Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Afghanistan: Buckle Your Seat Belts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:22 AM
Original message
Afghanistan: Buckle Your Seat Belts
Afghanistan: Buckle Your Seat Belts
Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: November 11, 2009 02:57 PM

Obama's decision to go along with the Petraeus/McChrystal campaign for a massive escalation in Afghanistan and the Pakistani borderlands contradicts every precept of sound strategy and statesmanship. Rarely, if ever, has a great power so willfully set itself down the path of self-destruction with so little reason. This is pathological behavior that cries out for diagnosis and correction.

The stake is the supposed presence of less than a hundred al-Qaida personnel who long ago lost control of their loose franchise operation and have next to no capacity themselves to do us harm. As for the Taliban, strictly a local outfit, we are not their enemy - except as occupiers of Afghanistan. It is impossible, therefore, to reach our zero tolerance threshold for any "bad guys" active anywhere in AF/PAK for evermore - that is the fanciful goal of Obama's doomed policy. The costs and hazards are enormous. They include severe political strife and, perhaps, civil war in Pakistan of which we are a primary cause. Yet, public debate is non-existent. Why?

Afghanistan is not a "people's war"; it is a war of America's political class that is nearly unanimous in endorsing its ends and means. A clear majority of the public opposes the Obama escalation - 54% at last tally. This is stunning given the drumbeat of ritual war cries from every corner. Not a single elected official of stature has denounced it. The dread Americans feel that 9/11 might happen again is eclipsed by an instinctive fear of the high price and the risks of becoming custodian of this alien and violent land.

One explanation for the discrepancy lies in the residual trauma of 9/11. It has been so effectively exploited for eight years that public deference tends to be taken for granted. Among leaders, that horrific event continues to fire audacious schemes in the most remote corners of the world, commitments that are open-ended and ill-defined.

A second explanation is the fallacious analogy with Iraq, where our ruinous experience has been cynically recast as a success. Let's face it: Iraq is a lost cause - whether the cause was using it as a model of American style democratic virtue or as a bridgehead for American power in the region. Its future is beyond our control or even influence. The Iraqi Shi'ite leaders are showing us the door and welcoming the embrace of their Iranian co-religionists who are omnipresent and have intimate ties to every faction. This kick in the face has been easily concealed because Americans tuned out as soon as they were given a palatable story, i.e. the tall tale of Petraeus of Arabia, to cover the nation's shocking failure.


Rest of article about the land of the $1 million dollar soldier and $400 gallon of gas at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/afghanistan-buckle-your-s_b_354153.html
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. methinks this article is dated
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. It makes perfect sense: The American People serve the MIC and Wall Street NOT
the other way around.

"This is pathological behavior that cries out for diagnosis and correction."

NO! The Corporations comprising the MIC will continue to rake in the profits.

The needs of our Corporate Masters are always Top Priority.

Come on fellow peasants, YOU know who we're working for, don't you?

http://www.infowars.com/john-cusack-on-military-industrial-complex-the-gig-is-up/
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Obama has NOT
decided to go along with an escalation campaign, he has made no decision - in fact he rejected all the options given to him. This article is misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. He will go along because it's not The President who truly hold the reins of power.
Wall Street and The Pentagon run Barter Town. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. well he wants a strategy with an end date
which I am happy with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. Official: Obama rejects all Afghan war options
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33864508/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

Official: Obama rejects all Afghan war options
President seeks clarity on turnover to Afghan government, official says

Associated Press
updated 12:02 a.m. ET, Thurs., Nov . 12, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. thansk for keeping us 'up to date'
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. You have a bogus aritcle there, unhappycamper..how
does that make you feel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. This was all debunked yesterday but
lies against the President take on a sad life of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The article was written before the announcement that Obama was not going to escalate yesterday
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 01:50 PM by Zodiak
So they guy did not write "bullshit" because the beltway wisdom was expecting Obama to announce a 40,000 troop escalation. The article was written based on that prediction.

Is it wrong? Sure, but only because Obama SURPRISED everyone yesterday.

So before you launch into a curse-filled tirade, accusing people you do not know of "hate"....you might want to actually check your time, dates, and the prevailing wisdom that existed before a surprise came.

The virulence of posts like this really dismays me...why would a person who posts an article written yesterday have to put up with the kind of childish abuse you heap on him?

What is more pathetic...the person who posts an article that was rendered irrelevant because of a surprise, or the person who cannot seem to make a point within his own community without insults and personal attacks? I would vote the latter, because the person posting the article may be correct tomorrow, but the person acting like a jerk will still be the same jerk tomorrow.

Clean up your language and people might actually see you have a point to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Baltoman991 Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. That makes it
even more bullshit.

The guy writing an article without knowing what the hell he was talking about is garbage writing. He assumed something that didn't happen and others start passing it off as fact.

BTW, you don't like my language, skip by my posts. I don't like Obama being lied about day in and day out either but hey, we can't have everything we want now can we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. +1
it used to be against the rules to accuse another DUer of lying.

That posters like this one are continually allowed to attack others in this way makes me wonder if DU even has any rules anymore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Oh yeah, one more thing
You just personally attacked a mod, accusing him of lying even......not very cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Baltoman991 Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Oh, I see!!!
Because it was a moderator, I'm supposed to overlook the fact that it's not true right?

Gotcha. But I see your whining worked and my post was pulled. No biggie. I guess facts have no place at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. NYTimes 11-10-09: HClinton, Mullen & Gates advised escalating by sending 30K more troops.
LINK

3 Obama Advisers Favor More Troops for Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan, but President Obama remains unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy, administration officials said Tuesday.

----> Obama rejected that proposal and the three others on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. yes, he did, and I am proud of him for it.
Seems the advice outlined in this article was heeded and the bad scenario outlined in this article avoided before the ink even dried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 21st 2024, 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC