Rachel Maddow Show: Author Bacevich - Obama Should Rethink Afghanistan Strategy

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 04:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlQfU5g8Ssw   Posted on YouTube: December 03, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 03, 2008 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1140

 
MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - Dec. 2, 2008: Prof. Andrew Bacevich, author of "The Limits of Power," encourages Barack Obama to re-think the strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. He says that the "War on Terror" should be an intensive, international police action, not a series of national invasions and occupations.

[gogoplata]

1. This is right on. Why Gates?

Why the Surge in Afghanistan?

[msongs]

2. blinko tv no longer shows msnbc - well guess I wont be watching any msnbc ads nt

[ksimons]

3. reasonably thought opinions - so strange after the last 8 years

I hope Rachel's show continues to break new ground like this, keeping issues in the foreground that have been slipping into the wings

[jwirr]

4. Absolutely correct. Not only do we lose hearts and minds *ss's way

but the mission of our military is limited in both power and funding.

[lxlxlxl]

5. I respect Bacevich, and the people suspicious of an Afghan surge but...

Dr. Bacevich is a very clear and insightful voice, and I used to trade emails with him, but I think he and Rachel (and others) are approaching this issue the wrong way. Pres Elect Obama is not George Bush. He is not advocating a blind and endless occupation of Afghanistan. The mission is clear, but no one seems to want to recognize it. The point is to get OBL/AQ, and remove them as the leaders of Al Qaeda.

I honestly do not understand the hangups people have over this, and why people are acting as though President Elect Obama's desire to get the job finished in Afghanistan is the same as GWB and the Neocons vision of Iraq. There are huge differences in the strategies and actors involved. GWB and The Neocons have NEVER used military force for anything other than naked imperial interest. No one familiar with paleocon behavior prior to Iraq took them seriously as state builders, that was never their forte or interest. Like I said so many times to deaf ears prior to Iraq, getting Saddam is fine, but the job afterwards is what requires intelligence and planning. George Bush was never interested in that, and it was clear. His major success as a president was creating a dialogue that distracted people from asking him the "what next" question...

I do not believe getting OBL is anything close to what the last eight years of foreign policy are.

We have to get OBL and end this tragic chapter of history. Wether you think OBL and AQ is a threat or not (I do).

Terrorism of AQ's type is a noose around the neck of anyone looking for real progress on issues of international trade, the environment, labor rights, and human rights in the third world.

If Obama was advocating a neverending occupation of Afghanistan (he isn't) then I would disagree with this policy. If we leave OBL and AQ alive, our politics in this country will always be distracted into talking about the old Bush Era debates on coddling terrorism vs. "fighting them over there"

Lets get rid of OBL and deal with the next threat when it arises. Leaving OBL alive is too convenient for the 'know nothing Republicans' who desperately need political terrorism to distract people from the technical and rational issues regarding economic and environmental policy.

[frog92969]

6. I remember when terrorism was considered a crime

and not a convenient declaration of war.

We need to go back to that mindset.

You don't bomb a bank to stop a bank robber.

[slipslidingaway]

7. K&R n/t