home

Frontline's Afghanistan Report

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:05:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I just watched it. First rate. It has spurred many thoughts. I'll try to detail them tomorrow. More than ever, I think comprehensive engagement in Afghanistan is imperative to U.S. national interest. In addition, the reporting on Pakistan's corrosive role in the region is outstanding. The interviews with Afghanistan's intelligence minister were most revealing and impressive. PBS correspondent Martin Smith did a great great job.

If you missed it, you can watch it here.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Late Tuesday Night Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Frontline's Afghanistan Report | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If that engagement... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:29:17 PM EST
    ...is military with ANY resemblence to what we have been doing, there isn't an ounce of logic or historical awareness that supports the idea that it is in our national interest. Graveyard of empires. But, of course, just as Obama is somehow so "different", despite, in practice, not being so different at all, we are going to be different than every empire that has tried and failed. And make no mistake, we are an empire gleefully destroying itself day after day. With any kind of significant military footprint there, ALL humanitarian good will pale. Because our military will not keep those numbers, or increased numbers there, to sit on their hands. They will kill, and in an insurgent war, they will kill innocents in high numbers, no matter how hard they try not to or swear they won't. It will be inevitable.

    you and i will never agree on this, tent. our military empire must come to an end, or we will. end of story.

    our intentions there are not good. we want to control and influence a region where that control and influence is neither wanted nor will be tolerated. no amount of wishful thinking or moral certainty will change that fact. we have murdered so many in that region, we have made such unforgivable mistakes, and, worse, we do not possess, on any level, the imagination and humility to truly change.

    We'll argue about this tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    Let me present my 10 page paper explaining my argument.

    Seriously, I have a 3,00 word post in the works on this.

    Parent

    I really appreciate (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    how you do not fall back upon the usual "serious liberal" tropes.

    A real discussion on Afghanistan has been absent since the Democratic primary days.  It is probably too late, but we should work it out anyway.

    Parent

    I agree with Dadler, but (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    I'm also interested in reading your thoughts on this.

    Parent
    I dunno BTD (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:32:52 PM EST
    How colonial are we prepared to be? Because I think that's the only way this can work. If I were given this assignment and carried it out successfully, I'd expected to be dragged to the Hague.

    If it were only us I could perhaps consider (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:12:48 PM EST
    our efforts colonial, but Afghanistan is under NATO charter.  And the reason why we don't have more NATO troops committed today is because in dealing with the morally bankrupt Bush administration the NATO countries began to back their support off.  Who wouldn't?  America's leaders lied and then invaded Iraq and put all of its resources there.  Why would NATO become intangled in such insanity?  We are missing so much of what would be there if we had had a leadership of decent people eight years ago.  The safety and stability of Afghanistan isn't just about us though.  At the end of the day we are probably last on the list who need to be concerned about the safety and stability of Afghanistan but the globe has gotten small these days and no man is an island.

    Parent
    Pakistan has nukes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    Did you watch the show? Watch it.

    Watch particularly the comment from the Afghanistan intelligence minister.

    Parent

    The US has used nuclear weapons (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Andreas on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    .

    Parent
    I'll put it on the list (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    But here's what my driving question for you will be: what makes us more likely to succeed than the British or the Soviets? In other words, why is our likelihood of success any better in Afghanistan than Iraq?

    Parent
    Success definition is key (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    Wait for my 3000 word dissertation on it.

    Parent
    Ok, I look forward to it (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:43:49 PM EST
    as a form of (comparatively) light reading.

    Parent
    I would be all for it if (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    I thought there was the remotest chance in h*** there was any way for anybody to establish control over a country that large and that primitive with that impossible geography and with those shifting tribal loyalties.

    I can't figure out how that's possible short of putting a literal million troops in there, so I do look forward to your essay on the subject to at least give me some doubt that it doesn't make more sense to just bug out of an impossible situation.

    Parent

    from NPR (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 04:54:10 AM EST
    al Quaeda is hurting because international efforts have seriously damaged their cash flow.

    And the Taliban?  No such luck.  

    Pakistan is at least partly to blame.  Even if we managed to uproot the Taliban in Afghanistan, unless Pakistan does the same, they'll come right back again.

    Parent

    Sadly this is true (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    and we daily reach across to Pakistan to work toward both countries dealing with the Taliban.  Pakistan has suffered much terrorism too due to the Taliban, but they seem to accept it as a way of life almost because the Taliban aid them in their "fight" with India, though this dynamic has begun to wind down.  I often wonder if the Taliban hatred and spite for everyone not like them fed those hostilities too.

    Parent
    More proof of what coddling (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    as part of your coalition, hyper-nationalistic fundamentalists will get you.

    And lest we forget, India has alot of them too. Even if they are too good a "trading partner" for anyone else to ever mention it.

    Parent

    As does India: (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    India has used nuclear (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    weapons?  When was that?

    Parent
    India has nuclear weapons and has (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:46:16 PM EST
    tested same.  I did not state India has "used" nuclear weapons.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    Thought you were replying to the post that said the U.S. had used them.

    Parent
    If they could gather (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    all the Dalits into one place, they'ed probobly use them.

    Chalk up another one for religious nuts.

    Parent

    If it were only us I could perhaps consider (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:12:48 PM EST
    our efforts colonial, but Afghanistan is under NATO charter.  And the reason why we don't have more NATO troops committed today is because in dealing with the morally bankrupt Bush administration the NATO countries began to back their support off.  Who wouldn't?  America's leaders lied and then invaded Iraq and put all of its resources there.  Why would NATO become intangled in such insanity?  We are missing so much of what would be there if we had had a leadership of decent people eight years ago.  The safety and stability of Afghanistan isn't just about us though.  At the end of the day we are probably last on the list who need to be concerned about the safety and stability of Afghanistan but the globe has gotten small these days and no man is an island.

    Parent
    NATO Back off? I Don't Think So (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by libertarian soldier on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 07:20:40 AM EST
    It is easy to hate on Bush.  But NATO increased its contributions to AFG during his time.  As did the EU with its police mission.  The only NATO pullouts I am aware of are the Dutch (scheduled for 2010) and the Canadians (scheduled for 2011).  The British have increased their forces and promised another 500, the French, Spanish the Kiwis, the Aussies have also provided more/new troops from when ISAF was created by NATO to exercise the UN mandate to increase security.  And my two cents is that regardless of how many troops we did have, do have, will have on the ground, it is all about the AFG govenment, and it is hopeless.  And the UN, the nations agreeing to improve aspects of governence--IT with judiciary, GE with police, UK with Counternarcotics, all the countries providing PRTs and then focusing their resources on "their" region regardless of what the national priorities were--all joined with the US in creating what is there now.
    And this spiffy new team under Obama is creating TWO NEW headquarters so there are lots of GO positions to pass around.
    And I am sitting here in Kabul watching it happen.

    Parent
    Then why is NATO beginning (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    to readjust their troop numbers and strength? Why did the French come back and bring attack helicopters with them?

    Parent
    And I watched it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:30:34 PM EST
    I don't have a whole lot to say tonight.  We lost years in Iraq with the Bush team Fruitcake.  We have years yet to invest in Afghanistan.  If they do this well I can commit my personal energies to the mission.  If they want to halfa$$ it I will settle for spouse teaching the people who will have to go halfa$$ this thing.  We either stay hard or we leave, and it doesn't look like anyone is leaving.  The easy thing to do would be to make this someone else's problem, and that would be anyone who borders Afghanistan first.....and all the terrorism that the Taliban would feed and spread into Europe.  And then you just bump into your duties to NATO.  It has been a long eight years though.  I'd really like to get onto the meat and potatoes. On the way home I was listening to a classic rock station in Dothan and a song came on from my childhood that meant nothing to me as a kid but I liked the beat. Tonight it made me think of my husband, then it made me laugh.  My husband works the nightshift in Afghanistan.  And he would because that is harder, and that is who he is.  You can't be better or the best if you aren't challenged :)  But the end is a long ways off right now and we started someplace that had nothing to do with the rice in China or its price. This song tonight is for my husband....and you had better call me tomorrow if you can.

    If they do what well? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:25:23 AM EST
    I honestly do not understand what we are doing now.  We wanted to hit Al Quiada and keep Afghanistan from being used as a safe harbor  for terrorists poltting to murder US citizens.  I think we've done that, reports are less than 100 Al Quiada reside now in Afghanistan.  

    As for the future, cut a deal with all Afghan parties, including the Taliban, that would insure the country is not allowed to be used as a terrorist haven, or we will be back in force.  

    And then get out.

    Parent

    What causes you to believe that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    we have hit "Al Qaeda" and Afghanistan isn't being used as a safe harbor for terrorists plotting to murder US citizens (what is the definition of "hit")?  You have evidence that those two goals have been met and  we can just leave now?

    Parent
    As Cornel West has only days ago said (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    and is one of the most truthful things said lately by a peace loving person, "Al Qaeda is just a name and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are inexplicably interwoven together".  Doing this "well" for me is that we have enough troops on the ground to affect the power dynamic of the region.  I will not resolve to "hitting" Al Qaeda as a solution because that involves keeping our footprint small and bombing from drones.  This is what gets me about some of the peaceful that argue that this is our solution....when John McCain sings a song about bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran - that is evil, but when you don't dance and sing and call it "hitting" someone that is a peace producing solution and is a good thing.  So the dancing and singing and giggling are the thing that makes the act of bombing your problems away disgusting?

    Parent
    I don't understand your reply (none / 0) (#43)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    we went into Afghanistan to get Al Quaida, we did that.  Now it is said by experts Al Quaida numbers less than 100 in a country of how many millions?  Apparently the word "hit" strikes a nerve, perhaps I should more accurately say "bomb," shoot, kill etc. realizing that these verbs apply to innocent civilians as well as "known" members of AQ.

    Why would Taliban again harbor these guys given all the problems that have ensued for the Taliban?  Cornel West notwithstanding, Al Quaida and the Taliban are two groups, one terrorist the other a deplorable Afghan political group who the Afghan people are nevertheless entitled to have run their country if that is their choice (regardless of whether ballots or bullets are the preferred choice of Afghans).  The British used to say the IRA and Sinn Fein were inextricably interwoven yet peace came only when the Britsh began to talk to Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein renounced the IRA.  

    Having troops on the ground anywhere to affect the power dynamics of any region except the USA is of little concern to me.  Empire is not my objective nor a cause I would risk my life to further.  In fact, empire is the most direct threat to our representative, Constitutional democracy I can think of.

    Parent

    How do you protect the interests (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    of the banks and multi-nationals -- often couched as "our" vital interests -- without imperialism overseas.

    Remember, they're too big to fail.

    Parent

    less than 100 in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#46)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLjgdXU8KLh71Hf-NLRD3a5NzT8gD9B5T9J00

    Parent
    Lyrics for the pop-culture impaired: (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:06:14 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    MT, what part (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:52:02 PM EST
    of Afghanistan is your husband in?

    Parent
    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    He is working with the covert folks.

    Parent
    WSWS: Washington faces deepening debacle (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Andreas on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:14:35 PM EST
    No less than Bush and the Republicans, the Obama administration represents--in both its foreign and domestic policy--the interests of the corporate and financial oligarchy that rules America. Wars abroad go hand in hand with mounting social inequality and an assault on the living standards and social and democratic rights of working people in the US itself.

    The discussion now going on in the White House--and behind the backs of the American people--about how best to advance US imperialism's interests in Central Asia poses immense dangers. An escalation of the war, either with more ground troops or intensified air attacks, threatens to destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan and all of South and Central Asia. China, a rising power, and Russia, with longstanding interests in the region, will not remain on the sidelines indefinitely while Washington attempts to exert its dominance by armed force.

    The war begun eight years ago and the threat of its escalation into a far bloodier conflagration can be ended only by the intervention of the working class in the US and internationally, fighting against the capitalist profit system which is the source of militarism.

    In this struggle, the demands must be raised for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, a halt to the US attacks on Pakistan, and the dismantling of the US military and intelligence apparatus so as to provide billions of dollars for reparations to the victims of US aggression and to secure jobs and improve living standards for working people in the US and internationally.

    Eight years after invasion
    Washington faces deepening debacle in Afghanistan
    7 October 2009

    Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by phat on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 02:45:14 AM EST
    the one part of this story that struck me was something that I don't think would strike that many people as important. But I'll attempt to spell it out.

    Holbrooke doing his speech in front of a crowd in Kabul (at least it was implied that it was Kabul) seemed to me beyond useless.

    Can't these people find new tools and tactics to get things done? Rallies aren't and haven't been especially valuable in achieving any political goal. Successful rallies are emblematic of other successes. Standing in front of a crowd of a few hundred people with a couple of flags waving in the breeze is evidence of an inability to find some sort of new tactic or a tacit acceptance of a failed tactic to actually win hearts and minds.

    I fully expected to see some young intern standing just off stage with his Blackberry, earnestly responding to some e-mail from an advance man about the next visibility a few miles down the road or in the next town.

    That's not diplomacy. It's "earned media".

    I would hope more is actually going on behind the scenes. I really hope there is...

    WSWS on Richard Holbrooke (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Andreas on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 03:14:02 AM EST
    In January 2009 the WSWS wrote about the selection of Richard Holbrooke by Barack Obama:

    The selection of Holbrooke is even more ominous, since he has long served as one of the most ruthless representatives of American imperialism, going all the way back to his early days in the Foreign Service in Vietnam. He came to public notice as the leader of the US diplomatic team at the 1995 talks on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, held in Dayton, Ohio, that concluded with a US-imposed settlement in the civil war in Bosnia.

    In his encouragement of ethnic cleansing by the Croatian regime of Franjo Tudjman, which drove a quarter million Serbs out of the Krajina region of southern Croatia in a 1995 offensive, Holbrooke could deservedly face war crimes charges. He later boasted, in his memoir of the Dayton talks: "Tudjman wanted clarification of the American position. He bluntly asked for my personal views. I indicated my general support for the offensive ... I told Tudjman the offensive had great value to the negotiations. It would be much easier to retain at the table what had been won on the battlefield than to get the Serbs to give up territory they had controlled for several years."

    Holbrooke was fully aware at the time of the Dayton talks that the Croatian Army was carrying out atrocities against the Serbs, and was later quoted saying, "We `hired' these guys to be our junkyard dogs because we were desperate. We need to try to `control' them. But this is no time to get squeamish about things." He will now seek to find new "junkyard dogs" to do the dirty work of American imperialism in south and central Asia.

    Obama's new foreign policy team prepares escalated bloodletting in Afghanistan and Pakistan
    By Patrick Martin, 24 January 2009

    Parent

    Objectives? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 05:10:02 AM EST
    There are three points that I would want to see addressed before I would be willing to escalate the war in Afghanistan:

    One is the corruption and legitimacy of Karzai. If the people see him as a corrupt puppet of the U.S.,how do we win the battle for hearts and minds?

    The second issue is the Afghan people. I don't believe we can "bring" freedom to the people. People have to want it and be willing to fight for it. After decades of war, do we even know what the Afghan people want?

    The third issue is that we need to maintain this as an international mission.  NATO, the UN and all other avenues need to be kept fully engaged. It can't be percieved as a U.S. offensive.

    Perception (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 08:17:30 AM EST
    No matter how we might wish to control perception of this war - it is a U.S. offensive.

    The Afghans know it.
    We know it.

    Parent

    More war. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    Seeing these young kids shooting and being shot at is heart-wrenching.

    I couldn't get too far into the video.

    The guy addressing the soldiers - saying that they should remember that it's not so important how much time they've got, but what they do with it - made me sick at heart. He's telling them that this could be the sum total of their lives on earth.

    "Comprehensive engagement" means what?

    If this is so important - as BTD and Obama say it is - why can't the commander in chief spell it out to us? What are we fighting for? How do we know when we have "won"? What do we do after we have "won"? Is it too much to ask the President who is sending these kids there to tell us why he is doing so? What is this man with overrated communication skills waiting for?

    I can hardly bear it.

    Would you give your life for whatever it is we are (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    attempting to accomplish at this point in Afghanistan?  If your child or spouse came home in a coffin or maimed from Afghanaistan, would you think the objective, whatever it now is, justified your loved one's sacrifice?

    For me the answer is a resounding no to both questions and therefore I cannot support the continued presence of any American fighting men or women in Afghanistan.

    I think this is an oversimplification (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    Everybody in America isn't willing to make the same sacrifices for ANYTHING.  That's why this is America.  Our all volunteer forces are willing to die for this.  They've had eight years to think about this and if they are in uniform they know they'll see combat.  They have decided.

    Parent
    That previous question has haunted me (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    but I think you are right.  And the one thing I know, is that those I know who have made the choice to don that uniform overwhelmingly think this is a good thing.  None of them are family, but I don't give them up easily either.

    I can't imagine sending family there, but I don't have too.  And I am extremely gratefull to those who make it so I don't have to.  It feels a bit hypocritical, but it's what we've got.

    Parent

    We had some very bad fights (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    under Bush.  I wanted OUT right after there were no WMDs and Bush kept changing the mission.  My husband argued that with all the senior leadership literally running away now the young soldiers were left alone with some scary ideas being handed to them and no experience to use in dealing with any of it.  So I sucked it up because I knew he spoke the truth.  He asks questions.  Go ahead and fire him.  He's old anyhow and has a pension coming.  Some 20 year old kid dying to impress superiors though isn't going to ask questions.  As far as dying in Afghanistan, we have discussed it and I can do it.  It will be hard if it happens but I know why we are there and I knew what my husband's job that he chose for himself was thirteen years ago, and I still picked him.  He's probably one of the least likely to die in Afghanistan though.  I feel a little guilty about that sometimes, that I can rest a little easier and worry half as much as some do.

    Parent
    Although I remember (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    reading plenty of stories, at the height of the war, of military recruiters telling kids "don't worry, we can make sure you won't go to Iraq."  Sometimes I think the recruiting scene from Stripes wasn't far from the truth.

    Parent
    You think that kids don't understand right (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    now that if you join you will fight?

    Parent
    And on the other hand Steve (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    if you don't want to deploy they just tell you to leave now.  They say it and they mean it and that is an option now under this administration because I've seen it go down once. You don't get honorably discharged but why should you?  There are no charges though now....just leave...go your own way, the military wasn't for you.

    Parent
    of course they do (none / 0) (#45)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    and fortunately for them they are not compelled to join.  Others are not so fortunate.  Still others want to fight in Afghanistan for reasons that I initially understood in 2002-2003 but for reasons that today are increasingly unclear.

    Parent
    I can't remember specifically which poster (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    on here awhile back called for Obama's leveling with America on all this.  It's going to be a huge problem for him with his base until he does.  We do know that he has a history already of ignoring things that could come with a lot of popularity fallout and when such things loom large on the horizon he seems to want to bury himself in the voices of the establishment over anything that you or I have to say.  Are we secretly "surging" as a tactic?  Once it's done, will he level then?

    Parent
    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    that the vast majority of enlistees have their eyes wide open.  Still, the recruiters wouldn't bother telling these fibs unless they felt at least someone might be tricked.

    Parent
    Yes, a recruiter could lie to you (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    about your likelihood of combat to fill his/her quota if combat concerned you.  They've lied about many things before.

    Parent
    Have they now? (none / 0) (#44)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    sure all "volunteers" know of the risks.  Just as certainly many are in this society economically coerced into volunteering.  Be that as it may, I would support a population wide draft for the same reasons as Charlie Rangel and Fritz Hollings.

    People are much more reluctant to send other people off to risk their lives if their own loved ones are equally at risk.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:38:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Our involvement in any conflict (none / 0) (#49)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    is a societal decicion not one for the members of the armed forces only.  We still have civilian control and that civilian control is exercised politcially by the citizenry as you know.  

    What the armed forces do is done in our name, with our tax money, and at the direction of our elected leaders. Insofar as Afghanistan is concerned, I question our civilian leaders' directions and I am apalled by the human, both US military and Afghan civilian, and financial costs of the operation.  

    Parent

    But the President is your civilian control :) (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:39:32 PM EST
    and the Sec of Defense.

    Parent
    I can't watch videos (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    on my computer.  I look forward to your post.  I am seriously torn on this but lean towards seeing it through.  Afghanistan was always the real mission.  I just don't know if it's possible to accomplish what needs accomplishing.

    I don't either (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    This isn't going to be over soon if we do this.  But the whole nonmuslim world knows we have a problem here.  And some had already suffered terrorist attacks along with America.  This problem isn't going to just go away or get better by itself.

    Parent
    Frontline's Afghanistan Report | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment