home

NBC: 10,000 Troops "Remissioned" From Iraq To Afghanistan

Apparently just the first tranche towards 25-30,000. NBC's Miklaczevski (sp) says two Marine battalions and one Army unit (did not hear the designation).

CNN reports 12,000 troops to be deployed.

I promised a discussion on this policy and I will get to it tomorrow.

< Resign Sen. Burris | Tuesday Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Got to keep that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    Caspian pipeline protected.

    Gotta keep... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    the feedbag for the complex full of grub too.

    High fives all around the board rooms of our military suppliers!

    Parent

    Dick Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan." 1998

    Parent
    pipelineistan (none / 0) (#47)
    by michael098762001 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:42:30 PM EST
       what academic marxists call vulgar marxism, this is from a harpers contributor, former counterpunch co-editor

        http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=no_war_for_oil

    No War for Oil!

    Is the United States really after Afghanistan's resources? Not a chance.

    Ken Silverstein | July 21, 2002

    Parent

    We are like (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    so screwed.

    IOKIIO (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    (Its OK If Its Obama)

    I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for the screams from the anti-war left concerning this latest abuse of the US military and America's taxpayers.

    Parent

    A large portion (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    of the left that was strongly against the War in Iraq was for the War in Afghanistan- its not an Obama- specific thing, its a policy thing- much of the left supported going to war in Afghanistan and still supports it to this day, in my own case I viewed Afghanistan as a rational response to the attacks on 9-11- something that's supported by the fact that most of our natural allies not only backed the Afghan invasion but also have troops on the ground.

    Parent
    I wouldn't agree with "large portion (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:52:30 PM EST
    of the left", but agree there are 2 flavors of anti-Iraq invasionists.

    I wouldn't put any invasionist on the left, ever. Those who self-justify optional wars I would put at-best in the center. I personally see optional war and liberalism as mutually exclusive, which accordingly leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a Liberal-Hawk.  

    Parent

    I'd agree to an extent (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:00:22 PM EST
     but I think we need to be clear- There is a camp on the left who does not view the Invasion of Afghanistan as an optional war.

    Parent
    I don't recognize that camp as left (none / 0) (#90)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    because Afghanistan was optional. I call the pro-Afghan invasion camp center, at best.

    Parent
    How was Afghanistan (none / 0) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    optional- what was the other choice? Additionally assigning right-left due to Afghanistan is mistaken- I could just as easily assume that anyone who opposed the invasion as hard right- Paleocon due to their isolationism.

    Parent
    How was invading Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    not optional? Afghanistan did not attack the US - a bunch of country-less Saudis did. By the [cough] logic of so many supporting escalation now that bush is out, we should be invading Pakistan any day now - that's where Bin Laden supposedly is, not Afghanistan. Instead, in Afghanistan we are fighting against the Tailiban - not Al Qaeda.  

    Also, keep in mind, the US originally fought a proxy war using Afghan warlords with only aerial bombardment and logistics support from the US until after the Tailban had been forced out of the cities and into the caves. Then we put forces on the ground, presumably to get Bin Laden, but didn't. Instead, we just established an occupation along with the UN, and there we sit bogged down in the middle of a domestic insurgency with no chance of winning and no end in sight.

    Putting troops on the ground in Afghanistan was stupid as hell and is stupid as hell of Obama to escalate. The hypocrisy of the alleged "left" is sickening - there are no good wars.

    Parent

    But there are wars (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:59:55 PM EST
    worth the cost- WW2 for example, or Afghanistan if we had inserted troops correctly and crushed the remnants of AQ instead of doing it half-assed.

    Parent
    What is the Threshold for war (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 06:58:49 AM EST
    If I may paraphase, the question is 'what is the threshold for justifying war'. I believe the answer has been codified by signatories to the UN: the threshold for attacking a nation is when you are being attacked. If that is the threshold, then Afghanistan never attacked the US which makes the US attack and occupation of Afghanistan illegal under international agreements and norms.

    The issue of nations hosting (either voluntarily or involuntarily) terrorists groups is a different one. As Kerry and others correctly pointed out, that is an international police issue that needs to be handled between the subject nations. In the case of a recalcitrant host nation, e.g., Afghanistan under the Taliban, there may be a case to be made for covert operations within the country to apprehend criminals if there is indisputable evidence of the criminals hiding in the host country and the host country refuses to cooperate. But that still would not rise to level of invasion, government overthrow, and occupation which is what the US did in Afghanistan - overthrow a government unconnected with the World Trade Center attack and occupy a country.  

    To self-justify war, invent metaphorical war ("the war on terror) and invade and overthrow governments because of it, or to rationalize war as benevolent is immoral and undermines the rule of law. War may at times be unavoidable to defend oneself or stop atrocities, but that has rarely been the case of US wars and certainly not the US invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. War is always a disaster and everyone loses.

    Parent

    Renegade Saudis (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:07:00 PM EST
    With a drizzle of Egyptians. No afghans involved really.  In one way Iraq was closer.  Saudis with a bug up their arse to fight Americans could do so quite easily by driving north.  Thousands of Saudis have been killed in Iraq.  I doubt there are more than five Saudis in afghanistan.

    Parent
    Based (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:14:40 PM EST
    and trained in Afghanistan with the tacit support of the Afghan government (and at times acting as as the military wing of said government).

    Parent
    Out of curiosity... (none / 0) (#105)
    by EL seattle on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:08:51 PM EST
    ... how does one qualify FDR's efforts to support the Allied cause before Pearl Harbor brought the US officially into the war?  Was that pre-invasionist optional planning?  Was what FDR did okie-dokie on the liberal left side?

    FDR must have been good at that 11-D chess game thingy.  And that was before Spock!

    Parent

    Open-minded as I think I may be, (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    I cannot imagine even the unusually-persuasive BTD persuading me sending additional U.S. military to Afghanistan is a good idea.

    At the rate we're going (none / 0) (#20)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    the Military may be the only option for the legions of unemployed in this country.

    Parent
    Anticipate many newly-unemployed (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    state employees in CA to sign up, at least for National Guard.  

    Parent
    Have to keep the global "empire" (none / 0) (#22)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    illusion going.

    Parent
    Why for National Guard? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    I used to think they were only homefront protection, but maybe that was the years before bush.


    Parent
    It's called (none / 0) (#27)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    "squeezing the lemon"

    Parent
    Send your surplus labour... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:07:04 PM EST
    ...to sunny Helmand!

    Parent
    Look everyone (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    I don't expect anybody to be eager for any of this.  I'm not.  I do expect hard questions to be asked of our leadership at this time every single day and that isn't happening.  If we let  AQ just take a walk and reestablish  itself how is that okay?  Imagine what it would do to the progressive movement having to eat that failure.  I'm not prowar, but if we just walked away from the rest of this Afghanistan business and just let the dice fall where they may.......do you want to go that route?  Because I don't.

    Exactly, (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:16:03 PM EST
    allowing Afghanistan to deteriorate into a lawless   war zone is what sparked the rise of the Taliban in the first place (after the Soviet withdrawl and the failure of Secular governance) its an ugly situation but we've already seen what sitting back and allowing the country to fester does.

    Parent
    An ally on the left! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    I'm always thankful to not stand utterly alone :)

    Parent
    Taiban and Al Qaeda (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    are not the same thing. They may or may not be allied, but keeping them separate is important.

    The US was attacked by Al Qaeda - a bunch of country-less Saudis, not the Tailiban.

    We are fighting the Tailiban in Afghanistan.


    Parent

    We asked them to give up the Al Quada (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:42:38 PM EST
    They chose the wrong side.  This is a war that was justified.  The question is not should we go to war, it is how we get out and what winning means.  These the questions we need to ask and get answers for.

    Parent
    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:10:18 PM EST
    one of the questions being debated at the foreign policy sites is whether we'd be willing to make some sort of peace with the Taliban, provided they agreed to swear off dealings with al-Qaeda now and forevermore.

    Parent
    Oh boy (none / 0) (#107)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    That may or may not be the "right" thing to do...  But it would make me pretty sick...

    Parent
    A data point (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:35:17 PM EST
    according to the latest poll I've seen from a reputable international organization, a whopping 4% of Afghanistan wants the Taliban back in charge...

    ...but realistically, you and I both know that no one would have given two figs about the Taliban if they hadn't harbored al-Qaeda, no matter how backwards and brutal they may be.  That's just the way of the world.

    Parent

    That business with destroying... (none / 0) (#110)
    by EL seattle on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:39:11 AM EST
    ... the Buddhas of Bamiyan Province was a bad sign.

    When that happened, I remember thinking about a passage from a Thomas Harris novel in which the childhood of a future serial killer was described as being marked by "the first sign - the worst sign" which was in that case the torture and killing of small animals.  

    I think that the signs were there in Afghanistan, even before al-Qaeda came along.  The Taliban weren't going to provide Afghanistan or the world with anything but trouble.

    Parent

    Originally Mullah Omar (none / 0) (#112)
    by weltec2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:16:42 AM EST
    said they were okay, that it didn't matter, they were part of the nations heritage and there weren't any buddhists in Afghanistan anyway. But then after a few years he changed his murky mind and decided that since they depicted human forms they had to be destroyed.

    Parent
    what sites (none / 0) (#115)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:18:23 AM EST
    I would like to check them out?

    Thanks

    Parent

    You're right, they're not the same (none / 0) (#108)
    by weltec2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:25:57 PM EST
    but both are radical Sunni extremists. And in a sense you have to go through the Taliban to get to al Qaeda because the Taliban is giving them protection. See here for more infrmation. But just briefly:

    After the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan was effectively ungoverned for seven years and plagued by constant infighting between former allies and various mujahedeen groups.

    Throughout the 1990s, a new force began to emerge. The origins of the Taliban (literally "students") lay in the children of Afghanistan, many of them orphaned by the war, and many of whom had been educated in the rapidly expanding network of Islamic schools (madrassas) either in Kandahar or in the refugee camps on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

    According to Ahmed Rashid, five leaders of the Taliban were graduates of a single madrassa, Darul Uloom Haqqania (also known as "the University of Jihad",)[62] in the small town of Akora Khattak near Peshawar, situated in Pakistan but largely attended by Afghan refugees. This institution reflected Salafi beliefs in its teachings, and much of its funding came from private donations from wealthy Arabs, for whom bin Laden provided conduit. A further four leading figures (including the perceived Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar Mujahed) attended a similarly funded and influenced madrassa in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

    The continuing internecine strife between various factions, and accompanying lawlessness following the Soviet withdrawal, enabled the growing and well-disciplined Taliban to expand their control over territory in Afghanistan, and they came to establish an enclave which it called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. In 1994, they captured the regional center of Kandahar, and after making rapid territorial gains thereafter, conquered the capital city Kabul in September 1996.

    After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan -- with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power -- provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

    Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions are alleged to have trained militant Muslims from around the world. Despite the perception of some people, al-Qaeda members are ethnically diverse and connected by their radical version of Islam.

    An ever-expanding network of supporters thus enjoyed a safe haven in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until the Taliban were defeated by a combination of local forces and United States air power in 2001. Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are still believed to be located in areas where the population is sympathetic to the Taliban in Afghanistan or the border Tribal Areas of Pakistan.



    Parent
    MT, are you reading a lot of (none / 0) (#82)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:07:24 PM EST
    unequivocal opposition to the Afghan troop increase on the left?

    So far this evening, I haven't seen any prominent blog writers, or MSM sources, that unequivocally say: if we send in troops to "improve security" it will become a quagmire and a money pit and a killing field. It's a bad idea all around. Do NOT send in any additional troops. (Sorry, I'm exaggerating for effect.)

    I read some of the comment sections at a couple of blogs and many people are supportive of the troop increase.

    However Talking Points Memo begs the question via a third party:

    Maine Democratic congressman Tom Andrews, now the chair of the Win Without War coalition, thoughtfully asked Obama today to consider whether adding more troops amounts to "digging an even bigger hole" in Afghanistan despite diplomatic urging to reconsider a military escalation.


    Parent
    Hah, I wish I was reading some (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:42:02 AM EST
    hard questions being asked, but the silence is effen deafening.  I just don't get it either because when it was Bush deploying troops they lifted his tail and looked under it.  The left Obama worshipping blogosphere that is mostly antiwar has backed itself into such a worshipping corner at this moment, they have nothing to say as everyone gets on a different bus.  Can you believe this?  These folks were vicious about Iraq, some blogs even said that it was okay to call serving soldiers "baby killers" because that was the "public rage" about the senseless killing that needed to be discharged or something.  Now they are so silent they are about to buy themselves some more senseless killing.  The rightwing isn't going to dog any of our forces for lax gun fire.  The Obama administration has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Karzai who wants less civilian damage for Christ's sake! And if the left isn't going to hold our military leaders, to begin with Obama, to a high standard when we are going to war......well hell, meet me at noon at the O.K. corral then and let's let the bullets fly.  Right now, the leftwing Obama loving bloggers are looking like a bunch of giant hypocrites.

    Parent
    Addendum: some Afghan oppo from blog writers (none / 0) (#88)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:31:11 PM EST
    From The Nation, Editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel says: Don't Bleed Resources in Afghanistan. Her criticism is more unequivocal than the title suggests:
    Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world. Escalation will not secure a better future for the Afghan people or increase US security. How will additional troops help meet the "clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region" that Obama spoke of Tuesday afternoon? We have not received a clear answer to that fundamental question.

    It's probably safe to say, the progressive blogosphere has more of this type of editorial coming down the pike. Imo, this level of critique is healthy and beneficial to public discourse.

    Parent

    We have created a mess (none / 0) (#99)
    by weltec2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:46 PM EST
    in Afghanistan. More troops are needed than we can possibly supply. Karzai cares only about the wealthy. The opium trade is at an all-time high. It is the curse of the poor because it is so easy to get. In the 90s the Taliban allowed opium production as long as it was only sold to foreigners. No Afghans and especially no Muslims were allowed to use it. But then in 2000 they banned production of it altogether and Mullah Amir Mohammed Haqqani said the ban was going to remain in place permanently. Unintentionally the US restarted the opium trade again by invading and chasing the Taliban out.

    The Taliban, however, are not an alternative to Hamid (and his drug lord brother Ahmad Wali Khan) Karzai. They are terribly oppressive and the people don't want them there.

    Parent

    I just wonder... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Thanin on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:14:48 AM EST
    where the line is between trying to keep al qaeda out of power in Afghanistan and nation building.  Now Im not saying youre wrong, but this kind of military stuff worries me.

    Parent
    I wasn't aware (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:53:01 AM EST
    that Obama was opposed nation building, as Bush said he was and then spent all of our money on construction projects in Iraq that never happened.  AQ attacked us, they have attacked and terrorized other nations as well.  That is why we aren't sitting in Afghanistan alone.  I'm not prowar but I'm much more not pro encouraging terrorists to be all that they can be either.  If stabilizing the nation of Afghanistan makes it less hospitable to terrorists and terrorist camps, I'm doing it.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Thanin on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 06:01:40 PM EST
    Obama may not have said anything about nation building, but whether he made any kind of promises about it, its still a concern, I think.  But again, I think you have a point, Im just weary of all this stuff.

    Parent
    I can't imagine that the troops in Ramadi etc... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    ...are looking forward to the new billet.

    Parent
    I just sort of feel like I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:14:10 PM EST
    what to believe - there are so many opinions: we should send more, we shouldn't send more, we can win, we can't win, this will send a message to Pakistan, the message will be one that will make things worse.  And after years of feeling like I was never getting the straight story, I am afraid to trust.

    Whatever the strategy and whatever the decisions, it still comes down to the men and women whose lives have been on the line for far too long, whose families are sacrificing more than they ever anticipated.

    I get that whole thing about volunteering, but I still maintain that troops who go willingly need to be able to trust that those that are sending them are doing so for the right reasons.

    You know, it really has been months and months since the war has been on the front page; it's been stuck in tiny paragraphs, hidden away where no one pays any attention to it, and now, it feels like a freight train coming straight at us - again - and I have that sort of sick feeling of dread that I used to have when things were at their worst.  And I have shame because I allowed it to drop off my own radar - politics, primaries, work and family life just took over.  I guess my anxiety about the economy has to scootch over to make room for the fear that war brings.

    I hope these people know what they're doing.

    Anne, if it makes you feel any better (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    Yours is the sort of questioning voice that is needed in this situation.  The powers that be need to feel responsible to a voice like yours and a voice like yours need daily application.

    Parent
    We've already finished our (none / 0) (#120)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    "proportional response" to 9/11 in Afghanistan, so is this surge just to address the "war on drugs"? Where is the money to do this coming from? Stimulus plan, 'remissioned' Iraq funding, or did congress give him the go-ahead in a backroom deal?

    I didn't think I could be more opposed to a war than I was to the Iraq pre-emptive attack. I was wrong. I'm even more against this one. The Afghans are welcome to grow as much poppy as they choose in their own country. Our job is nothing more than to manage how we handle it when some lands on our shores.


    Parent

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:19:27 PM EST
    But this unlike Iraq- is a situation that we had no choice to cause, and right now this may be the best solution- Am I the only one who realizes that withdrawl after an invasion is what set the stage for the rise of the Taliban in the first place? Because if you realize this, and you're still calling for withdrawl I guess I'm left with wondering what you think will happen in Afghanistan and the NW region of Pakistan.

    Well, what do you think this number (none / 0) (#63)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    of extra troops can accomplish?
    The Soviet Union had a lot more troops in Afghanistan and they couldn't stabilize it.


    Parent
    In fairness (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    The USSR was trying to establish a communist state, I don't care if Afghanistan is horrendous on Human Rights, implements Sharia and has Opium as its primary export, so long as they don't allow AQ training camps in the region- I mean Iraq under Saddam would be an okay end result for me in Afghanistan at this point, we just need a state that doesn't actually present a security threat- heck the Taliban would've been an acceptable government if they hadn't been buddy buddy with AQ  until the moment before we actually attacked.

    Parent
    That answer sounds like (none / 0) (#69)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:46:51 PM EST
    "i have no idea", which is my answer to the question as well.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#73)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:52:37 PM EST
    know, what I do know however is that simply leaving is not an option.

    Parent
    Why isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:11:53 AM EST
    Seriously, invading was an option, occupying is the current option..why is going home off the table?

    One thing for sure...the profiteers want us to believe leaving is not an option, our leaders want us to believe same...that makes me think leaving is most certainly the best option.  Cheaper, less bloody, less imperialistic, respectful of Afghani sovereignty and their inalinable right to self-determination...what's not to like?

    Our own economy is more of a threat to our way of life than AQ could ever be...lets wake the f*ck up.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    They were backing a socialist regime in Kabul.  They were not exactly imposing themselves at the beginning.

    Parent
    American lives more valuable? (none / 0) (#86)
    by vml68 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:13:18 PM EST
    I don't care if Afghanistan is horrendous on Human Rights, implements Sharia and has Opium as its primary export, so long as they don't allow AQ training camps in the region- I mean Iraq under Saddam would be an okay end result for me in Afghanistan at this point, we just need a state that doesn't actually present a security threat

    Are you saying that you don't care if the afghans are killed, terrorized, brutalized, etc. as long as you get to be safe in the US?

    Parent

    In terms of American foreign policy (none / 0) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:37:53 PM EST
    This should be an over-arching concern- if you don't hold American lives to be more valuable- or at least hold them higher in terms of a cost-benefit analysis then its hard to choose among various foriegn endevors- belief in the sanctity of American life is what led to things like Aerical Bombardment in Kosovo (as opposed to ground war)- I'm not saying we shouldn't value Human Rights and Life around the world, I'm simply saying that we should place American life at the forefront of our decision-making.   Low-cost intervention is a great thing and should be used whenever possible (see again Kosovo) but a policy interest purely in human rights makes hard decisions (such as the Clinton era blockade of Iraq) impossible and leads inevitably to more war in the name of human rights (after all if all life is equal why should we let N. Korea starve its citizens when most experts believe that for a mere 100k Americans and maybe a million S. Koreans we could flip the government in Pyong Yang- that's far less total lives lost than those claimed in the recent famines).

    Parent
    Damn Dems (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    Their worse the Cons in their own "slick" way.

    "Pols are Pols" but you'll never (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:20:45 PM EST
    convince me Democrats are worse.

    Parent
    Does this signal Obama's going ahead w/ Getting (none / 0) (#1)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    His War On?

    The MCM seems agreed that Obama must bite this bullet. They're not agreed as to how. 30,000 will barely make a dent in the need to have presence where needed. Several MCMers/analysts on Charlie Rose last night said the boots on the ground could be Afghan army...again, not sure how.

    Those not blessed by the MCM are not so sure it's good for Afghanistan, the region, the world, much less the US, for Obama to make this his war.

    We shall see. Not that he didn't warn us about that gambit at least. The surprise here would be serious study and reevaluation.

    remissioned (none / 0) (#11)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    one piece notes that since 10,000 troops are being 'remissioned' form Iraq deployments to Agh deployments, Obama will still be able to claim a draw down in Iraq ....

    Parent
    Never Any Question (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:27:10 PM EST
    That the troops Obama promised to pull from Iraq were going to Afghanistan. There are no extra troops. Where else was he going to get them from?

    Parent
    Well, I would think that many of (none / 0) (#16)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    the troops in Iraq are due to come home soon.  Can they just be redeployed to Afghanistan despite promises that their tours would only last a certain amount of time?

    Could be that many will indeed have be found from some other source.

    Parent

    Part of the Problem (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    Is that the troops have not been getting their required rest before being sent back to Iraq (or Afghanistan). Also the troops have had to stay 15 months as opposed to a year, since 2007.

    Parent
    The unemployment line? (none / 0) (#23)
    by lobary on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:58 PM EST
    To be fair to Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    5th brigade 2nd Infantry only had a couple of hundred soldiers a few years ago from what I can tell.  I can't tell you that all the soldiers have had a year off who have joined 5th brigade in creating a ready to deploy force, but it has been two years in the making.  2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C. has had two years at home so hopefully all current soldiers are well rested. Obama has five more brigades that were supposed to do be ready to deploy this year to do with what he may.

    Parent
    A strange word to use, given (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    the connotations for cancer patients.

    Parent
    MCM? (none / 0) (#5)
    by michael098762001 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:56:26 PM EST
      I know MSM , what is MCM?
      Excellent set of interviews on Warren Olney's radio show on KCRW on Afghanistan deployments,
       http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp090216more_troops_for_afgh Balancing Military and Diplomacy in Afghanistan and Pakistan (12:07P)

    During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama said it was not Iraq, but Afghanistan that should be the focus of America's war on terror. The Taliban now control much of that country, and last week's murderous attacks on Kabul showed how easily they can penetrate the capital city. Development of a coherent policy is a work in progress, and Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is in the area now. President Obama has said he wants to double American forces, but the very presence of foreign troops increases support for the Taliban. Road construction and economic development would be more popular, but they'd require resources the Pentagon doesn't have. The deadline for a new policy is the NATO summit in April.
    Guests:

        * Julian Barnes: Pentagon Reporter, Los Angeles Times
        * Gilles Dorronsoro: Professor of Political Science, Sorbonne
        * Erica Gaston: Fellow, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict
        * Paula Newberg: former Special Advisor, United Nations

    Links:

        * CNN on Pakistan's deal with Taliban on sharia law
        * Barnes' article on Obama administration's reworking Afghanistan-Pakistan policy
        * Dorronsoro's 'Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present'
        * ABC/BBC poll on declining support for US military in Afghanistan


    why then did Obama hold no hearings on Afganistan? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by fly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    and people my age do remember the fall of the USSR..because of Afganistan..will that be our future..I just wonder..well actually, I don't wonder..I have been thinking that is the plot since "the one" stole my vote in Fl..and our primary!

    Parent
    I've been thinking about Nixon invading Cambodia (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    and setting off internal reactions that resulted in Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge taking over the country and the whole awful Killing Fields horrors.

    Nixon did not intend to cause internal strife and destruction of the government -- but he did. At least, I'm not aware that the US did that deliberately....

    Obama? Does he mean to create a civil war in Pakistan? Some analysts I heard on TV and BBC yesterday were actually saying that is to be desired. Or does he think he can just send rockets, Predator drones, a few special forces incursions, maybe a little occupation, kill a few militants -- or a lot, some collateral damage civilians -- or heavy collateral damage to a lot of civilians, and make Afghansitan all better? Af/Pak all better? Af/Pak/India all better?

    Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, or close to that, eh?

    Parent

    jawbone..absolutely! too bad too many today have (none / 0) (#52)
    by fly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    selective memory , or little to no historical knowledge!

    Parent
    MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media (none / 0) (#31)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:55:17 PM EST
    The "C" part is the controlling factor. I saw this long ago in a comment somewhere on the lefty blogs, and it struck me as so accurate. I cannot and do not claim credit for its creation.

    Plua, it's always bothered me that people got two initials (as in first letters of a word) out of "mainstream."

    Parent

    Thnx for the Olney links -- my public radio now (none / 0) (#35)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    broadcasts it at night on AM which I can't get where I live.

    I miss that program. He made it impossible for contending guests to speak over one another.

    Parent

    MCM=Mainstream Corporate Media (none / 0) (#57)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    How about 17000 (none / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    According to yahoo news

    Defense and congressional officials say President Barack Obama has approved an increase in U.S. forces for the flagging war in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday or Wednesday that it will send one additional Army brigade and an unknown number of Marines to Afghanistan this spring. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the total is about 17,000 troops.


    Supposedly Pentagon was asking (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    for 30,000 to Afghanistan but Gates sd. only 15,000.  Meanwhile, Pakistan agrees with Taliban for Sharia law in NW,  

    Parent
    Must be part of the stimulus package... (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:19:45 PM EST


    Shovel ready. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:24:37 PM EST
    Ugh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    I didn't mean it that way. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    Oculus, I never dreamed (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:35:19 PM EST
    you were such a hippy babe.  I'm grabbing you up the next peace march I attend.  You're a potent force.

    Parent
    Vestiges of Vietnam. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:40:17 AM EST
    No worry (none / 0) (#10)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    As long as the powers that be keep using the stock markets around the world as a liquidity sink from which to generate enough cash to continue to support the Treasury Ponzi scheme everyone will be fine.

    Parent
    Today, largest deployment since WWII (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:26:44 PM EST
    of my state's National Guard -- 3,200 at once.

    If my state of Wisconsin is not being singled out, if there are more states hit with historic callup levels, then this might be a much bigger movement of troops than is being reported in the media.

    Some are my students.  I hope they come back, and not just to campus . . . where we still mourn several lost forever in this war.

    This is (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    a horror story.
    This is not what the National Guard is supposed to be for.

    One half million dollars every minute down the drain in Iraq.
    No sense of urgency from Obama - or the media - to end it.
    Bottomless pit of money for the banks, and none for people who have lost their homes. Plenty for wars though. Is Obama afraid to end them?

    And now more souls sent to Aftghanistan - and for what?
    Does he really think that all the little terrorists are all holed up there - and all we need to do is find the right cave?

    I didn't expect anything from Obama, but this is even worse than I pictured.

    Parent

    Well YOu Were Not Paying Attention (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    Both Obama and Hillary promised to extend the war in Afghanistan to where the WOT belongs, according to them, while reducing troops in Iraq where the WOT does not belong.

    There is no surprise about troop buildup in Afghanistan it was essentially a campaign promise.

    Parent

    So true. But still disappointing. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    Where is the anti-Iraq invasion Obama?  And shouldn't the President be in the White House when this announcement is issued?  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    The way I see it is that all the military brass are fighting with Obama's 16 month plan. They are all invested in a military solution, just like a insurance agent would be invested in selling insurance.

    As far as Obama needing to be in the WH for this announcement, what is that about?

    Do you also think he should be required to wear a suit while in the Oval Office?

    Parent

    Of course the military is invested (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    in a military solution.  But just recently the headlines were that Obama admins. was going slow on plans for Afghanistan and sending additional troops there; maybe train Afghan troops to do the job, ask for more help from NATO, etc.  Why announcement now?

    And, no, I don't care what the President wears when he is working in the White House.  I do think committing U.S. lives to Afghanistan is worthy of being announced by the President from the White House.  

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:33:02 PM EST
    Is giving them less than they want. 17,000 as opposed to 30,000.

    Not sure why making an announcement from the WH is particularly meaningful. The symbolism does nothing for me, it is the words that matter not the place where they are uttered.

    but obviously you feel differently, I can not relate to that mindset.

    Parent

    Kennedy gave them less than (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    they wanted for Vietnam too. How'd that work out?

    Parent
    I think the Obama administration did (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    go slow on plans.  I think they've been at this for awhile.  These two brigades were scheduled to leave and he chose what they were doing with them.  Five more are ready and scheduled to deploy this year as well, this is the military he inherited........the timeline he inherited as well.  The Marines were supposed to be going to Iraq to relieve a brigade that needed to come home for rest and he sent them to Afghanistan.  Now Iraq is one brigade lighter as a brigade will now begin deploying on schedule and Obama and the Pentagon have now had to figure out how to plug up all the holes that that brigade is going to leave behind.  Where we can pull back most easily right now?  Where will we have to reposition forces to prevent genocide as forces lighten in Iraq......if and when genocide can be prevented.

    Parent
    My son's brigade (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by JThomas on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:12:35 AM EST
    just got back from Baghdad(10th Mtn.) and were not going to be replaced.

    He was in Afghanistan in 06/07 and while in Iraq, he and his mates felt that they would rather be in Afghanistan because of the actual combat with enemy who harbored the 9/11 planners and more of a sense of a real mission. Also trusted the Afghan army fighters who were fierce and courageous. I hope we can use soft power but meanwhile feel we cannot abandon NATO..at least we have the rest of the world involved and in agreement with this action.

    Parent

    True Squeaky. I want to see BTD or someone (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    convince me this is a winnable war. What defines winnable to them? Didn't another large country try this once before with bad results?

    My questions aren't to you, just in general.

    Parent

    Not Winnable IMO (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    I do not believe that there is a military solution in Afghanistan or Iraq. BTD seems to think that there is a military solution in Afghanistan, I just do not see it happening.

    Parent
    Obama has gone on the record (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:55:40 PM EST
    declaring that a solution gained solely through the use of military is not attainable either.  A military force is required though to provide a form of civilian safety when confronting the Taliban.

    Parent
    I don't either. I hope someone can try to (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:26:10 PM EST
    explain it to me. It may be the "right" thing to do but we'll still lose.

    Parent
    Evidentially Obama Is Hedging (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    17,000 troops instead of 30,000
    In issuing the order, Mr. Obama is choosing a middle ground, addressing urgent requests from commanders who have been pressing for reinforcements while postponing a more difficult judgment on a much larger increase in personnel that the commanders have been seeking.

    [snip]

    Mr. Obama is under pressure from his military commanders in Afghanistan, who have been pressing for reinforcements of about 30,000 soldiers, almost twice as many as the president has so far decided to send.

    NYT

    Parent

    This is regrettable. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:34:49 PM EST
    There is nothing to win in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Well I Dunno (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    It would be a nice piece of real estate to own, if you were the conquering type of nation. Evidentially we are that type of nation although we are not very honest about our intentions.

    Strategically it is a plumb spot. Many have wanted to control it and have lost their shirts, blood and treasure as they say...

    Parent

    From your NYT link: (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    Richard Holbrooke, Mr. Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who is on his way home from his first trip to the region, is helping to conduct the administration's review of policy in Afghanistan.


    Parent
    Holbrooke, Kissinger,Mitchell (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by fly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:42:55 PM EST
    all sent to the middle east by Obama..now that is some dang change isn't it??????? nottt..all the retreads..and Kissinger belongs in a war tribunal and prison..but what do us old timers know eh???????

    Why is Nixon's guy working for Obama????????
    ask that to the Obama kool aide drinkers..see what response you get, if you get one at all!

    p.s. expect denial and then excuses!

    Parent

    Kissinger is part of the NWO... (none / 0) (#122)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    he's had his hands in every administration since at least Nixon (and was probably the one that leaked info about Nixon in order to have a change in the office)

    Parent
    No win (none / 0) (#124)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    I don't see any military solution either.
    I'm not even sure what we're trying to solve.
    Nobody in government is saying much about our goals.

