Can someone help me understand why there's opposition to Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan troop surge?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

Though I agree that we perhaps shouldn't be Afghanistan, what happens if we ignore bin Laden and the Taliban? Should we not pursue bin Laden at all?

President Obama has stated all along that we should have been in Afghanistan/Pakistan where al Qaeda thrives. Since we all agree that we were lied into a war in Iraq, shouldn't we be in the country that actually attacked us? We know this throughout the primaries and the GE. Why are we upset about it now? And why are we opposed?

These people were responsible for perpetrating 911. Should we just forget about bringing the Taliban to its needs?

I guess I don't understand the logic here. We are leaving Iraq with a small contingent of troops (16-18K) headed to Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Again, should we do nothing? If we did that, I can guarantee you that if God forbid we are attacked again, the same people screaming about why we're in Afghanistan/Pakistan will wonder why President Obama did nothing.

If we leave the region altogether, what should we then do? Nothing?

What's your solution to these problems...all of which WERE NOT CREATED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA?

[rug]

1. If we don't support Saigon Cambodia will fall.

[damonm]

46. Non Sequitr

[rug]

48. As it turned out.

Meanwhile, were you searching for apropos?

[damonm]

57. Yes - have you any to offer?

Because you haven't yet.

[rug]

61. Oh it's you. Let me google for a fail poster or a lolcat so you'll understand.

[damonm]

63. Don't bother - you're beneath comprehension.

Welcome to ignore.

[rug]

68. You really have a knack for misusing words.

[CJCRANE]

2. I've always thought Afghanistan

was unfinished business. I actually supported Bush when he ousted the Taliban. I thought it was the right thing to do at the time. The neocons then had a chance to actually prove that their idea of nation building worked. But they forgot about rebuilding Afghanistan and attacked Iraq instead.

Now, of course I know that they were never really interested in Afghanistan (Rumsfeld actually wanted to attack Iraq straight after 9/11. It took Colin Powell, Tony Blair and Richard Clarke to persuade Bushco to go after al-Qaeda first instead).

Another consequence of "draining the swamp" in Afghanistan/Pakistan (if it's possible) will be to reduce the power of the neocons because they are symbiotic with al-Qaeda.

[babylonsister]

3. VetVoice agrees with you, but they're calling it stabilization...

We all want out of there, but I agree, we need to think about how that gets done.


VetVoice: "I wanted to Stop Bush's Surge, but I Support Obama's Stabilization"

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2475


I wanted to Stop Bush's Surge, but I Support Obama's Stabilization
by: jonpowers
Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 15:56:35 PM EST

(From the diaries - promoted by Brandon Friedman)

by: Jonathan Powers


In January of 2007, I stood up with many of my fellow Iraq veterans and Votevets.org to call on Bush to "Stop the Escalation." Many of us felt that the Bush Administration lacked an overall strategy to provide the necessary tools needed to bring the fragile stability we see today in Iraq. Votevets hosted a group to be a part of a national ad campaign that showed during that year's Super Bowl.

snip//

Today we face a much different situation in Afghanistan as President Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 U.S. troops "to stabilize a deteriorating situation." Karen De Young reported on this in the Washington Post . Now, many of those veterans who stood up to "Stop the Escalation" are now standing with President Obama to announce their support. This is the right war, and the right time.

When we took our eye off the ball to invade Iraq in 2003, many of the needed troops and resources were allocated to the wrong fight. As a result, the situation in Afghanistan continued to become more fragile as U.S. and NATO forces struggled to keep control and of regions where Taliban forces are reasserting their power. Now we face a challenge in which Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government is crumbling and allowing the same wide spread lawlessness that gave birth to Al Qaeda.

The difference for our veterans of these recent wars in supporting President Obama, is that he has already announced his understanding for a change in strategy. He talks about the needed reforms that will allow our country to develop smart power and real national security. Unlike George Bush who buried his head in the sand until the 2006 elections slapped him awake, the Obama Administration is undergoing a massive review process to better understand and execute the fight. He talks of including diplomatic and political solutions to the military effort.

The addition of troops right now is not putting the cart before the horse, though. The addition will allow us to provide some security through the expected spring offensive from the enemy, so that there's an actual Afghanistan situation to review, and not a failed state completely overrun by the Taliban.

snip//

We are not giving President Obama a free pass, but many of us have the faith and confidence that he will move us forward with a strategic vision that encompasses the change we need. I hope you will join me in supporting our President Obama and our troops who work to stabilize this "deteriorating situation."

[unhappycamper]

4. Let me give it a shot.

We've been in Afghanistan for eight years and now Obama going to 'surge' it? If you read your history, the last person to conquer Afghanistan was Alexander the Great. The trans-Afghanistan oil line is no longer needed, so the occupation is no longer needed. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that Mr. O is 'surging' more troops.

You also need to keep in mind that these occupations are costing us more than $5,000 a second. If there is a financial crisis in this country, wouldn't you grab the low hanging fruit to cut the cost of government as much as possible? Here's another great big apple for you - the 2009 military budget is almost a trillion dollars (it was $302 billion when dubya came to power). And Gates recently asked for another $86 billion dollars to continue the occupations through 2009.

So how do we fix these problems? Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.

[Captain Hilts]

6. I need to read The Man Who Would Be King. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

127. It's one of the best thirty-six pages you'll ever devour

Short stories often make great movies.

[TwilightGardener]

18. So, who in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan do we sit down with

to conduct "diplomacy"--the people who behead and throw acid and laugh as thousands of Americans and Europeans die? Those people?

[Moochy]

24. Surely It's Better To Bomb them Anonymously with Flying Robot Planes

[TwilightGardener]

25. Yes. It is.

[Moochy]

32. We'll Bomb Them Democratically of Course

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

99. Hey, a Bill Hicks bit come to life!

"What's G-12 do, Tommy?"
"Says here it destroys everything but the fillings in their teeth. Helps us pay for the war effort."
"Well shit, pull that one up!"
"Pull up G-12, please."
SHOOOP....BOOM!
"Cool, what's G-13 do?"

[Warren Stupidity]

27. the last person to conquer Afghanistan was Alexander the Great

Actually not true. All of the 'stans' are remnants of the great mongol conquests of the 1200s, including Afghanistan. Afghanistan was part of the Moghul Empire and later divided into parts until the 1700's when a Pashtun dynasty which lasted until modern times ruled the country.

The Europeans have not had much luck with military adventures in Afghanistan since Alexander.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I'm well aware of "my history," but I don't think I or President Obama is talking about

"conquering" a nation.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. er - we've already done that

as with Iraq, the conquest is a fact that we simply refuse to acknowledge. We control the official governments of both countries and are the only regular military force of consequence in those countries. We don't talk about conquering nations because we are signatories to treaties that make that a war crime, because we have perhaps genuinely deluded ourselves into thinking that our invasion and occupation of other countries somehow does not constitute 'conquest', or some combination of the two.

How many Afghanis should we kill before we decide that we are done?

[avaistheone1]

96. Sure, looks that way sending tens of thousands of troops and killing

lots of innocent men, women and children even before this war is taken full throttle.

This war is not going to end well for the United States or for Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

5. I do support it. nt

[RoBear]

7. Easy. There's no "R" after it.

:sarcasm:

[RoBear]

10. Oops! Sorry.

Posted before I finished.

That comment is intended, of course, for MSM, Fox News, etc.

I realize some people of conscience oppose for moral reasons, but morality doesn't enter into it for those I mentioned...

Haste makes irrationality sometimes...

[frogcycle]

8. I am one with mixed feelings

It certainly IS unfinished business. After 9/11 we claimed the right to go after the perps. Taking out a government (Taliban) was 'excused' only because it would not turn over the perps. Up to that point, we had some semblance of justification. So much time has passed with us dropping the ball on that mission, that it is hard to see clearly WHY we have any right/justification to be occupying two countries - any more right than did, say the Ottoman Empire.

I have a feeling of deja vu - we are there now because we are there; we need more troops to be able to end it once and for all. That did not work in VN, and is arguable w/respect to Iraq.

IF the extra troops job is to go hell bent for election to obliterate "islamic extremists" before they pull another 9/11, there may be some legitimate rationalization for it. But is that even possible?

As far as "stabilizing" Afghanistan - it has not been "stable" any time in its history, at least not by our definition.

You say "shouldn't we be in the country that actually attacked us?"

Well, Afghanistan did not attack us. It was a bunch of Saudis.

[Political Heretic]

9. It's amazing how many people will rationalize anything rather than criticize Obama

Suddenly we're all war hawks here? What the hell has happened to this place?

President Obama is wrong to state that we should have been in Afghanistan where al Quadea thrives. He was wrong to embrace the neoconservative manufactured "war on terror" as the philosophy of an endless war against an impossible to defeat enemy (an "idea") to prop up endless war profiteering and corporate theft. We didn't just "take our eye off the ball" in Iraq. We committed international crimes.

How quickly people forget that leaders in Afghanistan offered to give us Bin Laden immediately after 9/11 and we refused. We refused partly because the public was frothing for revenge and party because the neocons had big plans for Afghanistan. How quickly we forget that shortly after ousting the Taliban a massive deal for a huge new oil pipeline was in the works.

Whatever happened to being against the doctrine of preemption? Never before Bush was that the policy of this country. And now suddenly its okay because its Obama? You know, I've spent a lot of time defending Obama and Obama supporters on other sites against those who think we are basically a cult of personality and blindly loyal. But then I have to come read this kind of stuff.

How about these suggestions: how about we deal with terrorists acts the same way President Clinton successfully dealt with the world trade center bombing the first time - as the criminal act that it is. Want to bring stability to Afghanistan? You're not going to do that with more guns. You're going to do that by removing the soldiers and bombing that place with food, medicine, schools, infrastructure and aid. That's how you destroy terrorist harbors.

Please, please don't fall into the trap of believing that the only way to achieve stability is through warfare. First of all, it never works in any long term sustainable way. Second of all, there are much better ways. Agressive diplomacy, increased ground intelligence and coordination with international agencies as part of a criminal investigation is the way that's proven to work. While doing that, you can "smoke out" terrorists not with bombs and carnage with only aids their cause, but by improving the conditions for the people in the areas in which they hide. By making allies rather than casualties.

[TwilightGardener]

21. "Pre-emption"--oh, so that whole 9/11/USS Cole thing, that was all a mass hallucination?

I wouldn't call the way we dealt with the first WTC bombing "successful", since the same group ultimately finished the job. Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves?

[TBF]

22. Those were limited terrorist attacks at best (even without getting into

MIHOP or LIHOP), and could be handled by our CIA. There is no need to start bombing entire countries or sending in troops. The way to peace is not through war, it's through diplomacy. PH is absolutely correct about this, there is no need for the war mongering.

[TwilightGardener]

23. "War mongering"? The CIA couldn't stop the attacks. That region

is in danger of becoming controlled once again by the same regime that supported Al Qaeda--and they're making serious inroads into NUCLEAR Pakistan, now--Pakistan is looking the other way. Again, who do we sit down with to conduct "diplomacy", when Muslim extremists simply want us dead for religious reasons? How do you negotiate with that? Insane.

[TBF]

45. The only reason they care about us is that we're over there stripping

their lands of oil. This has nothing to do with religion - that is what the politicians would like you to believe so you support their war mongering.

[damonm]

50. Hooookaaaayyyy...

We're stripping Afghanistan of oil?
Nice to know...

[TBF]

51. Afghanistan - pipeline & poppies. Try to keep up. n/t

[Political Heretic]

98. Um... you need to do some reading.

wow.

[Forkboy]

104. We would sure like to. Your "hooookay" shows a lot of ignorance about this.

Most importantly, it can finally get that oil pipeline done--the one that's to run from the Caspian Sea through Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the Indian Ocean bypassing Russia and unfriendly Iran. The deal was signed in December 2002 but construction has been stymied by the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. That pipeline is, I believe, the big prize."

http://www.asiaobserver.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,0/func,view/catid,22/id,8582/limit,6/limitstart,0&/

"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
< U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 >

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp

Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan "has significant oil and gas deposits. During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at around five trillion cubic feet and production reached 275 million cubic feet per day in the mid-1970's."


A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics). Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book "The Grand Chessboard-American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" as "the center of world power." Capturing the region's oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

In "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" (a definitive work that is a primary source for this report), Ahmed Rashid wrote, "US oil companies who had spearheaded the first US forays into the region wanted a greater say in US policy making."

Business and policy planning groups active in Central Asia, such as the Foreign Oil Companies Group operated with the full support of the US State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA and the Department of Energy and Commerce.

Among the most active operatives for US efforts: Brezezinski (a consultant to Amoco, and architect of the Afghan-Soviet war of the 1970s), Henry Kissinger (advisor to Unocal), and Alexander Haig (a lobbyist for Turkmenistan), and Dick Cheney (Halliburton, US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce).

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1216405258

Pipeline Opens New Front In Afghan War
Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India - a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province - raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.

To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence.

In a report to be released today, energy economist John Foster says the pipeline is part of a wider struggle by the United States to counter the influence of Russia and Iran over energy trade in the region.

http://www.aprodex.com/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war-1028-n.aspx

U.S. Companies Eye Trans-Afghan Pipeline
American companies might join a long-delayed trans-Afghan natural gas pipeline project expected to be launched in 2006, the U.S. ambassador to Turkmenistan said Tuesday.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4089

“If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.”

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020318chicagotribune

If you don't think oil played a part in all of this I'm not sure what to say. It strikes me as very ignorant to think it didn't, especially after we installed Kharzai, a former Unocal worker, to lead Pakistan. You think that was just coincidence?

[damonm]

108. Well, excuse me, o wise one.

I've had other things to deal with.
But I WILL read up on it.
Thanks 4 the info!

[Forkboy]

116. Well, you ask for a little attitude when you mock people for something YOU don't know.

That's fine that you were busy, and no one should hold that against you. But don't mock the people who were able to pay attention to the story as it was happening. :shrug:

My links are hopefully just a springboard. There's a ton of info now about the pipelines and oil and the oil industry in the region, and how it relates to what happened at the start of the war, and how that may or may not apply to the situation now.

[damonm]

121. Ahem...

I see "stripping of oil" which implies Afghanistan HAS some - this doesn't even IMPLY a pipeline. Last time I checked, Afghanistan had no oil fields.
THIS is why I was dubious. NOT mocking. Kindly refrain from assigning intent when, quite frankly, you don't know.
But these links DO make some superb points. Thanks for expanding my knowledge of the situation.

[Forkboy]

125. Ok, fair enough.

My apologies then.

[damonm]

126. Accepted. Mine to you if I came off snarky.

[TBF]

113. Thanks for posting the links - these are great resources. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

118. Please provide one instance - one - of the United States stealing oil

We are in a recession because of the one thing people claim we stole.

Makes NO SENSE.

We shouldn't be over there, and never should have been, but we stole no freaking oil.

Now, we might have made it easier for certain people to GET to it...

[Political Heretic]

101. There will always be someone willing to use terrorism.

Speaking of people listening to themselves, it is incredible to me how times change. Someone saying what you are saying would have been run out of here on a rail during Bush's administration. But now, suddenly because its Obama we have people crawling out of the woodwork to defend the massive front that is the so-called "war on terror"

You wouldn't call it successful because someone else later "finished" the job? Why was that, exactly? It didn't have anything to do with gross incompetence so vast on the part of the Bush administration that it causes even reasonable people to wonder if they weren't hoping it would happen (Cheney, Rumsfeld: We need a new Perl Harbor to shock people into accepting our plans). Do we remember a little memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the Untied States?"

As long as we're talking about things that haven't been successful, let's talk about the so-called "war on terror." Terrorism globally, is up not down. That's according to the Bush Administration's own annual reports on terrorism. The sooner you can get it through your head that what we are doing has next to NOTHING to do with keeping us safe and almost everything to do with advancing an agenda of the corporate-political ruling class, the better off we will all be.

If we want to stabilize that region, we probably shouldn't try the exact same strategy that has failed every single time since Alexander the Great. Instead, we should dump massive assistance on that country, bringing food, medicine and infrastructure to the people while combining that with massive diplomacy - to stamp out the social conditions in which terrorism there breeds and to starve out the terrorists by denying them the safe havens created in the wake of our destruction of countries.

But hey.... you go right ahead and make the BUSH ADMINSTRATIONS argument for them.

[JeffR]

137. Because it will achieve precisely nothing.

A bad idea redoubled is still a bad idea.

[TwilightGardener]

155. Find me one post that I've ever made that was NOT supportive of our presence in Afghanistan

while Bush was President. And yet, I'm still here, still saying essentially the same things about it...not run out on a rail. I haven't changed my tune. I separate policy from politician.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. Not rationalizing. Trying to understand. I'm of mixed feelings on this issue...

I think bin Laden and his associates ought to be brought to justice. In addition, the Taliban has basically enslaved its women and that region will likely get worse. Do we do nothing? Since some of our actions created this mess? Or, do we try and stabilize the region?

This is not about being an "Obama Stan." I, for one, have been highly critical of Obama on a host of issues and most people here know this.

[TBF]

47. "Protecting the women" is the latest thing the republicans have come up

with to support their war efforts. What about all the other women around the world that are in horrible straits? Do we care about brown women in Rwanda? No, we do not. We all of a sudden "care" about the women in Afghanistan because we need to make up reasons to justify our military action.

[Political Heretic]

102. Yes and how about we spend as much time "caring" for women in our own country before we

...cruise around the world blowing up women by the tens of thousands and laying their cities and towns to waste before construction the next Exxon and Bectel base camp?

If we're so concerned about women, less take the money we spent on Iraq and will spend on Afghanistan and pour it into countering domestic violence and poverty in the United States.

[TBF]

114. You're going to put yourself out of a job :)

but you are correct of course.

[damonm]

109. "leaders in Afghanistan offered to give us Bin Laden immediately after 9/11 and we refused"

Yes, I guess I HAVE forgotten that - care to provide a link so I can refresh my memory?

Because I seem to remember the opposite of that.

[Political Heretic]

111. Just one more thing you can be wrong about:

First was the offer to try Bin Laden under Islamic Law - which would have gotten him killed, but can understand maybe if we wanted to say no to that:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/

Then they offer to extradite him without preconditions:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11



Then later, we find this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

And then this, even before 9/11
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/06/05/233/47467



Finally, less mainstream and in need of verification, but still important:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

This paints a pretty good picture. We could have had Bin Laden without an invasion if we wanted him.

[EmilyAnne]

119. As far as Bush is concerned, nothing would surprise me. I think he is capable of anything and

truly believes that any of his actions is inherently "good" because "God" is on his side.

Regardless, I don't know how the circumstances of the beginning of the Afghan invasion should affect how we advance now, in 2009.
What do you think we should do? I think we owe the Afghan people some sort or stability and the means to maintaining a proper government. The elections are to be held in August and it doesn't seem like they are in any condition to have them on their own. Furthermore, I keep reading about how the coming warm weather will bring a great increase in violence. We can't just leave them to a bloodbath.

Of course, my point is absurd if we are just causing our own sort of bloodbath. I just can't make heads or tails of Afghanistan. What is our objective? Is it to influence Pakistan because she has nuclear weapons? Obama would be supported if he brought the troops home, so this isn't about pandering to a bloodthirsty American people. We are in economic turmoil, so the expense of an escalation is counterproductive. What do you think is Obama's rationalization for these actions in Afghanistan? Even if the rationalization is total bullshit, I'd still like to hear what you think it is.

Thanks!

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

140. That's because you've been perpetually wrong in this thread. Perhaps its time to listen

...to those who have their facts together.

I'm not apologizing for my statement, "something else you can be wrong about" because its 100% correct. You've been wrong over and over again, by your own admission, in this thread and yet you still trying to advance the same argument.

Maybe you should go offline, regroup, get yourself a little more informed, then come back and play with the big dogs when you're ready.

I am not here to coddle ignorant people. It's not my forum duty to be "nice."

[blindpig]

147. Good homework, PH

How quickly they forget. Quite frankly, I don't think it would have made a difference if Gore was president.

[sampsonblk]

117. Yup. What you said. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

146. Your post is full of ignorance and pro-Taliban talking points,

The Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over for the embassy bombings in 1998. For that, they were declared a pariah by the entire world community, and severe sanctions were imposed by the United Nations (by unanimous votes in the Security Council).

So, their offer to turn bin Laden over if the United States shared its intelligence with them and IF they thought it was convincing was a transparent scam designed to take in stupid leftists.

Moreover, the pipeline was not the motivation for the invasion. Otherwise, you know, they would have tried to build it after getting rid of the Taliban.

Pro

[liberalsince1968]

149. Isn't it though.

[Exilednight]

11. Bush made Afghanistan more complicated than it needed to be..........

Afghanistan was the good war to fight. Oust the taliban and stabilize a country, then give them the means and the knowledge to build a better nation.

We should be to the point where the only troops left are civil affairs units, but Bush took his eye off the ball and decided to invade Iraq.

President Obama is stuck with a mess that almost impossible to clean up, but if it can be cleaned up then President Obama is the man to do it.

p.s. Dear mods, can we fix spell check so that President Obama's name is no longer showing up as a misspelled word? For crying out loud, the man became President.

[PADemD]

12. Is Bin Laden really still alive?

[Exilednight]

14. Intelligence sources say yes. A tape surfaced a few weeks ago ......

with bin Laden holding up or reading a current copy of a newspaper, the tape was authenticated to be real.

[kitp]

13. Because its wrong

The Bush administration completely failed in one of its prime duties, to protect the people of the US.
In response to their failure, they claimed a desire to pursue those who perpetrated the crime, Al Qaida.
They stated that Al Qaida was in Afghanistan and so sent troops into that country to capture these criminals.
The so totally failed in that mission, one wonders if they were ever serious in succeeding.
However, once those criminals fled Afghanistan, even that weak justification was gone, and so should our troops have been gone.
The occupation never had any justification and should end immediately, today.

Iraq, of course, is just an international crime, one for which the Bush leaders should be imprisoned.

To "solve" these problems is easy. Apologize to the Afghan and Iraqi people, imprison the criminals who perpetrated these crimes, and make massive financial retributions. Of course, it goes without saying, remove all troops immediately, now, today, period.

Now, as to the weak justification for military action in the first place. The way to defeat Al Qaida, if indeed they are our enemies, is not to pursue the soldiers in the field, nor to target their leader, but to cut off their funding. And that funding comes from Saudi Arabia, not from Afghanistan.

One of my major objections to the Obama candidacy was his outright acceptance of the mythical war on terror and his strong support for continued military action to pursue our "enemies", even into Pakistan.

I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, I opposed the occupation of it, I opposed the invasion of Iraq and I opposed its occupation.
I oppose the maintenance of troops in Afghanistan and, obviously, their increase.


As to the Taliban, who gives a rat's ass about them? They are not nor ever have been a threat to us.

[bottomtheweaver]

54. Well said.

Such a shame that the best posts often go unanswered, but I guess there's a logic to it. Anyway, that's it in a nutshell.

[tekisui]

15. Are you still afraid of bin Laden?

How about good intelligence and good police work to keep us safe. Wars don't do it.

If it's revenge you're after, then prepare for endless cycles of violence.

I don't think we have any business occupying Afghanistan and sending missiles into Pakistan. Just yesterday we killed 13 innocent civilians. That is a tragedy. I know it is easy for people to disregard and minimalize innocents dying by American bombs. But, what if it was you or your loved one killed by an outside forces bomb?

We need to get out and quit using war as an instrument of policy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. I'm not afraid of bin Laden!! I want him brought to justice. Gosh, you people are a piece of work.

No one is disregarding innocent lives, either. :shrug:

[tekisui]

64. "you people", huh?

Us people who care about innoncents being killed in our name for the reason of catching a boogey man? Whatever.:eyes:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. "Us people" includes me.

[OwnedByFerrets]

131. Nice post.

[sarge43]

16. My reasons for getting the hell out.

1. A conventional army can not defeat insurgents/guerrillas. There is no headquarters, no concentrated personnel mass, no central communication base, no industrial support, in short it's like trying to kill a creature without a central nervous system. Insurgents/guerrillas do what G. Washington and his gang did, keep retreating until the enemy's supply lines are stretched to the breaking point. Now that Uzbekistan has give us the walking papers, Turkey is the nearest supply point and that's a long unpleasant haul. I would not want to be the logistics wonk for this fracas.
I/Gs don't attack; they hit and run, keeping the enemy on constant alert and forcing them to again stretch support/logistics or go into siege mode, always a dangerous tactical choice - move or die.

2. Afghanistan is right up there with Switzerland for being the worst possible ground to fight on, if you're a conventional army.

3. If we capture or kill bin Laden and even destroy the Taliban, they will be replaced by within weeks, if not days, by entities just as hostile. As you say al Qaeda is alive and well in Pakistan. Start shit in Pakistan? That's a nightmarish scenario.

4. The Afghan people have no reason to support us. We offer nothing they want. They're are not stupid, naive or ignorant. They have a deep understanding of their history and I'd bet the majority of them see us as just another empire trying to push them around. Like every other empire that's tried that we'll be history within at best a generation. So they will be neutral or hostile, wait us out, grab up all the stuff we leave behind and wait for the next jackass empire.

5. The US Army has recently admitted it's pretty much tapped out. If someone else starts stuff, it will have a difficult, if not impossible, job dealing with it.

6. Finally, what is the mission objective in Afghanistan? Is it an objective we have a reasonable chance of achieving within a reasonable length of time? If not, this is a video game with real bodies.

One final thought: A stone ax can kill you just as dead as a nuke. Takes longer and it's messier, but you're still reported as dead on the morning report.

[Thrill]

17. When saw one of the most progressive Vet groups applaud the decision

I was fine with it. And anyone who watched the campaign should have known Obama's opinion on this

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I don't understand why people are acting brand new, calling Afghanistan Obama's "Vietnam"

It's not fair to Obama. If he does nothing, he'll be blamed for whatever chaos ensues. And yet, again, we all knew and supported Obama when he discussed his policies on Afghanistan and Pakistan since the day he announced his run for the presidency.

So, what's the problem, seriously?

[sarge43]

33. The problem is he could be wrong.

I don't expect to agree with everything the candidate I support proposes. That candidate has never existed nor I expect that anyone who runs for office is going to be perfect. I look at his/her public record, the bio and the ideas and ideals. Do I agree with the majority of them? Then, I support that person.

Also, I could be wrong. On this one I hope I am.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm no Obama "Stan." I'm simply asking why it is it

that we are acting as if we didn't know his stance on this issue when he has consistently spoken about Afghanistan/Pakistan. And if he is wrong, then so be it. But are we not going to give him a chance?

And further, why is it that when one of us demonstrates support for Obama with one issue, we are accused of not being critical enough? Everyone knows that I have been extremely critical of the president, to the point where I've been accused of being a troll. On this particular issue, I simply believe that our president is correct. Doesn't mean that I'm not critical of him on a host of other issues. I have been.

[sarge43]

43. I knew his stand. I hoped he was keeping the MSM and Repugs

from screaming defeatist or worse. I have no choice but give him the chance; I merely believe history and military reality isn't on his side.

As for being yelled at, this is DU-P. The volume is always turned to eleven.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. Right on all accounts! n/t

:hi: :hi:

[incapsulated]

66. It's used as a serious fucking warning.

This is easily the real next Vietnam and I don't want another Democratic President taken down by an endlessly increasing campaign to achieve the impossible.

[avaistheone1]

97. I always marveled how Obama would sandwich Afghanistan into his speeches when he had the crowds

roaring. But once Afghanistan was mentioned the crowds went numb and silent. There was no support from Obams's supporters for Obama's desire to surge Afghanistan throughout his campaign despite Obama's attempts to slide this into his platform.

[Thrill]

106. slide it in? He hasn't tried to hide his stance on it. Watch any of the debates

[avaistheone1]

120. I did. I watched the debates and many of his campaign speeches

and Afghanistan was never the centerpiece of Obama's campaign. I also noticed that whenever he sandwiched Afghanistan in to his speeches it was between other topics which did get a positive response for Obama supporters like ourselves. However, whenever Obama did mention Afghanistan the response from the crowds was much different it was like people were stunned, the response was flat.

Clearly Obama is not following the wishes of Democratic voters, or those of voters at large. Both of which want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I did alot of polling and surveying of voters throughout the country during the campaign and the number one issues on people's mind was out of Iraq AND there was absolutely no interest in escalating our involvement in Afghanistan. So Obama must be taking his marching orders from the Pentagon because the people of this country have had it with both of these military interventions.

[Thrill]

128. Of course it wasn't the centerpiece. But he never tried to hide his stance

on it. He made it very clear over and over.

And there may be several Democratic voters that don't like the war there. In my opinion there must be intelligence reports there that show this is something that absolutely has to be dealt with.

When I see Liberal Senators like Feingold calling for more troops there and one of the more Liberal/Progressive Vet groups calling for more and applauding the decision to send more, I feel comfortable trusting there judgment that this is a very necessary thing to do.

[avaistheone1]

129. I am not talking several Democratic voters. I am talking the majority of

Democratic voters do not want us in Afghanistan or Iraq. Most republican voters don't want us there either. I was involved in polling and surveying voters throughout the country during the election and people all over the country were of a single mind about this they want our troops home and out of both of those countries. In fact it was their top political priority. So why Obama is proceeding in this way makes no sense to me.

So Obama must be taking his marching orders from the Pentagon. I am curious what liberal/progressive vet group is supporting our escalation in Afghanistan? I have seen or heard nothing that makes me trust that increasing our military presence is a good idea at all. So, if someone has something I sure would like to hear it.

[Thrill]

132. VoteVets.org

STATEMENT FROM AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ VETERANS ON NEWLY ANNOUNCED TROOP INCREASE IN AFGHANISTAN

Washington - The nation's largest progressive group of veterans today reacted to news from the Pentagon that an additional 12,000 U.S. troops or more will be heading to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

Brandon Friedman, who served in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and is Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org released the following statement:

"Coupled with the earlier appointment of Ambassador Holbrooke as special envoy to the region, today’s announcement that we will be bolstering our forces in Afghanistan, through re-missioning, is most welcome. For those of us who served in Afghanistan, especially, it’s been extremely disappointing to see the situation deteriorate there, with previous gains lost. Our forces are much more needed in Afghanistan right now, than in Iraq.

"The President and his team clearly understand that regaining the upper hand in Afghanistan will mean not just a military boost, but a strengthening of our diplomatic and political efforts there. That’s an intelligent and proven approach to counter-insurgency, which will finally allow us to take the fight to al Qaeda where it is strongest, and make America and the world safer."

http://www.votevets.org/news?id=0190

Again. I understand most of us are against this war. But sometimes leaders have to do what is neccessary. Iraq wasn't necessary,

[caraher]

19. What might have been a solution in 2001/2002 is not in 2009

It's this simple: if we'd gone in, found bin Laden, and helped stabilize reconstruct the country in a big way in 2002/2003 that might have worked. Sending in more troops now smacks of wishful thinking; doing the same thing probably doesn't work in 2009, because the Afghans have little reason to believe we're seriously interested in their peace and security. Obama's intentions are far less real to them than the past 7+ years of violence and neglect.

I don't think Obama really has any good options; he needs to find the least bad one.

[Zero T]

20. We need to make sure that

opium production remains high enough to keep the war on drugs going. Since the Russians got there asses kicked there a few years back, I can't imagine that our "Policeman of the World" role will end well.

[tekisui]

26. I oppose it for the simple reason of it will cause more innocent deaths,

and more US soldiers dying, with not end in sight. No definition of success. No way to win.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Kerry had it right for one brief moment of sanity.

Al Qaeda, and terrorist gangs like them, are police matters that should best be dealt with as a crime problem and not as a military problem.

Invading conquering and then permanently occupying distant foreign lands is perhaps the single most stupid policy we could possibly pursue if our objective is to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks.

The country that actually attacked us, as far as I can tell, was Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan provided a safe haven for al qaeda, al qaeda itself is and was primarily lead and funded by Saudis.

[damonm]

52. Well,

The Taliban in Afghanistan supported & sheltered AQ - they were given a warning, then we went after them. It's the ONLY thing the MoD did right in 8 years.
The Taliban are known allies of AQ, and threaten to take power again. That simply HAS to be prevented. Their rising into power in the 1st place was indirectly OUR fault - we failed to support the Afghanis in rebuilding after they kicked the Soviets out (with our help). The Taliban and their sanctuary of AQ is OUR PROBLEM. We are morally obligated to help Afghanistan become a functioning state, since we were part of what broke it.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. How many Afghanis should we kill to prevent the Taliban from taking power?

Yes sure of course, as I said, Afghanistan provided a safe haven for the Saudi lead and funded al qaeda organization. Pakistan's ISS , in turn has provided aid for the Taliban. Saudi Arabia and other sunni gulf oil states provide an unknown level of logistical and financial support for sunni jihadist organizations and institutions. Who do we go after? The only state that has no leverage, Afghanistan.

I also supported the original military attack on Afghanistan and I now believe I was wrong to do so. There is no military objective here as the issue is a criminal justice issue, not a military issue. By transforming the al qaeda problem into a military issue, into the GWOT, we pursue military solutions, we conquer and occupy nations and attempt to install friendly governments, and we fail. We will continue to fail. Our failure only costs us money and a relatively small number of lives, so we can continue these failed missions for years, perhaps decades. The cost we impose on the nations we occupy is unforgivably large. Where we go we slaughter civilians in large numbers, we destroy whatever semblance of normalcy there was to their societies, we corrupt and distort what remains as we attempt to force them into our vision of how people ought to live.

How many Afghanis should we kill while continuing a hopeless failed military solution to a criminal justice problem? What exactly are the military objectives? When is the mission complete? How many years should we occupy their lands?

Pakistan and our installed government of Kabul are negotiating or have expressed a willingness to negotiate with the Pashtun Taliban in order to arrive at some peaceful resolution of the conflict. We should permit that to happen and concurrently pursue a criminal justice approach toward destroying the al qaeda organization.

[damonm]

67. But...

Have the TALIBAN expressed this willingness to negotiate?
They're hardcore, and respect nothing but force.
And, whether you like it or not, there must be a military component in dealing with terrorism. Bush's error was to make it the ONLY part.
I lay out my opinion on it in my journal:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/damonm/7

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Yes actually the Taliban have negotiated with Pakistan.

For example the recent agreement regarding Swat. I don't agree that there is a military component to dealing with gangs like al qaeda. Your journal article did not enlighten me.

"FINISH the job begun in Afghanistan - eradicate the Taliban" - as the taliban appears to be the armed militia of the Pashtun tribes, that would basically require a genocide of Pashtun men. No thanks. And again you are viewing the problem as a military problem and consequently proposing military solutions, in this particular case a rather odious solution.

[damonm]

84. Hmm...

And I disagree utterly with your assessment. There is a military component necessary, as there is a hard core that will pay no attention to anything but.
That is a problem with those of us who lean left - we tend to believe that everybody is as accessible to reason as we, when experience shows that not to be the case.
I hope you're right - it'd make things a hell of a lot more manageable - but I'd bet long odds you're not.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. Armies are good for killing other armies and conquering nations

and for defending against the same. Al Qaeda is not an army, is not a nation, is not even one organization anymore. So when we task our army with 'go get al qaeda in Afghanistan' what we end up with is a battle against the only thing they could identify as an army: the Taliban militia, the occupation of the only thing our military planners could identify as something they could conquer and occupy: Afghanistan, and al qaeda simply continued to do its thing. The successes we have had against al qaeda have largely been police and intelligence efforts - the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammad for example, the destruction of funding sources is another example, and not military efforts.

Our military effort against Al Qaeda has so far been an abject failure. Nearly eight years after 9-11, far longer than our war against Hitler's Germany, al qaeda survives. The only other 'war' that has lasted this long was our Vietnam debacle. Why is that?

[treestar]

34. The voters are finally convinced the Iraq war is not necessary

But the Afghan one is another question altogether. It was started in Oct. 2001 and should be over by now, had * not distracted us all with Iraq. Obama shouldn't even have to deal with it.

But he is President of all the people, and obviously convinced we don't want to back off getting bin Laden and the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda.

I don't think it will do a whole lot of good - we should just focus of preventing terror attacks using intelligence and trying to capture bin Laden without killing civilians (which is how Clinton approached it and why he didn't get the chance to take Osama). But the people in general did not see it that way, at least right after 911.

I think Obama needs to be able to take this one at a time - get out of Iraq first, then deal with this older and somewhat more justified conflict. Once again, too many expect Obama to solve the horrors of the previous administration in one month or two.

[leftofthedial]

35. it would be nice to start with a clear mission.

if it is compelling, then we can decide how to accomplish it.

this is just throwing troops at an unclearly identified presumed problem.

[latebloomer]

37. Many, many reasons

articulately stated by the above posters.

Some of the main ones-

Afghanistan did not attack us. If you believe the official story, it was Saudis.

War in Afghanistan is a quagmire that will not be won and will result in countless additional deaths.

If we would start minding our own damn business we would not be attacked by these people!

WE CANNOT FUCKING AFFORD TO BE POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD ANYMORE! Over, finished, kaput! Time to start taking care of our own people! How much money is being wasted on this utter folly?!

[cliffordu]

40. Uh, cause it won't work.

Kipling (or some other famous english writer asshole) didn't refer to it as the graveyard of empires for nothing....

[dcindian]

41. Because some of us believe it to be wrong.

The war on terror has been lost long ago. The answer to terror cannot be found in terror.

[damonm]

53. And the GOP thanks you....

for being living justification of all their fearmongering about liberals.

[dcindian]

93. Let them thank me for their freedom too.

I am no pacifist. I did my duty for this country and would do so again if she needed it. In this case she needs something else something you and the other haters can't understand.

[saltpoint]

42. Alexander, astride the most famous war horse in history and with the

most huge and arguably best-trained army ever, could not subdue Bactria.

I hope President Obama has read or will soon read Frank Holt's INTO THE LAND OF BONES.

I don't see a military commitment in Afghanistan ending well for anybody.

[Thickasabrick]

49. Because we need to get the fuck out and let them govern their

own country. All we seem to do over there lately is accidentally kill civilians and just piss them off more. We are not being helpful.

[damonm]

55. And "GTFO and let them govern their own country"

Is what led to the rise of the Taliban - let's play that one again.

[frogcycle]

58. Look, trying to establish an idyllic world is whack-a-mole

Taliban here, Jinjaweed there, Chinese repression the other place...


We need to deal with direct threats, and deal with them forcefully. Otherwise, people ruled by despots, people starving, women forced to wear burkas, girls who can't go to school - really none of our damned business. Offering people safe haven, using diplomacy to influence, sure. Working thru UN to influence - sure. But invading each and every one is out of the question. So yes, we need to GTFO. If we back off carefully, we can morph to sought-after helpers for specific missions, rather than occupiers.

[damonm]

65. The problem

with your otherwise well-reasoned point is this:
It was OUR neglect after helping the Afghanis get rid of the Soviets that gave rise to the Taliban.
That misery was OUR FAULT.
Are you seriously saying we shouldn't try and clean up our messes?

[Warren Stupidity]

76. good grief no

the Taliban is Afghanistan's problem. 'We have to keep killing you because we made you so bad you need to be killed' is no justification for occupying foreign lands and killing the locals, it is no justification, it is an excuse. We need to stop already.

[damonm]

85. So you ARE saying we shouldn't clean up a mess that's our fault.

Gotcha - it's THEIR problem, regardless of the fact that WE paved the way for it.
Couldn't disagree more.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. We can't.

This is the same crap excuse for our malingering presence in Iraq - we made the mess now we have to keep killing them until the mess is all better. Only it doesn't get better, at best it becomes a stand off, with a resolution waiting for our departure.

[Forkboy]

107. Then to be consistant you feel we should stay in Iraq as well, correct?

[damonm]

124. See #126 - we are.

[Forkboy]

152. I know we're staying, but do you agree with that choice?

[damonm]

153. To an extent, yes.

We essentailly broke that country - so we have a moral obligation to help them become a functioning state again, assuming they show some desire to become such.
Should we have been there in the first place? HELL no! Did we go? yes. And I think that Chimpy's choice to do so is disastrous on multiple levels, this being one.

[Forkboy]

154. I don't agree, but thank you for the answer.

:toast:

[damonm]

156. Fair enough - you're welcome

And thank YOU for keeping it civil - always appreciated, and too seldom done around here.
(myself included in that lament, unfortunately)

[incapsulated]

59. Because it probably won't work and this is another, worse quagmire

More troops is not going to solve this problem. We cannot surge our way out of it and yes, the analogies to Vietnam are not at all out of place.

I just hope he learns this fast.

[kiranon]

80. Agree. I wish it were different and that dogs could talk and so on

but it won't be so. Killings by drone will just inflame the population against us as the drones kill more civilians than Al Qaida. The U.S. doesn't have the people, money and resources or knowledge to change Afghanistan. Good intentions are not enough. It is a far more complicated problem than even Iraq was. If no other countries will help us, we need to get out of the area. The Taliban is horrible but it is not Al Qaida and we are now pushing the Taliban into working with Al Qaida. War is never the solution to nation building, in my opinion.

[damonm]

89. "If no other countries will help us"

Have you, perchance, heard of ISAF?

It's not a one-country show, as Iraq largely was. This WILL take an international effort, for sure; no one nation is going to get Afghanistan on track to civilization. If it WERE just us, I'd have to agree with you - but it's not.

[MadHound]

60. Perhaps because a lot of realize that we can't win this war,

At least not the way we're currently waging it.

This isn't a war of military conquest, even though the US is treating it as such. This is a war of ideas, and much as we did in Vietnam, we're bring a military to this war of ideas. Talk about being outgunned, we are.

For instance, a few months ago there was a severe earthquake on the Afghistan/Pakistan border area. Well within range for the US to either truck in or fly in loads of humanitarian supplies, a good thing that would win friends and influence people. However instead of doing this, we sat on our ass, launched a few more drone attacks that killed some more innocents. Meanwhile, a terrorist group came rolling in with a large convey stuffed with humanitarian aid, helped these people out when they needed help, or and gained their support. Another battle in the war of ideas lost.

This is what happened in Vietnam, and this is why we lost in Vietnam. You cannot expect to win the hearts and minds of people when you're continually blowing the hell out of them. Yet instead of learning the lessons of history, we're repeating it all over again.

As far as OBL and the Taliban goes, well first of all, most of the people who actually carried out the attack on 911 came from Saudi Arabia, or have you forgotten that inconvenient fact? That aside however, capturing a relatively small group of terrorists is not the situation where you send in massive troops, bomb the hell out of the people and the countryside. Nope, what needs to be done is send in a small force, specially trained, to go in and get these people. Instead we are essentially using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. We keep on missing, yet we're doing massive damage to the surrounding area, killing hundreds of innocents and pissing everybody off.

Granted, the mess wasn't created by Obama, but he now has the responsibility and has to deal with it. Rather than trying more, bigger and better of course, of the same thing, why not try actually making friends with the people? Why not actually try waging a war of ideas with *gasp* better ideas:shrug:

And if we get attacked again, I will be blaming Obama, for continuing to piss an entire group of people off to the point where they want to attack us.

Continuing the same old failed military policy of bomb, bomb, bomb Vietnam didn't work then, and it isn't going to work now. It's time that we pulled out of the area and adapted a completely different strategy, start fighting this war of ideas with, well, better ideas.

[incapsulated]

62. Exactly. And Johnson inherited Vietnam, too....

Who is blamed for it, him or Kennedy?

[damonm]

69. A problem with your analysis...

...is that Kennedy was considering getting us out of Vietnam shortly before he was killed.

Johnson CHOSE to escalate the war based on a lie. (Tonkin Gulf Incident, anyone? It NEVER HAPPENED.)
Thus was Johnson - correctly - blamed for Vietnam.

[incapsulated]

70. "Considering" isn't doing

He didn't get out. Johnson inherited it. If he was smart he would have completely changed course and so should Obama.

[incapsulated]

71. In addition, isnt' this exactly what Obama is doing?

Escalating what was pretty much a failed and nearly ignored mess?

[damonm]

73. Again, a problem

because this only failed because it was aborted. It WAS making significant progress, then the MoD decided to divert everything to Iraq and leave Afghanistan half-done, JUST as we did after the Afghans kicked the Soviets out - we had a chance to put Afghanistan on the road to some semblance of civilization, and whiffed - to ignore them now is to repeat the error yet again.

Also, on Kennedy and 'Nam - From Wikipedia:

Fueling this speculation are statements made by Kennedy's and Johnson's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a position Johnson states he disapproved of. Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Nevertheless, given the stated reason for the overthrow of the Diem government, such action would have been a dramatic policy reversal, but Kennedy was generally moving in a less hawkish direction in the Cold War since his acclaimed speech about World Peace at American University the previous June 10, 1963.

Moreover, Kennedy DID NOT get us into Vietnam - that was Ike's doing.

[incapsulated]

74. Frankly, I would take Vietnam over Afghanistan any day

We are talking about a dirt road country whose entire economy revolves around the drug trade and is run by rivaling warlords who have not been beaten by the Brits, the Soviets and they sure aren't going to be on their knees to a nation spread thin in economic crisis at home.

It's over. Put a fork in it. I don't care what he said during the campaign. This is a black hole and we need to get the fuck out.

[damonm]

86. Leave them to the consequences of our making, then, is what you're saying.

We failed to help them after they got rid of the Soviets, and we paved the way for the Taliban thereby.
So you say, GTFO - leave them in our mess.
real nice.

[incapsulated]

103. If you use that criteria we shouldn't leave Iraq, either

The country was a mess when we got there and in the middle of a civil war.

I think the world is tired of our "help" they never asked for and wish we would leave them the fuck alone.

[damonm]

123. IIRC, didn't the civil war start AFTER we got there?

And we're not entirely leaving, either - "Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

This from http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

[incapsulated]

150. In Afghanistan? No.

I wasn't talking about Iraq.

The Taliban had just pushed the Northern Alliance to the edge and took Kabul before 9/11.

We came in and took their side.

[damonm]

151. Oh, OK - I stand corrected...

as to what you meant. But my larger point is that the Taliban gov't and the "failed state" status of Afghanistan is largely our doing. After we helped the Afghans kick the Soviets out, we turned our backs. When we should have been helping them rebuild their nation, we abandoned them, and the Taliban was the result of that.
That's the mess I was referring to.

[saltpoint]

72. Empire is out. Empathy is in.

Consider the indisputable negative fall-out from most of our foreign military engagements since the 1950s.

And the number of human lives lost, both ours and others'.

It is unclear if stability is an achievable goal in Afghanistan, and even if it were, whether the United States' interests are served by occupying it. They aren't, IMO, and they're too expensive in any case.

Vietnam, taken as a military failure spanning several presidents' administrations, was more than just a military failure.

Remnants of the judgment from that era appear to cling to power circles even now, and some of the opposition to a "surge" in Afghanistan likely springs from our having to fight this battle all over again.

By most accounts, Osama bin Laden is in a mountain crevice somewhere in remote Pakistan. It would be much easier if he turned himself in and was flown to Washington for an expeditious rendering of justice in the courts, but in the OFF-CHANCE that this does not occur, all the rest of the U.S. baggage in Afghanistan, not the least of it the cost in human lives, is just too goddamned heavy a load to lug.

I feel that the wiser words in this matter are from those who urge the president to get out while the gittin's good.

[mvd]

77. No one's ever been able to control Afghanistan

I hope the increase is just making it possible to leave soon. We can keep our intelligence on Al Qaeda, but the Al Qaeda threat has always been exaggerated. 9/11 happened only because of LIHOP in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

78. There is only one possible reason to have a build up in Afghanistan

and that is to give us a better negotiating position when we engage a political solution. There is no other reason. We can't defeat the Taliban and we will not "capture" Bin Laden with an army.

The real question here is, is there any other way to improve our position without using our troops as bargaining chips? With the world in economic collapse, maybe not. I still oppose the build up.

[leftstreet]

79. Meh. The War in Pipelineistan has nothing to do with bin Laden

It's about transport of Caspian oil and gas.

And then there's this thing called Poppy Fields Forever.

Jeebus. When will our 'leadership' start telling us the truth? People just aren't going to buy the old talking points that BushInc used. It's getting old.

:eyes:

[LWolf]

83. Here are a three of the many reasons:

1. Many of us are against the bogus "war on terror," and have been all along. Some of those people, not I, were fooled by the false "I was against the Iraq War" campaign propaganda into thinking that Obama would get us out of the war on terror. They didn't pay enough attention.

2. No, I don't think we should be going after Bin Laden. If the war that so many of us NEVER SUPPORTED TO BEGIN WITH had been really about "getting Bin Laden," we would have already "gotten" him. It wasn't, and who really believes that it was, any more? What, exactly, at this point in time, would be the point? We've already disgraced ourselves. It's not like we'd be bringing justice, or teaching anyone a lesson.

3. I think we should be going after GWB and his administration with unrelenting fervor and determination. I think we should be investigating the MIHOP and LIHOP theories, the relationship between the bin laden family and the bush family, and the many crimes committed by the former administration, AND PROSECUTING THEM ALL. If we want to regain credibility with the rest of the world, and bring the most culpable criminals to justice, that is.

[Clio the Leo]

88. Note: what follows are serious questions....

..... not an attempt to argue. ;)

So do you believe that Al Qaeda poses no threat? Or not a significant enough threat to worry with? Or that there is another way to deal with them? Or is it not our place to deal with them?

Again, I am not looking to pick a fight ... I really want to know what's in your head.

And if you have any editorial info that goes along with your way of thinking, I'd love to see that (again, NOT a challenge, I like reading different points of view.)

[LWolf]

91. Answers:

I believe that Al Qaeda is less of a threat than internal corruption. I believe that, should the U.S. give up her pretensions to empire and global domination, we would not be creating terrorists to oppose our manipulation of non-us territories. I believe that diplomacy is always better than aggression. I believe that terrorist threats are better dealt with through intelligence and covert operations than a public "war on terror," and, yes, I believe that it is the place of their fellow citizens to deal with them, as it's our place to deal with our own corruption.

I don't have any "editorial" info for you; these are my own positions, not those parroted from elsewhere.

I have had conversations with a variety of like-minded people around the nation, and there are certainly some places you could probably find some editorializing, if that's what you need for validity.

I trust my own judgment more than anyone else's, so I haven't needed that kind of validation. ;)

[Clio the Leo]

92. I tend to agree with you......

... I believe the attacks on 9/11 (and the one before) was a mixture of "the chickens coming home to roost" so to speak and the misfortune of being the somewhat innocent bystander to someone's political stunt.

But I fear the genie is out of the bottle. I would have preferred that our government always treated other countries with respect and dignity due to them as sovereign nations, of course. Do I feel that now things are so far gone that no amount of diplomacy and good will stop a certain element from again attempting another stunt. Yup.

But, I will gladly concede that I'm no military or foreign relations expert. I'm a retail employee with a Masters Degree in Historic Preservation. So I like to read stuff written by those who know more than I. ;)

It is my firm belief that the President's intention is to make lives better for the Afghani farmer. I believe that just in the way he wants to improve the lives of the single mother on the streets of Chicago, he wants to improve the lives of the poor farmer in Kabul (or outside of Kabul, you know what I mean.)

One could argue that that's imperialism I suppose ... but I believe that improving the human condition is something that transcends any political boundary or governmental authority.

And if he can, in so doing, make it harder for Al Qaeda to recruit new members. So be it.

This is what he said on his December appearance on Meet the Press...

"We've got to really ramp up our development approach to Afghanistan. Part of the problem that we've had is that the average Afghan farmer hasn't seen any improvement in HIS life. We haven't seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements. We haven't seen the security improvements. We haven't seen the reduction in narco-trafficking. We haven't seen a reliance on rule of law in Afghanistan that would make people feel confident that the central government can deliver on its promises. If we combine effective development, more effective military work as well as more effective diplomacy then I think we can stabilize the situation. Our number one goal has to be that it cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States."

Sure, I suppose I've been caught up in the warm glow of his eyes and the twinkle in his smile and he's got me totally snowed. That I'm oblivious to his supposed acceptance of the Bush Doctrine, but I doubt it.

He will do more good than harm. Just a gut feeling I have. ;)

[LWolf]

94. I hope you are correct, of course.

I just think that there are better ways to improve the human condition than through wars and military actions, or threats of action.

[Clio the Leo]

95. If only all mankind agreed .....

.... therein lies the problem.

(and not to worry, I am ALWAYS right ha ha)

[Milo_Bloom]

100. Because it doesn't accomplish anything.

What are we going to "win" in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Is there any chance we will wipe out Al Qaeda? No. Al Qaeda isn't attached to a country... it is an independent organization surviving on the continued hatred of what we are doing in the middle east and grows in power the more we feed into it. The longer we stay and the harder we fight, the more troops we give to them.

DO you think that our actions in Afghanistan are actually PREVENTING attacks on the US? If you believe the answer is yes, then I can see why you would support Obama's policy. However, if, like me, you believe the answer is no, then I see no way you could support sending people off to die.

Keep in mind many of us were against Obama's plans for Afghanistan in the primaries. Some of us were told "do not worry, he is just SAYING that to appear to be a centrist.. he won't really do it once he gets in."

[avaistheone1]

105. No one ever supported Obama's ideas for US escalation in Afghanistan.

I always marveled how Obama would sandwich Afghanistan into his speeches when he had the crowds
roaring. But once Afghanistan was mentioned the crowds went numb and silent. There was no support from Obams's supporters for Obama's desire to surge Afghanistan throughout his campaign despite Obama's attempts to slide this into his platform. Afghanistan was obviously Obama's bow to the Pentagon and the military/industrial complex.

Poll after poll shows that the American people have had enough of both Iraq and Afghanistan. We want our troops, equipment, and dollars at home. Obama need to tell the Pentagon generals to "Stuff it".

[Maru Kitteh]

110. forget about bringing the Taliban to its needs?

Whatever it is that you thought you were trying to say - I don't think it came out right. Also:


Afghanistan did not attack us.

The Taliban is not Al Qaeda.

The Taliban did not attack us.

[L. Coyote]

112. Because we invaded and occupy a foreign nation! D'oh!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

115. Thanks for posting this

I've been wondering the same thing, particularly since I thought that most people agreed that Afghanistan/Pakistan were where Bush should've been focused post-9/11 but, of course, Bush instead diverted our attention and resources to Iraq, which, unfortunately, led to a reversal of many of the gains that we had made there immediately following 9/11 and shortly thereafter. I've been unsure myself about what we can realistically do in Afghanistan/Pakistan after approximately 5-6 years of neglect by Bushco but OTOH we need to do something to ensure at least that some kind of apparatus is in place so that Al-Queda doesn't have an opportunity to regain a sanctuary for its training camps- to train the next generation of jihadists. Also, Obama was pretty clear during the campaign that he intended to do this so why this comes as a surprise to a lot of people comes as a surprise to me. I will hold Obama accountable for his decision and expect him to have some kind of realistic plan/blueprint for whatever he hopes to accomplish. I also will roundly criticize Obama when I think it is necessary- on this or any other of his endeavors- but I think it's WAY too early to declare that Obama is making a mistake or that things are headed towards disaster. I certainly don't expect Bushco-level incompetence from him and he hasn't let us down.....yet.

[OwnedByFerrets]

130. Its not MY solution, but it is THE solution....

http://www.threecupsoftea.com/

If the trillion dollar "defense" budget was spread out this way, we would be much better off. 250 billion for the defense of america and 750 billion for diplomacy and aid.

[turningoutlikemydad]

133. Afghanistan

was a worthy fight. Like everything else, Bush completely fucked it up. We missed a golden opportunity to restore order by invading Iraq. History says we shouldn't continue to try but I doubt it's that easy for Obama. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.

[SpartanDem]

134. Seems a lot who oppose don't have a full understating

of how Obama even plans to approach the war, he has repeatedly said this just not a military mission. In recent interview he said "I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means..We're going to have to use diplomacy. We're going to have to use development.". Far too many are getting tunnel vision with the military aspect.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/obama.afghanistan.canada/index.html



Secondly, how does one expect a humanitarian mission to succeed with the same amount or fewer troops when the Taliban today is attacking infrastructure and blowing up schools because they teach girls? I think some people are underestimating the degree to which the Taliban is opposed to our efforts. This is a group that is fervently dedicated to the idea of an fundamentalist, theocratic state. The ideas of democracy and equality are an affront to their ideology there is no negotiating with them about this.

[EFerrari]

136. We should not be doing this alone. It's a mistake.

The Taliban are pigs and criminals and we will have to negotiate with them eventually. It would be easier to make the case if a real international effort was made.

[damonm]

139. If we were, I'd agree.

But we're not - this has been a NATO op for quite some time. Y'see after 9/11, we had this HUGE surge of goodwill toward us from around the world (which Little Lord Pissypants squandered on Iraq) - so much so that, for the first time in the history of the alliance, NATO invoked Article V of its charter - that an attack on one is an attack on all - and sent personnel to Afghanistan. THEY stayed while LLP took our resources away.

[EFerrari]

141. NATO on paper, US in practice. Yes, there are some NATO troops there

but the real effort is ours and that's been obvious from the start.

[Clio the Leo]

144. There you go!

He made it abundantly clear in his interview last December on Meet the Press...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7962764

[kas125]

135. Here's what IVAW thinks -

Resolution regarding an IVAW Position Statement on Afghanistan
Whereas, Iraq Veterans Against the War is an organization that has opened its membership to veterans of the war in Afghanistan;

Whereas, the war in Afghanistan is continuing into its seventh year with rising casualties among the Afghan people, and with U.S. and Coalition forces facing their deadliest year since the invasion;

Whereas a primary motivation for the prolonged occupation of Afghanistan is competition between the U.S., Russia and China for control of oil and natural gas resources in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea;

Whereas, the military occupation is creating tension and resentment among the Afghan people, to include Afghan women, many of whom are calling for the removal of all foreign occupying troops;

Whereas, the Afghanistan war dehumanizes the Afghan people and denies them their right to self-determination;

Whereas, our military is being exhausted by involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve, National Guard and Individual Ready Reserve, and by repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, service members are facing serious health consequences due to our government's negligence in Iraq and Afghanistan and mismanagement of the Department of Veterans Affairs;

Whereas, there is no battlefield solution to terrorism, and any escalation of the war in Afghanistan will only serve to exacerbate the plight of the Afghan people, destabilize the region, and further the breakdown of our military;

Therefore, be it resolved that Iraq Veterans Against the War calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all occupying forces in Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people, and supports all troops and veterans working towards those ends.

[yurbud]

138. The Taliban are not a threat to us. If we were really after bin Laden, we'd lean on Saudi Arabia

and Pakistani intelligence to give up what they know about him since the Saudis backed the 9/11 hijackers and Pakistan protected them from us.

The Joint Congressional Inquiry found that Saudi Arabia backed the hijackers. Bush classified that part of their report and rushed to smooth things over with the Saudis. http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-this-sen-bob-graham-said-two-911.html

Later, FBI declassified docs showed that a Saudi intel agent picked up two of the hijackers at LAX, set them up in an apartment in his building, and funneled checks to them from the Saudi ambassador's wife. http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html

Instead of punishing them, Bush went after Iraq.

When we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, Pakistani intelligence asked to evacuate their Taliban and al Qaeda allies. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT

Instead of punishing them, Bush agreed and went after Iraq.

At the very least, Bush exploited 9/11 to try to give Iraq to his oil company cronies (that part of the war failed miserably).

At worst, he got his friends in Saudi Arabia to do him a big favor, and got the Pakistanis to rein in and release the flying monkeys as needed by the Bush administration.

I would give Obama a lot more slack on this if he was honest about which things are actually about stopping terrorism and which are about pipelines, poppies, and oil deals. To the extent he isn't talking about any of that, I reluctantly must assume that what he is saying on military action is bullshit. And since he isn't an inbred like Bush, he must know it's bullshit too.

[quaker bill]

142. Because the wars need to end

However, this one will not end until Osama is dead. No President could leave him behind and have any hope for his or her party to retain power if we are attacked again. Him broadcasting a tape celebrating another attack is the political threat. Osama's death is our path home and my bet is that this has been made sufficiently clear to parties there who could help and want us to leave. More American presence is the price to these parties for refusing to turn him over, and our leaving is the carrot for turning him in. I would wager that Osama does not live to see June.

[harun]

143. Many reasons, clearest is we can't afford it.

[Orsino]

145. Because less war is better than more war.

Folks who can't appreciate that on moral grounds ought at least to recognize that we can't afford endless force projection just to prop up George Bush's ego.

[liberalsince1968]

148. After 8 years of failure, what's the point of being there? If they attack us again, our presence or

lack of it will be completely immaterial. Eight long years has shown that going after them is an exercise in futility. How many more Americans have to die to satisfy the egos of American presidents??