Hillary pushing for troop surge in Afghanistan

[Herman Munster]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0113,0,6894208.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend -- and calling for a troop "surge" in Afghanistan even though she opposes a similar measure in Iraq.

Clinton's surprise trip isn't surprising politically. As the top Democratic contender in 2008 who voted for the war -- and hasn't recanted -- Clinton needed to emphasize her foreign policy strengths: gravitas, affection for the troops and on-the-ground experience in a war zone.

On Wednesday, as President George W. Bush delivered his address on his plan for a 21,500-troop increases in Iraq, Clinton was about the only serious contender in either party to turn down an invitation to dissect the speech on TV.

Clinton landed in Kuwait on Friday night with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and upstate Rep. John McHugh and will meet Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Shia cleric Ayatollah Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hakim in Baghdad Saturday.

She also plans a Saturday sit-down with Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is training Iraqi security forces; a visit to the New York-based Army 10th Mountain Division; and a meeting with a delegation of Iraqi women.

[The Magistrate]

1. A Good Place For One, Sir

Troops should never have been pulled from Afghanistan to invade Iraq in the first place.

[aquart]

7. Russia can tell us all about how well that worked, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Part of the reason the Russians were driven out

was because Reagan was busy with our tax dollars, handing out cash, anti-tank weapons, and shoulder-fired missiles to 100,000 proto-Osamas.

[aquart]

18. Can you say...short-sighted?

No one can ever accuse the Republicans of being able to see the future...or even a logical progression of consequences.

[Error]

8. What would you consider victory in Afghanistan?

When would you think the job would be done and we could pull our troops out of Afghanistan, Sir?

[The Magistrate]

9. Holding The Taliban Out, Sir, Is Worth Doing

The effort over-all was botched a long while back, unfortunately. Serious reconstruction was necessary, and sizeable funds needed for it.

[aquart]

19. Yeah, but who the hell are we to do it?

If the men of Afghanistan do not have the balls to kill those bastards themselves, is it our job? Or is it that they ARE the men of Afghanistan?

We want the Caspian Basin oil. We don't want the opium. We want the Lapis Lazuli (well, jewelry-makers do and that's where the good stuff is from). We have a right to negotiate those things. Where the hell do we get the right to invade?

Me, I have no problem with killing Taliban men. Tell me they were tortured to death and I'll go, "So?" If you do harm to women, you don't deserve to live. I am extremely basic in my beliefs. And if that were our policy, to defend the rights of women wherever and whenever, okay, a laudable goal for a nation. But we don't give a damn about those women. In which case we have no bloody business being in their country.

It should have been a surgical strike to take out Osama. That's it. But we went in with the intention of staying.

OUT NOW. Let the Chinese and the Russians kill each other for that oil.

[uppityperson]

2. Big difference between the 2 places.

move them from Iraq to Afghanistan.

[Tom Joad]

3. No US war of terror, anywhere. the u.s. lacks any credibility in the Middle East.

[uppityperson]

6. True, I guess past tense should only be used.

Now? I don't know. I was against attacking Afghanistan from the beginning, and then really angry when they did and did it so half-heartedly so to actually do so little, sort of like a weak wet sneeze that keeps dripping off your nose. If that makes sense this late at night. There was a chance to make changes these, but it didn't happen. And yes, I see how I say it should never have happened, yet complain that enough didn't happen. It dropped USA credibility down too .

[tularetom]

4. I'm not sure - what are our goals in Afghanistan?

are we still trying to catch or kill bin laden? Are we trying to create a democratic republic? Are we trying to root out al qaeda cells? Probably these are worthy of a "surge". Attempting to prop up a corrupt puppet government? Probably not worthy. If I were a senator or congressman I wouldn't run around advocating "surges" anywhere until somebody could explain to me what they are trying to accomplish by surging. I think Hillary is just trying to appear tough while distancing herself from the disastrous bush Iraq policies that she voted for in an earlier attempt to appear tough. She has no idea what we are trying to do in Afghanistan or anywhere else, because the administration has no idea either.

[Error]

5. maybe she's going to run with lieberman?

:shrug:

[Roland99]

16. Welcome to DU, Error!

:hi:

[PretzelzRule]

10. So Senator Panderella goes to the M.E.

maybe she'll stay there.

I REALLY DON'T WANT THIS LADY AS OUR FRONTRUNNER. We will lose. Bigtime.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. She's not the "Frontrunner"

That's a corporate media lie.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I'm gonna agree with a couple folks upthread: Take 'em from Iraq.

Afghanistan is the place where we should have had our eye on the ball from the get-go. Where's Osama?

[G Hawes]

14. Better Afghanistan than Iraq.

but i agree that hillary is definitely not presidential material and hope that she does not get the nod to run as the dem candidate in 2008 as it would pretty much ensure defeat.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

15. I'd say give Chelsea a gun but she's too busy making money & wars areto be fought by the underclass.

[sandnsea]

17. Not until we have a strategy

Putting in troops without any strategy to rebuild or govern is just as bad in Afghanistan as in Iraq. I supported going in, but if anybody had told me that country would be a drug haven with warlords running half of it in 5 years, I'd have told them they were insane. It is just incomprehensible that Bush has screwed up so horribly. Nothing gets done right anymore.

[fujiyama]

20. A little late me thinks

In all honesty, this is pathetic. Why didn't she make it clear Afghanistan needed that sort of investment years ago? I remember many of us opposed the war quite clearly with the reason that it would distract the US from Al Qaeda.

I'm glad she has some minimal sense to oppose a troop surge in Iraq, and wants to do something about Afghanistan. Still, just throwing troops into Afghanistan with no real plan is idiotic as well. But I don't expect her to stop handling Pakistan with kiddie gloves either.