Obama is Making a Grave Mistake in Afghanistan

[Bullet1987]

This may just be the move that loses Obama the base. And regardless of what anyone on DU TRIES to say...you can't win SHIT without your bread-and-butter activists and supporters. Obama IS following the Bush Doctrine no matter how hard some here try to spin it...it is pre-emptive war. PERIOD! There's also these secret CIA drone attacks going on in Pakistan that no one is even commenting on...but everyone knows it's happening. Barack Obama is squandering what HOPE and CHANGE he campaigned on, war is the quickest way to lose support not only in America but across the globe. I WANT Obama to succeed...hell I voted for him. But with the bank bailouts and now this, it seems Obama is establishing a record of taking horrible advice. I think it's clear that corporate interests are what really runs policy in America...not common sense or Democracy. Greedy corporate interests.

[VMI Dem]

1. Bush Doctrine - absolutely.

War Obama!

[Phx_Dem]

56. Like Sarah Palin, you clearly don't know what the Bush doctrine is.

The Bush doctrine justifies pre-emptive war.

Obama has not declared war on anyone, let alone pre-emptively. And Afganistan was not a pre-emptive war -- Iraq was.

[HughMoran]

63. They're being sardonic

They post the same one-liner in every thread like this.

Not to be taken seriously IMO.

[lamp_shade]

2. Nay... I don't think so.

[blm]

3. Bush doctrine was LIE the country into Iraq using real mission in Afghanistan as cover.

Obama made a choice with a timeframe I don't completely agree with, but, it's absurd to claim his intention is no different than Bush's.

[arcadian]

10. Obama is there for the same reasons as Bush

Expanding markets, he said so in his speech, weren't you listening?

[truth2power]

68. Afghanistan is an energy bridge...

Here is a report by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2008/A_Pipeline_Through_a_Troubled_Land.pdf

Complete with maps showing the proposed pipelines and background on the region.

Notice that Obama never breathes one word about geopolitical energy (Gas/Oil) interests in the region. Possibly because wars for resources are a violation of the UN Charter.

We're not there to protect women, build schools, win hearts and minds, or any other specious reasons given by Obama. It's (illegal) resource wars.


edit> several typos...grr.

[grasswire]

20. the timeline is a lie. the reason is a lie.

that's the sorry truth.

[blm]

22. I don't agree. That timeline was a hardfought victory for Biden, Reed and Kerry who sided against

the hawks on their war plans. So was the narrowing of the misssion against the desire of the hawk camp. All three of those men are in positions to stay on top of Obama and influence the scope of the military mission so that the timeline for withdrawal CAN happen.

[jeanpalmer]

61. We didn't get any victory out of this

That timeline is a false timeline. Here's what Mullen said: "There's no specific guidance with respect to how many. It could be very few...." Very few = how many? 100? 200?

I don't think Kerry and Biden "fought hard" or got a "victory." A victory would have been "start withdrawing now." We're sending 30,000 soldiers and 40,000 was requested? That sounds like a total defeat, a rout with a surrender. It's a good thing we didn't have these three fighters fighting WWII for us -- we'd be speaking German.

[blm]

62. You prefer 60,000 troops, broadening of scope, AND no timeline for withdrawal goal the hawks wanted?

You're wrong. You show you have no idea what went on in the months leading up to this decision. And I think that Biden, Reed and Kerry will stay on top of Obama to guide him towards the withdrawal goal.

[blm]

69. and here's a recent quote from Obama confirming that he IS factoring in withdrawal voices...

"If it doesn't work, said Obama: "I think there is going to be enormous interest on the part of the American people and on the part of Congress in keeping me to my word that this is not a constant escalation."

He KNOWS Reed and Kerry will keep pressure up for withdrawal. And he expects the American people to keep their voices in the mix.

[ClarkUSA]

4. It is not "pre-emptive war" at all. Afghan officials approve of Pres. Obama's strategic decision.

Pres. Obama is ending the Iraq war and will end the Afghanistan war by 2011. As for ending the Afghanistan war in 2011, that's
a strategic decision that has the clear backing of the Afghanistan government:

"Yet generally Afghan officials have commended the new strategy — much of which has already been in place since General McChrystal took command for six months — to lower civilian casualties, protect the Afghan people, train more Afghan forces and hand over more responsibility to them... those officials pitted on the front line against the Taliban insurgents, said a rapid surge of 30,000 troops this winter was desperately needed, since Afghan forces could not fight off the current insurgency on their own.

“It’s a very good idea,” said a senior security official who has been in the forefront of tracking Al Qaeda and Taliban since 2001. The United States had very good human intelligence on Taliban on both sides of the border in Afghanistan and Pakistan but they did not have enough good fighters in the Afghan army and police, he said.

“They need the Americans,” he said. A surge of extra forces could undercut the insurgency in six months since many of the Taliban were ready to negotiate and could be persuaded to swap sides with a concerted effort, he said."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34387&mesg_id=34387

Pres. Obama will not lose the base over a decision to end both BushCo wars by 2011. Gimme a break. :eyes:

[arcadian]

7. You mean the Afghani puppet government

Propped up by the USA?

[ClarkUSA]

13. No, I meant the entire duly-elected Afghan government and the Pakistani PM.

BTW, Karzai is a lousy "puppet" because he refused to agree to a replay of the contested elections until Sen. Kerry
spent two days convincing him.

[arcadian]

17. You're saying this with a straight face?

[ClarkUSA]

21. Says the poster who supports Kucinich, the sellout who's going to caucus w/Republicans from now on

Link to the Sellout on a Faux News Soapbox:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=35240&mesg_id=35240

:eyes:

[arcadian]

37. That is idiocy

I don't support Kucinich. What is this a witch hunt now?

[ClarkUSA]

45. Sure you don't. I guess it's embarrassing to admit it now.

:)

[dionysus]

25. you think everything is a conspicay to the point of fuckin lunacy man.

[arcadian]

39. What are you talking about?

You make zero sense.

[tekisui]

27. "Duly-elected"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

35. That's right. Karzai's opponent decided not to run again.

Like it or not, that's what it is. :shrug:

[tekisui]

40. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

I guess you think chimpy was duly elected in 2000, as well huh?

[ClarkUSA]

44. None are so snide as those who refuse to acknowledge the facts.

<<I guess you think chimpy was duly elected in 2000, as well huh?>>

Apples and oranges much? :eyes:

[tekisui]

46. Karzai was not legitimately elected. Period.

Besides, we are putting in our own viceroy, er CEO, to run Afghanistan the way we want. Empires will do that. Karzai is a fraud and won't play ball like we want, so we will go around him. But, it is absurd to say Karzai is 'duly-elected' or that the government there is legitimate.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Um, since his opponent refused to run in the runoff election, he is now.

<<Besides, we are putting in our own viceroy, er CEO, to run Afghanistan the way we want. >>

You can spin it all you want, but the facts contradict you. Pres. Obama is working with our partners in the region. That includes
Pakistan.

<<Empires will do that.>>

Bullshit. Pres. Obama is the antithesis of a neocon. His 2011 exit plan proves that, as does his ending the Iraq war.

[tekisui]

50. US bid to bypass Karzai's Afghan government upsets allies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/30/aghanistan-karzai-obama-united-nations

Empires are not run only by neo-cons. And, the runoff was canceled due to pressure from the US. It is an empire. No one in Afghanistan voted for Obama. Yet, he is making the decisions for that country.

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. Duly elected??

UNOCAL Karzai was no more duly elected than the Chimp was.

[phleshdef]

5. I think you should learn what the word "pre-emptive" means before you use it in a sentence.

Its not possible for Obama to have engaged in pre-emptive war when the war was started before he ever took office. Thats the stupidest thing I've heard yet. That alone negates anything else you had to say in your post because its so ignorant.

Its not a continuation of the "Bush doctrine". The Bush doctrine started with Iraq, not Afghanistan for one. For 2, this is a means to and end.

And shut the fuck up about the bank bailouts, we would have no economy left had they not happened and now the banks are paying them back. You sound like a fucking tea bagger with that shit.

[arcadian]

8. Continuation of a preemptive strike.

Bush->War->Obama->War it's all the same.

[phleshdef]

12. Theres no such thing as a continuation of a preemptive strike.

Thats not even a good job at spin, its below piss poor even.

[Hepburn]

14. ^5....

...exactly.

[TwilightGardener]

42. They're confused about what Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption is.

It's bombing and invading a country where no one even remotely connected to 9/11 attacked you, because they might have WMD. There's a failure here to recognize that Afghanistan is not Iraq.

[HughMoran]

64. It is "the stupidest thing I've ever heard"

It's so stupid, in fact, that I have to assume that no smart person believes this and that this is simply a strategy to goad people into a flame-fest. I say we "go along" with snarky "agreement" posts - it makes no sense to take such nonsense seriously.

[Champion Jack]

6. Wrong

[stray cat]

9. Maybe but maybe not - thats the problem

[niceypoo]

11. He is doing what he promised he would do

In the campaign.

Boston Globe, July 15, 2008:

In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy -- one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin," he continued. "I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html">Source Here

Sometimes you get what you pay for

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. I'm glad he is

Every other candidate pledged to do the same.

[harun]

53. I don't see how increasing troops in Afghanistan is finishing the fight

against the Taliban and AQ?

