by years of border fighting.

    IHT

    Diplomacy, trade and $$$ is how to win hearts and minds, not bombs.

    I'm sceptical the wholesale (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:38:03 PM EST
    price of pom.will come anywhere close to that for poppies though.

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    But the article says pom earns growers 2000/acre and opium 1350.

    Parent
    Pomegranites are the new hot (none / 0) (#78)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:08:09 PM EST
    antioxidant item.  Odwalla charges $3.79 for a pint and the kids are drinking it like crazy.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    UN and Afghan government figures show that a typical poppy farmer can expect to make around US$800 per hectare. At a conservative estimate, Brett says he has worked out that pomegranates could produce US$2,000 per hectare.

    POM354 aims to help raise the money to subsidize the farmers while they wait for their first pomegranate harvest. Using the original farm in Markoh as a template, it will cost ￡24,000 (US$46,000) to subsidize the 16 families who live on the farm for the three years it will take for the trees to mature.

    Link

    Interesting story about how one man could change hearts and minds.

    "Pomegrantes are the answer to all this," said James Brett, as we drove past the colorless, mud-brick villages and makeshift graveyards that litter the parched landscape of Nangarhar Province. We were on our way to Markoh, a small village 40 minutes' drive inside the Afghan border with Pakistan.

    Brett first visited Markoh in April last year. On his way to a seminar in Kabul, he had asked the driver to stop the car so that he could speak to a reed-thin figure extracting opium from the poppies.

    "My translator told me not to do it. He said `you'll get shot,' but I just felt like the first step had to be made that day," Brett said.

    That "first step" was walking into the field to try to persuade the farmer to stop growing poppies and start growing pomegranates instead.

    After the initial shock of seeing the large red-headed man striding through the field, the farmer agreed to stop cultivating poppies if Brett guaranteed to subsidize both him and his family until the pomegranate trees were grown and ready to harvest -- a period of three to five years.




    Parent
    Please update as those three (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    years go by.

    Parent
    The real money is in pom juice. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    But that requires processing facilities.

    Harvesting a fruit that needs to be shipped fresh is difficult enough.  

    Parent

    Easier To Process (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    Than Opium/heroin. And Pomegranates are very hardy.

    Parent
    Poppies are annuals. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    Advantage to poppies.

    Plus, despite the processing needs of opium poppies, the product itself is very stable, requiring neither refrigeration or pasteurization.  You can grow, harvest and process opium without electricity.  It's labor intensive, but so is coffee.  

    Plus the price per kilogram is probably a lot better and then, there are always the local warlords/businessmen who want the biggest profit.

    It's a serious uphill battle.  It's worth trying but nothing will ever be a miracle cure.

    Parent

    I think pom's grow on trees, like oranges. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    But I agree completely with your last sentence.

    Parent
    Actually, I agree with your last sentence (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:25:33 PM EST
    for almost every subject ever discussed here on TL...

    Parent
    The left is getting angry with Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by Saul on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    They are not happy with the appointments and reversals of campaign rhetoric .  The majority of appointments are past Clintons compadres to include a Clinton.

    Says so right here

    Clinton is not a problem... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    ...Obama's heretofore unexamined Centrism (the lies he told us about himself [omission/commission/wholecloth] are now coming home to roost among his pathetic deluded internet base.

    Parent
    It is saddening and maddening (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    that the left is impatient with Obama for behaving just as his past behavior, votes and statements would have led us to believe he would.

    We expect a guy to bring us home from Iraq who actually opposed Lamont's primary challenge to Joe Lieberman?

    We expect action on civil liberties from someone who voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act and who opposes the right of gay people to marry? Not to mention that in his feverish attempts to court evangelicals he said that he is "doing God's work".

    He has continuous used threatening language regarding Iran.
    He has used threatening language regarding Russia - even supporting Bush's installation of that idiotic missile defense system in Poland.

    He has spoken contemptuously of Pakistan's right to decide if the U.S. should be allowed to invade or bomb "suspected" (love that disclaimer) terrorists within its' sovereign territory.

    He threw Rev. Wright into the toilette for suggesting that America's imperialist foreign policy had created dangerous enemies for us. Gravel said much the same thing.

    He spoke contemptuously of the protesters of the war in Vietnam who were relentless in their quest to seek redress from a government embarked on a reckless and pointless war that killed millions. Not a peep from Obama about the government at that time that laid the blueprint for the trampling on civil liberties and the constitution in pursuit of a mean-spirited and stupid war of aggression.

    So now the left is not happy.
    Ai Yi Yi.

    Parent

    What reversal of campaign rhetoric? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:26:14 PM EST
    Wasn't anybody but me listening?  Did everybody have selective hearing?

    Parent
    What's new? (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    Obama has been beating the drum for war in Afghanistan for years. It's one of the reasons I did not vote for him.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#83)
    by nogo postal on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    jerilyn...

    Would you be opposed you to U.S. troops as part of a coalition to the Sudan?
    Is it your position that U.S. troops...as part of a coalition..should have no role anywhere in the next four years?
    Is there any situation that requires our troop involvement?
    Don't get me wrong...my opposition to our illegal actions in Iraq led me to force local govts to arrest me 5 times 2003-2007. I chose jail over community service twice. Not all military involvement is illegal nor unnecessary.

    Arrogance (none / 0) (#84)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:40:19 PM EST
    We went into Afghanistan. We ran the Taliban out and got the people's hopes up. Then we turned our back on them to go fight the "Grand War" in Iraq. Why should the Afghan's trust us?

    Until the people in the region decide that this isn't the way they want to live their lives, we can't impose our will.

    As nasty as the Soviet military was, they couldn't win. What makes us think we'll fair any better than any of the other invaders over the last 2000 years or so?

    I agree get out now (none / 0) (#90)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:28:27 AM EST
    We had every right to hold the Afghan Government responsible for their failure to police the murders (AL Queda) living in within their borders.  If they won't police their country and we in turn are harmed as we were, we shoud act to protect and defend ourselves and holding the Afghan government responsible is appropriate.  I see it as a form of the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.

    Where I think we went wrong is turning the hunt for Bin Laden et al into a cause for regime change and an opportunity to install a puppet government to expand, "Strengthen" the empire.  Frankly, I don't care if the Taliban runs Afghanistan so long as they do not harbor mass murderers who kill Americans or any folks.

    I don't understand the (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:25:26 AM EST
    "we should learn from the USSR's experience in Afghanistan - no one can beat 'em" line of reasoning.

    I'm glad the Giants didn't buy into that at last year's Superbowl...

    Bring the troops home (none / 0) (#105)
    by billo on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 11:39:05 PM EST
    Whatever happened to "Bring the Troops Home?" Guess that went out of fashion after Vietnam.

    Considering all the bloodshed that ensued, are you surprised?

    Trading One War for Another | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment