Bush Doctrine NOT. You may feel better if you read this. You may need this information..

[NoSheep]

I have posted the following not very well written response in several threads here in the past couple of days hoping to bring a little context to Obama's Afghanistan speech. From what I keep reading here, many are extremely confused by what they've heard Obama say. Knowing what I know, and I'm no genius but I have been keeping up, I think given the language of Obama's speech, if you understand the context in which he made the statements, you will see he's trying to get us out with some gains for the future security of the region which, remember, was aggravated if not destroyed by George Bush's administration. If you disagree after reading the following, then so be it. But at least have this information when forming your opinion.

Pakistan, a nuclear power, earlier this year, allowed the Taliban to implement Islamic law in the Swat Valley (until we were blackmailed into giving them more money to prevent further encroachment by these extremists)only then did they start fighting them again. Remember that from this past summer? I think we are trying to make Afghanistan more stable so the two countries can stand up to that extremism. NPR reported 2 hrs before the speech that two-thirds of the new troops are intended to train Afghans in security. I think we are trying to help them get a vital security force so the Taliban can't take over and the fact that there is an imaginary line drawn between the 2 countries doesn't seem to matter much. There are no plans on the table to continue that indefinitely which was explained very clearly in Obama's speech. We can't afford it. That's exactly what Obama said. It isn't simply about "not liking" the Taliban and wanting to kill Afghans. I think it's about stabilizing the region as much as possible without going way further into bankruptcy. We do need to keep Pakistan from becoming vulnerable to enemies because they are a nuclear power now (and our ally and we need them to continue to be).

I understand the Taliban to be a fundamentalist extreme right wing Islamist group who, because they do not recognize the laws enacted by governments, destabilize the areas they are in. They actually provide some services apparently that lead folks in a place such as these impoverished areas of the Middle East to join up and fight for territory with them. al Quaeda is an international terrorist group that while started in this region, finds safe haven as well as recruits in many destabilized areas. In the Middle East, they are kind of existing side by side. There are many who join these groups due to having ZERO security otherwise. These areas are extremely poor and led by rival tribes. This is why things are kinda murky there to say the least. If we can pull enough citizens away from the allure of marginal security the Taliban provide and allure of seeming purpose that al Quaeda provide, we may be able to train them to keep stability in their region, HOPEFULLY making it safer for everyone, especially because of Pakistan's nukes. We have to prop up Pakistan otherwise we could have nukes in the hands of the Taliban. Instead of paying them bribes all the time I think we are sending our people in there to train them to take care of themselves or at least we are going to try. We could go on and on like this or go over ourselves in earnest and try to deal with it by training the poorer people in the region to provide their own security because the Bush administration DIDN'T DO THAT. (they had no interest in it because they wanted the war to continue. It made them richer) I think we are trying to get SOMETHING for the money we spend over there and then get out. That's what I think is happening.

It's a real mess Bush caused and this isn't an ideal world. The nukes in Pakistan aren't imaginary and the extremists aren't imaginary. Everything that has been spent and wasted would truly be wasted if we didn't now at least TRY for a limited amount of time to do what absolutely was NOT being done in the past 8 yrs and that was train them to keep the peace themselves. Consider this information and re-read Obama's speech.


Did you happen to hear the interview on NPR last night with Inspector General Arnold Fields-the man who is in charge of oversight of the funding for the reconstruction of Afghanistan? He doesn't have a clue where all the money from 8 years is! You know why? Because he was only hired at the very end of the Bush administration when congress decided it was time to make it look like they were paying attention(awwww, wasn't that convenient?) No one had been watching! Remember? The war was started and abandoned to thieves by treasury robbing thugs. Here's a link to the interview. If Obama was robbing us the way Bush did, this guy wouldn't have kept his new job. That's as plain as the nose on your face.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=121030785&m=121030749

If anyone with more clout around here than I would like to cross post any of this or quote it, please feel free. I am so saddened by the way everyone is yelling at each other. We are all so upset. But we have been given a lot of information to help us understand. I think we owe it to ourselves to consider the context and to take a long hard look at the facts before posting ridiculous and just plain wrong statements such as Obama is like George Bush.

[MNDemNY]

1. You make a good point for the invasion of Pakistan.

Is that your point?

[NoSheep]

2. No one unreccomending this has taken the time to read it.

[Bobbie Jo]

6. K&R

Thank you.

Not everything in this world is black and white....unless you're GWB.

:kick: & R

[MrCoffee]

3. You're arguing a domino theory, right?

If Afghanistan falls, Pakistan is next, and since Pakistan has nukes, we can't let Pakistan fall, so we have to prop up Afghanistan.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. India will check Pakistan just fine.

[NoSheep]

4. What I'm saying is that is the context. I'm not saying it is right, and I'm not saying it will work

edited to add: It is simply outrageous for anyone to compare Obama to Bush. Maybe they are trolls. But maybe they just have no idea what's going on. I am not arguing that this is what SHOULD happen, but I certainly think Obama is making a good faith effort and not being the snake in the grass so many here seem to have decided him to be.

[NJmaverick]

5. Well said, you are a credit to your screen name

[BrklynLiberal]

7. It is a very disturbing and disappointing situation.

Frustration, anger, disappointment and just plain sadness affect our thinking, and therefore our posting.
Thanks for your post.

[NoSheep]

8. Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate anyone who took the time to read this.

[moodforaday]

9. "trying to make Afghanistan more stable"

"I think we are trying to make Afghanistan more stable so the two countries can stand up to that extremism."

I think we've seen enough over the last nine years, and certainly during the latter half of previous century, to get well past the notion of the US military (or the armed forces of any powerful state) "trying" to do anything that benefits indigenous populations in far-away countries. But since we're not learning from historical precedent, maybe we can at least look at what the people in question are telling us right now, today:

Glenn Greenwald: Ex-Islamic radicals on what motivates -- and impedes -- extremism
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/16/terrorism/index.html

What it boils down to is that the very presence of foreign troops on their soil (let alone the many acts of violence, premeditated and not) serves only to aggravate. This is a fact. It not only stands to reason, but we are being directly told it is so.

I honestly have no patience for hair-splitting about what any politicians or military people are "trying" to do. You cannot divine people's intentions. Maybe Bush was "trying", in his feeble mind, to bring freedom to the Iraqis, who knows? Maybe Ken Lay was "trying" to run a successful business as best he could - maybe! I don't care what anyone is trying to do simply because I cannot *know* it. What matters is what actually happens.

And as best we can tell, what's about to happen is that by the time Obama's deadline for beginning withdrawal arrives, there will be more violence in Afghanistan and more violence in Pakistan, because we will have killed more people in both countries, and that's going to include a lot of dead people who never deserved to be killed. If any troops are ordered out of Afghanistan at that point, it will be to "stabilize" Pakistan. Intentions are irrelevant. More troops is more fuel on the fire, unless you're going to kill pretty much every male there capable of bearing a weapon.

Would you sit idly while an occupying force was "stabilizing" YOUR country?

[redqueen]

10. K&R