Obama said numerous times that he wants to expand the war in Afghanistan

[Cali_Democrat]

He said that he would like to divert resources from Iraq and direct them toward the war in Afghanistan. He also said on many occasions that he is more than willing to strike targets in Pakistan.

So the outrage on DU is hilarious. Either some of you never listened to Obama or you hoped he was lying.

Expect more death and destruction in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Innocent lives will be lost while Obama is President.

Get used to it.

[leftstreet]

1. A lot of us were "outraged" about it during the campaign

For some it's not "new" outrage

[TheWraith]

2. Hopefully refocusing on Afghanistan will result in LESS death and destruction.

It certainly can't be worse than ignoring the place and letting the Taliban take back over.

[elleng]

3. I pray he sees this.

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
—Rudyard Kipling, “The Young British Soldier,” 1892

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/weekinreview/25cooper.html?scp=3&sq=afghanistan&st=cse

[bluestateguy]

4. He made a campaign promise

And now he is going to keep it.

He's doing what he said he would do.

[Political Heretic]

5. You've got some false logic there pal.

Many of us didn't vote for Obama because we thought we would agree with him on every issue, nor did we forfeit our right to criticize and complain loudly when we disagree with him.

He's wrong on this, and he's always been wrong on this and it is a same.

[bread_and_roses]

9. Exactly (n/t)

[Life Long Dem]

14. Your in the minority. And that makes Obama right.

[4lbs]

6. If the Bush administration hadn't twiddled their thumbs when our special forces had Bin Laden

pinned down and injured in Tora Bora, waiting for authorization to kill him, Afghanistan would be over within a year after it started.

However, it appears they still needed OBL alive to add another reason for going into Iraq.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Amazing how many weren't paying attention

It's many things, but it's hardly misrepresentation.

People have projected all sorts of things on him, and he benefited mightily from that, but at least on this he was pretty clear.

What's not clear is the violation of Pakistan's border. Although he said that he'd do it if necessary, he said that it would be when there were high-level targets and the Pakistanis either couldn't or wouldn't deal with them. This leads one to expect dialogue between us and the Pakistanis before striking inside their sovereign territory, and it's not apparent that this is what happened. Yes, similar strikes have been done before, but this is on this administration's watch.

As for people bellyaching about him upping the ante in Afghanistan, he's been pretty clear about that for awhile. Some of us have disagreed for quite some time about this, and on occasion there's been the standard excuse of him just saying things to hoodwink the reactionaries, but there hasn't been very much of this; most of the responses have been accepting of the premise.

[spin]

8. 2,974 innocent people died in the 9/11 attack...

We invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban who had harbored Afghanistan terrorists.

The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.<123><124><125> This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and extrapolates this to conclude that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

We succeeded in removing the Taliban from power but the Taliban has regained some strength and again threatens the fragile government in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda fighters and leaders have found sanctuary among tribal protectors in Pakistan. We can possibly keep them on the run and weaken their threat by striking targets in this area.

Unfortunately war results in death to both combatants and innocent civilians. Since these al-Qaeda terrorists are not an official government, it's very difficult if not impossible, to negotiate a peace or even to negotiate. These terrorist have absolutely no qualms about killing innocent civilians. When they do, they brag about their success. Since they choose to hide in the midst of innocents, when we do attack...some of these poor people will die. We do our best to limit collateral damage, but our technology hasn't advanced to the point that we can target a single individual in a town.

President Bush chose to enlarge the war and attack Iraq. While he deposed a brutal dictator, his efforts seem to have been directed more for ego and corporate gain than to reduce a serious threat to the United States.

Bush left Obama a mess to resolve. Obama has to find a way to extract our troops from Iraq and successfully conclude the war in Afghanistan. If we walk away from Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda will regain control. If that happens we might expect more terrorist attacks. Another 9/11 could wreck havoc on our already troubled economy as well as kill many more of our innocent civilians.

As you point out, Obama stated he planned to divert resources to the war in Afghanistan. I support this effort. A weak response will only encourage al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Our attacks will unfortunately kill innocent civilians, their attacks will focus on killing innocents.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle the situation if you were Obama?

[bread_and_roses]

11. That list of talking points could come straight out of the Bush playbook

Ponder this:

War -- every war -- is the realm of lies... The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books -- if the Germans had won the war.

That happens to come from an article by an Israeli writer on the Gaza atrocities ( http://www.alternet.org/audits/121848/israel_screwed_itself_over_with_its_gaza_assault%3B_the_world_sees_it_as_a_%27blood-stained_monster%27/ ), but it is equally applicable of our "war" in Afghanistan.

And let me ask you this: if GB had chosen to bomb Irish towns because the IRA was using the inhabitants as "human shields" and photos of dismembered and incinerated Irish babies appeared in our press would you be as cavalier with your "Since they choose to hide in the midst of innocents, when we do attack...some of these poor people will die..."? Would we in the West have spoken of those dead children as "human shields" and "unfortunate collateral damage?" Somehow, I don't think so.

Try reading something other than the predictable spew in our MSM.

edit for tense

[spin]

12. True, the British didn't bomb Irish towns to eliminate the IRA...

however their were plenty of atrocities on both sides of that conflict.

Typical British reprisals included the burning of houses and businesses, the owners of which occasionally had no connection to the IRA. In addition, after August 1920, the British began executing IRA prisoners. The IRA responded by killing British prisoners. Spies and suspected spies were shot by the IRA and publicly dumped on roadsides.

The most high profile atrocity of the war took place in Dublin in November 1920, and is still known as Bloody Sunday. In the early hours of the morning, Collins' "Squad" assassinated 14 British agents, some in front of their wives and families. In reprisal, that afternoon, British forces opened fire on a football crowd at Croke Park, killing 14 civilians. Towards the end of the day, two prominent Republicans and a friend of theirs were arrested and killed by Crown Forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

The British forces had feet on the ground in Ireland. Short of some special ops units, we have no significant military presence in the lawless border regions of Pakistan where the Taliban and al-Qaeda have found refuge and sanctuary. From these regions el-Qeada continues to launch terrorist attacks some against Pakistan, Afghanistan and other world wide targets.

Karachi, 27 Dec. (AKI) - (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) - A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437

If we were to invade the border regions of Pakistan to eliminate the terrorist threat, we would probably fail or at the the best find ourselves in another long and very expensive war. Causalities would be high, both military and civilian. Possibly we would find ourselves in a confrontation with Pakistan. Facing off against a nuclear opponent is always a bad idea.

So we can ignore that solution.

What choices do we have left?

1) Withdraw from Afghanistan. The probable result is that the Taliban would regain control and welcome al-Qaeda to a restored base of operations. If we were to do this, we could anticipate more terrorist attacks on our country and other nations.

2) Negotiate with el-Qeada. Terrorists are difficult to negotiate with. What can we offer them except surrender. Can you visualize Obama or Hillary Clinton sitting across a table from Ayman al-Zawahiri? (Assuming al-Zawahiri would show up.)

3) Divert resources from Iraq to Afghanistan and continue unmanned Predator attacks on suspected leaders and terrorists in South Waziristan. (Obama's campaign policy). Will this work? Maybe, maybe not. But in my opinion it's the best choice on the menu.

(I'm open to consider other suggestions if you have any.)

It's easy for our military to undertake a campaign against a third world nation, such as Iraq. Fighting insurgent forces or terrorist groups is far more difficult.

I feel that we make reasonable efforts to limit collateral damage. Technology has its limitations. At some time in the future we may have a Predator Drone with a laser that can fry a single individual in a crowd without killing the person beside him. Until that time the unfortunate reality is that occasionally innocents will die when we attack unless we are lucky enough to isolate the target alone or in a moving vehicle with other terrorists.

But be aware that the enemy we face has absolutely no qualms with killing civilians. The more they kill the better. They are willing to commit suicide to kill other people if they feel their act will advance their cause and believe they will live a wonderful afterlife based on their martyrdom. (Why anyone would believe a life with 72 virgins and 70 wives would be paradise totally eludes me. I had enough problems with merely one wife.)

But if we kill civilians, they will immediately accuse us of crime. At the minimum this is hypocrisy.

For an idea of how many civilians have been killed by al-Qaeda terrorism visit:
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf

You make a good point by recommending that I read other sources than the main stream media. Unfortunately, I have only two sources, the MSM or alternate sources which may or may not be reliable as all sources have individual bias and agendas. Possibly the best source of info is the classified intelligence reports which Obama is receiving. (Even those may be unreliable.) Unfortunately, I lack the security clearance, the need to know and the opportunity to view this information.

Obama should be receiving the best info available. I trust his decision making ability far more than I did Bush the Younger. Therefore, I will support his decisions and hope for the best.

[Ex Lurker]

17. 9/11 was a perfect opportunity to examine ourselves, figure out what we've

done that makes so much of the world hate us enough to want to kill us, and redress their grievances. Instead we went on a rampage throughout Afghanistan and Iraq.

[rug]

10. Get used to this:

Afghan president: US forces killed 16 civilians

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai has condemned a U.S. operation he says killed 16 Afghan civilians, while hundreds of villagers denounced the American military during an angry demonstration.

Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans "is strengthening the terrorists."

He also announced that his Ministry of Defense sent to Washington a draft technical agreement — also sent to NATO headquarters — that seeks to give Afghanistan more oversight over U.S. military operations.

The president's criticism follows a U.S. raid early Saturday that American officials said killed 15 armed militants. Afghan officials said those killed were civilians. Demonstrators rallied in Laghman province Sunday, near the site of the raid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

[Aloha Spirit]

13. "Get used to it " is a ridiculous way to react to death and destruction.

[LWolf]

15. Which is one of the reasons why

I adamantly opposed his nomination from the beginning, and never had any hope for POSITIVE change from the incoming administration.

[MadHound]

16. Yes, we realize fully what he said

Doesn't mean that we agree with it. Doesn't mean that we won't oppose it. Doesn't mean that what Obama is doing is right or morally justified.

It simply means that Obama was the lesser of two evils that we were confronted with on election day.

In my opinion, and the opinion of millions of others, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are both wrong, and we will oppose both of them.

We're not going to get used to it, and we're not going to be quiet. And the fact that you can take this position just goes to show how fucked up your own moral compass is.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. I didn't say you had to be quiet

But you WILL have to get used to it.

The war in Afghanistan will continue.