I say it's an escalation, a ramping up of war and I say to hell with it.

[cali]

I don't give a fuck how many times you tell me it's a withdrawal plan. It's not. You want to defend it? Fine, defend it for what it is, and that's an escalation of war.

[NightWatcher]

1. we Progressive hate war, but when a Dem does it, we love it

the hypocrisy is yummy

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. It's the hypocrisy, stupid

Really unbelievable.

[Echo In Light]

23. Not I

[ieoeja]

31. Some of us Liberals are only moderately progressive, and never said we hate war.

I was always anti-Iraq because it was stupid. Maybe we couldn't buy Saddam, but he was definitely for rent. Our entire conflict with him was stupid. Iraq had never recognized Kuwaiti independance, so Saddam took advantage of Kuwait's illegal slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields to press their claim figuring the international community would do a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth, but nothing else as it was an Arab-only issue. He was wrong. We liberated Kuwait. And that should have been the end of it.

But Bush/Clinton/Bush decided to keep it going for some dumbass reason. The result was the first Islamic terrorist attack on US soil (the WTC bombing) then the second 8 years later. And so far as I know, Washington has never debated whether we should have stayed in Iraq after 1991. It has only been the full occupation that got our attention (I'll admit, I didn't really give it any thought all those years either).


Conversely, I was in favor of Afghan intervention as far back as the late 90s. Many Liberal groups were pushing for that intervention. With both the US and Russia sending arms and money to Massood -- and the Russians were pragmatic enough to actually support the very man who led the Afghan resistance against them years earlier instead of treating national security issues like personal insults -- he could have handled the Taliban without foreign troops.

But we didn't. And we haven't found the right guy to back yet. Which is the only objection I have to our current occupation. Massood must have had some trusted lieutenants we could turn to instead of insisting that democracy is the answer to everything so we end up with a guy who was pro-Russian when they were in power, pro-Massood when he was in power, pro-Taliban when they were in power, and pro-American now. Trusting this asshole makes as little sense as trusting Chalabi in Iraq. We eventually divested ourselves of Chalabi (should have arrested him and handed his ass to Jordan). I hope we don't waste too much more time doing the same with Kharzai.

Or restore the constitutional monarchy. Afghanistan was fairly stable then with a secular, westernized Kabul that let the mountain fundies largely do their own thing. It wasn't til the communists took control and decided to impose their views on the fundies that forced the fundies to fight back. I imagine that even among the fundies there must be supporters of a return to the status quo when all was relatively peaceful.

[newspeak]

33. here I thought Saddam went against Kuwait

because they were slant drilling.

[ieoeja]

42. That was the catalyst.

And he probably would have settled for just moving the border far enough to seize those wells had Bush the Smarter not given him carte-blanche in response to Saddam's request to move that border. Permission to do whatever he wanted, combined with the old Iraqi claim on Kuwait, was all Iraq needed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. If you must define things so simply, then fine - it's an escalation.

Are you happier now that we've returned your world to the monochromatic one we had under Bush, where everything was either black or white?

[Double T]

3. Do YOU really think BO would be sending 30,000 of our troops to Afganistan........

if it wasn't ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NECESSARY?? Wake UP! There is SERIOUS PROBLEM and THREAT to the ME and the world if the Taliban gains power and acquires Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

[cali]

5. I think he believes it's necessary politically

and I don't see how our escalation in Afghanistan is a deterrence re the Taliban in Pakistan. If anything, it will exasperate that problem.

[Double T]

37. Obviously can't invade or occupy Pakistan...........yet.

Taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan is a good start; presence in the ME neighborhood also may keep the Taliban in check.

[derby378]

7. Hey, I hear you...

...but is our presence in Afghanistan destabilizing things even more (which the Taliban wants) or actually making things better?

This is what I constantly struggle with. I want the Taliban neutralized, too, but I've got a bad feeling about this.

[Double T]

13. There can be no good feelings about this.

There are NO absolutes and every decision is a double edged sword. The Taliban is a very serious problem.

[NightWatcher]

8. when bush said it was "ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NECESSARY" we called him a warmonger

but now we're cool with it??

[Double T]

14. COOL?!? Anything BUT!!

There are only hard choices and none of them will be popular.

[blm]

15. Bush was LYING about Iraq. Many on left said Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should be the focus

of America's military mission.

Huge difference.

[superduperfarleft]

17. So how do you know Obama's not lying? n/t

[blm]

21. I've been following global terror issue and especially Pakistan's role since BCCI

matters were becoming noticeably deepsixed in the 90s - we had expected fuller revelations from a cooperative Dem president who would allow access to documents stonewalled by Bush1, not the further protection of secrecy and privilege we got from Clinton.

Some of us were warning about the strengthening Taliban in Afghanistan while most of America wanted to discuss Monica.

There IS a significant threat now centered in Pakistan BECAUSE of Bush's willingness to let Al Qaeda regroup there.

[superduperfarleft]

22. Much better answer than I expected, thanks. n/t

[newspeak]

25. BLM, my personal opinion is that Pakistan may have been the problem

all along. BCCI may have played a significant role in money laundering for terrorism. I wondered why * forgave Pakistan's debt-and General Mahmoud (sp) of Pakistan who apparently was in Washington when 9/11 went down, allegedly wired money to Atta. I believe it is the ISI that finds Daniel Pearl's body. Did Daniel have information or know something was going down?

I also believe bringing down Iraq, has greatly added to the insecurity of the ME. I know Saddam was not the dictator of choice, but Saddam was no friend to Al Qaeda. By keeping Iraq intact and stabilized, it would have helped in our endeavors to track and eliminate AQ (if that was our real goal).

[blm]

27. I agree with you. And, no doubt, Pakistan (and BCCI) has always been key.

.

[Neecy]

11. huh?

When the Taliban was in power prior to 2001, they were considered pro-India and had very little sway within Pakistan.

Do you think this small group is going to invade Pakistan and grab up their weapons? Wow, what a misreading of the facts on the ground.

[Double T]

16. The Taliban is a HUGE threat.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=110040§ionid=351020403

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/13/60minutes/main4800926.shtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1173802/Hillary-Clinton-warns-Taliban-threat-Pakistan.html

[SOS]

26. Taliban always had Pakistani ISI support

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/

[newspeak]

28. I am no friend of the Taliban

Their forced belief system and their treatment of women gives them a very low grade on the human rights scale. But, remember * met with the Taliban leaders before 9/11--gave them money supposedly for not growing poppies (or sweeten a gas pipeline deal). I doubt the administration gave crap about the Taliban human rights record if their corporate buddies could do business with them. We're in Afghanistan and the poppies are flourishing. I see a lucrative drug trade and Karzai (Unocal bud) is still there.

Just looking at the players on 9/11-I see a general in Pakistan playing a role-I see fifteen alleged terrorists from SA-and I see some family members from SA financing terrorism. I also see a family with business ties to the * family, Bin Ladens, have a family tie to the event.

Sometimes the whole ME looks like a bunch of Keystone cops chasing one crook, then another--running around in all different directions, never really grasping on to anything or anyone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Huh? Where did you get that? Radical Islamists, supporting the

Islamic rebels in Kashmir, funded by the Pakistani secret police, was pro-India?

Please, back that up.

[tekisui]

29. You are still scared, huh?

We can't protect ourselves by escalating war. War does not kill extremism, it breeds it.

We need the resources here to protect us. Intelligence and police work is the proper tactic. War makes more.

[newspeak]

30. and you are absolutely right

violence begets violence---escalating breeds more extremism.

[Double T]

32. Not scared of ANYTHING except our do nothing congress ('dnc').

The 'dnc' is the true threat to America.

[newspeak]

34. hmmm. ya know there is a pipeline thread

about the pipeline that's going to be built through Turkastan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I believe it's construction begins in 2010.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. The threat is less that the Taliban will acquire Pakistan's nukes, than

that it will so destabilize Pakistan that the Kashmir conflict will spiral out of control and cause a war, and nuclear exchange, between Pakistan and India.

Let's see how the region stabilized after THAT.

[Double T]

38. Yes. The Taliban is a HUGE SERIOUS threat that could tremendously.......

affect the region and the rest of the world.

[blm]

49. Most DUErs have no clue about the real history of that region and its REAL threats, and

those who do would like to see a concentrated effort in cornering the global terror networks and fully examining those powerful elite who have funded and armed them for decades, including BushInc, Dubai and Saudi royals, and other BCCI cronies and figures like James Bath and Jackson Stephens.

[BeFree]

4. Problem is

We are putting our future in the hands of the military and the generals.
Supporting this means having ultimate faith in the generals and the MIC.

Not for me. So, I am opposed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. It's an escalation of an already lost war for the sake of PR and CYA.

It's indefensible.

[mgcgulfcoast]

10. i agree

its time to stop the bleeding.

[cali]

12. we're just missing the subtle brilliance of it all.

In three years we'll be out of Afghanistan. It'll be stable and without corruption. The Taliban will be as extinct as the dodo. Pakistan will be safe and its nukes secure.

Now about that bridge....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The bridge is no longer on the market. It's been bought by the president.

Lock, stock, and bodies.

[daa]

19. Incremental escalation

War's good business, invest your son.

[alarimer]

20. Partisan War Syndrome- it's okay when we do it.

That's all I am seeing buy otherwise smart liberals and Democrats.

[blm]

43. How about us liberals who wanted global terror networks and the fascists funding them tracked

and scrutinized and fully revealed throughout the 90s and long before 9-11?

And what of those of us liberals who begged lawmakers to take notice, also, of the growing strength of the Taliban and their excessive human rights abuses as far back as 1996, and warned that the radical climate they were establishing would bode ill for the future?

[JoeyT]

45. Well hell, if we're going after human rights abuses and sources of funding for terrorists.

Why haven't we attacked Saudi Arabia yet?

[blm]

47. Hell, I'm all for opening the books on BCCI and letting Bush1, Dubai-Saudi royals, Stephens,

and the rest of the fascist, secrecy crowd be exposed FULLY.

The coverup of BCCI matters is why a 9-11 event was able to happen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. Yep. Keeping BCCI under wraps kept the ISI connection out of public

view - the ISI which helped fund the Taliban, who gave safe haven to Bin Laden and Al Queda after they were kicked out of Sudan.

The anti-CT people ignore the fact that if conspiracies didn't exist, there would be no such word as 'conspiracy'.

The connections between Bushco, the Saudi royals, BCCI, et al, are a conspiracy of the highest order. All the worse because so much of it is in plain sight - just unacknowledged.

[blindpig]

24. k&r

never thought you'd see that, huh?

[JVS]

39. A speech laying out the justifiction for escalation but containing mention of leaving eventually...

is not a withdrawal plan.

[eleny]

40. Given Gates' statement of *this morning* - you're absolutely right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7136290#7136688

[Selatius]

41. The Taliban is a bunch of backward tribesmen and chieftains with AKs and RPGs.

They live on that land, but they and their ancestors have defeated world powers. It is ill-advised to be engaging in guerrilla warfare on a piece of land covered with mountains and valleys and caves that they know better than any invading army could. It's just a recipe for a very long, brutal war with no guaranteed outcome of victory.

You can't defeat a set of people who would rather fight than accept the authority of a foreign army on their land. We tried. We already had Viet Nam.

[Vidar]

44. K&R.

[stranger81]

46. K&R

There is no withdrawal plan and no withdrawal timetable. Only a withdrawal goal. Which, at this point, is just a bunch of talk.

[bullwinkle428]

48. A guy interviewed on NPR made an absolutely BRILLIANT analogy

on the situation this morning. He said that our current policy on fighting terror was analogous to permanently stationing Secret Service agents at the Texas School Book Depository, because it happens to be place from which an assassination had once actually occurred!