    I know Obama threatened this during the campaign, but I still took it hard when, after he became president, he in fact did it.

    Parent

    Wot was abandoned... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    As a description many years ago. Obama is signing his own demise here.  The war against Saudi billionaires is no more to be found in Afghanistan than Iraq. The war on Egyptian doctors likewise.  Obama is either a halfwit or a liar or contemplating murder.

    Parent
    Can't Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    just hits The Reset Button?

    The Butcher's Bill. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sweet Sue on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    oculus, that's the best dark comment I've ever read on the Internet.

    The Lesson of The Great Depression is (none / 0) (#50)
    by pluege on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    Warring stimulates the economy.

    Different kind of economy (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:40:47 PM EST
    with different sorts of commitments to wars back then when our economy was stimulated.  Wars eat our economy and we all know that now.

    Parent
    Winning a war does. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:11:45 PM EST
    America can't win em no more.

    Parent
    Two strategy choices for "success" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    Either we are more brutal that the Taliban insurgents, or we act in the most incomparably altrusitic manner in the history of military occupations.  I don't, thankfully, think we'll embark (re-embark?) on the former, and yet I might have even less hope for the latter.  

    History screams loudly when it comes to Afghanistan.  Many a former superpower's graveyard chorus belts it out.

    Come on Dadler (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    Never in the history of all disagreeing mankind have we had more information and usable resources on hand to be incomparably altruistic. I remember full mass graves and generations of bloody genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo and something useful was accomplished, and it was those of us in Afghanistan right now that did that in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#125)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    But I guess I'm not getting your full point.  Sometimes I am quite dumb in the face of obviousness.  And sarcasm.  

    Parent
    We does it end? (none / 0) (#70)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    Pakistan basically just gave up a chunk of their border to the Taliban. If we are going into Afghanistan to win, we're going to have to take on Pakistan too. So then we're occupying three countries in the region. Is this what we want?

    As far as AQ, they can relocate to Africa very easily. So where does it end?

    Until the people in the region decide that this isn't the way of life they want, we can't win.

    It is also very untrue (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    that AQ could "easily" reestablish in Africa.

    Parent
    The mastermind... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:14:14 PM EST
    ...is an African.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    He's also an Earthling, evidence I suppose that AQ could easily reestablish a base on Earth.

    Parent
    They have more bases... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:15:00 PM EST
    In oldham and bradford than they do in Kandahar. Bricklane has as many bases as Iraq.  Yeah hyperbole, but also true-paradoxically.  Have you seen Mogadishu btw? It's like sinbad meets portroyal.

    Parent
    How is it that we will have to take (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    on Pakistan.  Please outline how this would come about.  Perhaps they are only isolating the Taliban to make things easier in dealing with them all the way around.

    Parent
    Pakistan (none / 0) (#85)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    Bhutto really doesn't have a strong hold on the country. Pakistan's military has backed the Taliban in the past. There'a already demonstrations about our bombing raids. If we then march in there to go after the Taliban we stand a good chance of creating a civil war. They aren't going to throw rose petals at our feet anymore than the Iraqi's did.

    Parent
    Pakistan's military has not backed (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    the Taliban.  Pakistan's ISI has supported the Taliban, and has Taliban membership.  Pakistan's military is a very rigid very loyal military and they can't stand the Taliban, at all.

    Parent
    Once again (none / 0) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    this is not Iraq- we didn't suddenly decide that we needed to change their way of life- the government of Afghanistan partnered with the forces who attacked US soil causing 3000+ deaths-  frankly, Afghanistan is a case where America is willing to spend money and lives because doing nothing has already cost us dearly.

    Parent
    What would you have done post 9/11 (none / 0) (#77)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    Gone out to the country and said "We know where the people who attacked us were trained, we know where they have safe harbor but since they could move easily, and since the nation where they trained doesn't want to change its government, we're going to do nothing!"

    Parent
    The question (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:17:49 PM EST
    is not whether it was right to invade Afghanistan, the question is whether we serve the national interest by continuing to wage a war there.  2001 was a long time ago.

    Is there an endgame in Afghanistan where we can prevent it from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists, by some other means than an endless occupation?  That's the issue.

    Parent

    There is much to be done (none / 0) (#91)
    by weltec2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:00:43 PM EST
    in Afghanistan. The rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer under Hamid Karzai. His brother Ahmad Wali Khan Karzai is one of the biggest producers of heroin in the southern region. He is also a very powerful political figure there in Kandahar where he serves on the Provincial Council. Thus, while Hamid talks up a storm about tackling the heroin problem that plagues his country, he will never do anything about it. In fact he refused to allow the US to spray the poppy fields because he said heroin was the only means some of his countrymen (read: his brother) have of making ends meet. So here he contradicts his false concern for the problem.