Sen. Feingold: Why Surge Where Al Qaeda Isn't?

[bigtree]

from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/feingold-why-surge-where_n_381729.html


During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) demanded that one question be answered when considering the implementation of the president's surge policy: Why send troops where al Qaeda isn't?

Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter of global terrorism, although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Feingold's concerns weren't merely that President Obama was taking his eye off al Qaeda at a time when the terrorist organization was resurgent. The Wisconsin Democrat also warned that U.S. policy in Afghanistan could actually push terrorists and extremists into Pakistan and, as a consequence, further destabilize the region.

"You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan?" he told ABC. "They couldn't deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it's just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest."


read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/feingold-why-surge-where_n_381729.html

[mike_c]

1. because al-Qaeda is just a smoke screen....

Al-Qaeda is the current Emmanual Goldstein-- invoking their name is sufficient to justify any crime.

[Bushknew]

5. +1

[HowHasItComeToThis]

13. IT IS THE PIPELINE, STUPID

READ THIS http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1347788.html
OR THIS
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/19/14150/5844

[EFerrari]

2. Plus the Afghani people don't want us there with all the trouble

that a military build up brings to a civilian population. They're very clear about this.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. The Afghan people are weary of war

and who can blame them? That doesn't change the fact that, in order to create lasting stability in Afghanistan, we're going to have to hit the Taliban hard.

[Wilms]

3. .

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HyyDHyAwI6k/SvSW60ubwkI/AAAAAAAAG5g/Q-f2Gr0_gzc/s400/afghanistan+pipeline.jpeg

[BeFree]

4. Right

Destabilize Pakistan is Cheney's end game.

Remember, Pakistan got its nukes through Cheney's Halliburton.
If the Taliban can get it's hands on those nukes, that's all she wrote. The fat lady's gonna sing.

[bigtree]

6. "We're comfortable"

. . . with the security of the country's atomic weapons, Gates said today.

http://www.geo.tv/12-6-2009/54214.htm

[BeFree]

7. Do you believe Gates?

I don't. Senator Kerry is not comfortable with Paks nukes.

Kerry vs. Gates. Hmmmm, I'll go with Kerry.

[bigtree]

8. I think the military is content with the government

And, I believe the Pak military is competent enough to hold off roving and embattled bands of insurgents.

[BeFree]

9. And...

...you base that belief on what?

Pakistan is caught between India and the Taliban.
It is stable only in the sense that the US props it up.

Did you know Cheney helped Pakistan get its nukes?

[bigtree]

11. well

Kerry did get his money from the Senate that he believes is the remedy for your fears.


S. 962:

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009
111th Congress

Sponsor: Sen. John Kerry D-MA

A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, and for other purposes.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS.

(a) Authorization- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President, for the purposes of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), the following amounts:

(1) For fiscal year 2009, up to $1,500,000,000.

(2) For fiscal year 2010, up to $1,500,000,000.

(3) For fiscal year 2011, up to $1,500,000,000.

(4) For fiscal year 2012, up to $1,500,000,000.

(5) For fiscal year 2013, up to $1,500,000,000.


This bill has been passed in the Senate. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the House. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the House, rather than on this particular bill. Last Updated: Nov 14, 2009 9:00AM

Summary: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-962&tab=summary

Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-962

[BeFree]

12. Yeah

Kerry knows more about Cheney than any of us ever will.

Do you ever answer direct questions, bigtree?

I appreciate that you seem to be anti-war, or pro-peace, or something like that. But I sometimes do wonder about your agenda. I know what Kerry's agenda is, and a pretty good idea about Gate's and Cheney's.

So, I'll go with Kerry. He fears a Pakistan uncontrolled nuke.

Pakistan is not all that stable, except where the US has propped it up. Kerry sees the need to keep it propped up and I hope he succeeds.

Of course my idea to contain the Pak nukes is to buy all of those nukes, get them out of there and offer a protective umbrella in their place. Protect Pak from who, you might ask? India and China. That's the reason Paks give for having nukes.

[bigtree]

16. there's more than one side to your question

. . . about whether I believe Pakistan's nukes are safe. I do believe that the military there is capable of keeping them safe from the 'al-Qaeda' there and the insurgent (embattled) Taliban in the country.

Even though the administration and Sen. Kerry are concerned about the prospect for some sort of destabilization from those objectionable groups which could threaten the government or allow some sort of attack on the arsenal, the very folks you are leaning with on this question (Sen. Kerry and the administration) are not being as alarmist as you are about the safety of the arsenal. Both are focused on a non-military strategy to address your fears. Read Sen. Kerry's bill. You recommended him in your post. It outlines many of the same concerns you have and has proposed remedies to address them.

The other side of your question, which is my 'agenda' in this post and discussion is what consequence and effect will the escalated deployments and activity have on the stability of Pakistan? Sen. Kerry is greatly concerned about the 'surge' of force in Afghanistan for that reason and others.

What's your view of the surge of force and the military presence in Afghanistan? Do you think it's in the best interest of the 'safety and security' of Pak's nukes? What's YOUR agenda, BeFree? (as if I care).


Kerry issues warnings on troop surge

"I continue to believe that, absent an urgent security need, we should not send American troops in to clear places unless we are confident that we have the Afghan partners and resources in place to build on our victories and transfer both security and government functions to legitimate Afghan leaders," Kerry said. "Frankly, I am concerned that additional troops will tempt us beyond a narrow and focused mission. And, with 30,000 troops rushing into Afghanistan, I believe we will be challenged to have the civilian and governance capacity in place quickly enough to translate their sacrifice into lasting gains."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/12/kerry_issues_wa.html

[BeFree]

As if you care....

....I guess you don't know, or friggin care what anybody else writes here, because if you did you would have seen that I am against the surge, against the wars - nearly ANY war.

Your self-righteous attitude IS your agenda. AFAICT. You may be a waste of bandwidth, it seems. You won't answer a direct question, and admit ignorance to others stances here, or even a pretense to care.

I posted what you posted above about 5 times the other day. Except I took it right from Kerry's statement in the Senate, not through a M$M source as you did. Did it ever occur to you that there are others who know as much as you? Maybe more? As if you even cared....

What Kerry is concerned about, and all I ever alluded to was that the Pak nukes need to be a concern, and not, as you tried to paint me with, as that I support an attack to protect them.

I said clearly that I trust Kerry.
And in your ignorance of every thing else you preach to me about Kerry's stance. Gawd.
Get a grip, bigtree. You are not the end all and be all of the peace movement.

[bigtree]

26. your 'agenda' - the crack you made about my agenda

I don't give a shit what your agenda is and I'm at a loss why mine is some issue to you. I really don't care, though.

Look, you responded to my post about what Gates said by asking whether I believed him. I answered what I believed about Pak's nukes and you didn't like the answer. I answered again, pointing to where I believe Sen. Kerry is on the issue of Pak's nukes and you didn't like that one.

Maybe you should have just stuck to saying what you believed and left the personal characterizations about my 'agenda' out of it.

I'm not trying to be anything in any 'movement' by posting here and responding to you and others. You need to get a grip. This is a discussion board, not a political platform.

[BeFree]

27. You have ...

34,980 posts.

What is your agenda?

[bigtree]

28. It's right in plain sight

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

. . . but, maybe YOU will tell me what it is instead? Oh, wait, you did tell me . . .

"Your self-righteous attitude IS your agenda. AFAICT. You may be a waste of bandwidth, it seems. You won't answer a direct question, and admit ignorance to others stances here, or even a pretense to care."

[EFerrari]

14. Am I misremembering - EDIT: Found the article:

Special forces on standby over nuclear threat

IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent
0 comments

Published on 31 Dec 2007

US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The troops, augmented by volunteer scientists from America's Nuclear Emergency Search Team organisation, are under orders to take control of an estimated 60 warheads dispersed around six to 10 high-security Pakistani military bases.

Military sources say contingency plans have been reviewed over the past three days to prevent any of Pakistan's atomic weapons falling into the hands of Islamic extremists if the administration of President Pervez Musharraf appears threatened by civil unrest.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766

[bigtree]

18. sure

The key point today is there currently exists a relatively stable relationship between Pakistan's military leadership and the government. Those concerns do get heightened during periods of political instability and unrest. That's the reason that there's the diplomatic effort to bolster and enhance (with U.S. cash) those institutions in Pakistan the administration believes will provide the stability and security that they seek.

I'm not sure there's a good argument today that the government there is in the imminent danger that the article suggests, but I'm sure there's some contingency plan. Like all plans . . .

[Subdivisions]

19. Yea, good thing Bhutto was conveniently assassinated. n/t

[bigtree]

22. what does that mean?

[Subdivisions]

31. It means that Bhutto had a very good chance of being elected PM and

she was in pursuit of democracy in Pakistan. So, how are we supposed to invade and sieze Baluchistan with Bhutto as PM of of a democratic Pakistan?

[bigtree]

32. we're not supposed to

:shrug:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. I don't think the U.S. has any interest in destabilizing Pakistan

[BeFree]

25. The US, of course not

But Cheney? Oh hell yeah.

Why did he help get them nukes? That is a direct question to you. Can you answer it?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

30. Frankly, I'm not familiar enough with that particular situation to comment.

[Swede]

10. The build up in Helmand is because of the the Quetta Shura.

Waziristan is to the northeast. The South is the right place for the build up.

[Subdivisions]

15. I've been saying this repeatedly: Target Pakistan

And, more specifically, Baluchistan. This by Feingold is the first overt attempt by our government to plant into our collective conscience the idea of an adventure into Pakistan's Baluchistan province. The "surge" (I hated it when it was shrub's surge and I hate even more now that it's President Obama's) will no doubt join the rest of our forces in Helmand, which borders Baluchistan, and along the Pakistan border.

I'm going to get bold right here: Look for either a U.S. invasion into Pakistan (with India closing a Taliban/Al Qaeda escape to the east - remember the lavish dinner for PM Singh?) OR some sort of transition in Baluchistan. The goal is to secure a route for a pipline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan to Baluchistan and finally to the Port of Gwadar. Once we have control of Gwadar and the pipeline is built, the Turkmenistan nat-gas can flow through Afghanistan to Gwadar, and onto ships bound for the U.S. and whoever else who wants to buy it. Nevermind Pakistan's nukes - mutually assured destruction. Nevermind the poppies in Afghanistan - those our ours now, with Karzai's brother running things. What I have described is part of the PNAC/Neocon plan and that plan is still being executed.

Like it or not, we're eventually going into Pakistan. We might as well start getting used to the idea because this is a war for resources and our government is like a pit-bull that has caught the region by the leg and WE (after all, this is US, you and me, that's killing innocent people over there) will not let go. This is bare-fisted imperialism. Like.It.Or.Not!

[HowHasItComeToThis]

17. BINGO

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/19/14150/5844

[EFerrari]

21. Thanks for the map. It's really helpful. n/t

[Bluebear]

20. kick for my Senator

even though I live nowhere near him :)

[omega minimo]

29. The next president of the United States.

[Overseas]

33. K&R. One of my main questions too. //nt

[bvar22]

34. !

Meet Hamid Karzai
or as Obama calls him, "The Government of Afghanistan".

He was appointed by Bush the Lesser to run Afghanistan.
He was one of the most despicable criminals in The World,
But NOW we like him so much
that our children will be dying to keep him in power.