These people just went to Pakistan, if the U.S. has more troops in Afghanistan they just stay in Pakistan.

Also he already increased troops once in Afghanistan. Now he does it again. If he increases the troops continually until 500k are there are you going to use the same argument? "He promised to do this in the campaign".

[niceypoo]

60. Im not using an argument

Im neither arguing for it or against it. Im merely pointing out a fact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Blah blah blah

PERIOD!

There's no doubt that a base is currently running around in full-on stupid mode, and that may be a problem for 2012. God knows the Left has proved itself willing to thrust the country into catastrophe over bad readings of the situation and fits of pique (see 2000).

I have no problem with CIA attacks in Pakistan if the goals of those "attacks" is to capture or kill bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, or the rest of the command structure. Indeed, that seems to be one of the major points to all this.

The bank bailouts occurred under TARP. They were a good idea for a shitty and truly dangerous situation. It has been a better idea to hold the line on compensation in order to incentivize the banks to pay back the money, which seem to be working, in part.

I think Obama has done a fine job of filtering through bullshit and reading the situation as it is.

The corporate interest line is tired, and even makes no sense here. How is it in the "corporate interest" to prolong an expensive and dangerous war?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. I never do get an answer to that last question.

Honestly, some of these people are just full-on parrots.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. They still believe the "anti-war" movement ended the Vietnam War

And not the Wall Streeters freaking out over interest rates and stability.

So, you'll always get the nutso from that crew.

[tekisui]

29. See post 28.

War IS big business.

[tekisui]

28. Corporate interest in war?

We have some 100,000 private contractors one the ground in Afghanistan. We will be spending tens of billions of dollars a month. Who do you think that money goes to? It goes to corporations that are providing material support to our troops. It goes to corporations who have contracts to help rebuild. It goes to corporations who are charging use hundreds of dollars per gallon of gas.

Seriously, there is big money in war, big profit in it. War is a booming business. Have you forgotten about Blackwater, Haliburton, KBR, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and the others?

How can you not see the corporate interest in war?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. It's 4.2% of our GDP.

Obama got less than .001% of his campaign contributions from those profiting from war. Do you honestly believe that's enough for him to send us into war?

[tekisui]

34. I don't think it is a quid pro quo.

I think it is evidence of who holds the power. Like the banks that are too big to fail, the military industrial complex is too big to stop.

[Ikonoklast]

67. You and your pesky facts.

You need to stop that, and just start stamping your feet and holding your breath to get your point across.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Come on

You think the interests of these four or five corporations override the interests of the capitalist structure as a whole? This is why the whole critique of corporations has gone south so fast on the Left. Rather than analyzing the workings of a social structure, it's used to identify villains in a religious mode. "Corporate interest" should mean "the structural interest of corporate capitalism as a whole," and that's what it actually used to mean in Left analysis. Now it means "find the Devil," because so much of the Left is still childish. If you think Mr. Obama would risk his whole Presidency for Blackwater, Halliburton, and Lockheed Martin, I don't know what else to tell you. It's a deeply stupid idea. But it also has nothing to do with what the Left used to do before it got so dumb: perform real analyses of structural totalities, rather than going on "bad guy hunts." Just silly.

[treestar]

55. "Identify the villains in a religious mode"

I like that, because I was searching for a way to express the idea. You see it around DU and it's irrational. All corporations and banks and insurance companies are evil and bad things. Yet at the same time they should give us all jobs!

The word "corporation" is used just like that - to mean "villains." Very like "satanists" or something coming from fundies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. +1 for both you and the post you're responding to.

I don't know if the left has become that dumb or if DU has just been inundated with "teh stupid".

[Dr Robert]

23. you are not Obama's base, so you have no business predicting what it will do

[ShortnFiery]

33. Many of us WERE his base ... but no more. eom

[Dr Robert]

41. just because you voted for him, doesn't make you his base

you abandoned him as soon as he took office.

Someone in Obama's base would never threaten to make him a One-Term President.
Only bandwagoners with no real integrity would do that...

[ShortnFiery]

47. Wanna bet. I didn't abandon him, he abandoned his LIBERAL BASE.

Is GITMO closed? Are Patriot Act Provisions outlawed? Did he release the torture photos? Did he advocated for a robust Public Option? Is he standing up for a woman's right to choose? For Gay Marriage? IS OBAMA STANDING UP FOR ANY DAMN THING LIBERAL? ... more than token bills, does his policies benefit "the people" over "the corporations?"

NO, many liberals will not vote for this corporate democrat come 2012.

[HamdenRice]

49. Seriously, what do you think of the efforts to close Gitmo, which has almost been emptied ?

[Dr Robert]

51. who are you going to vote for? you know a vote against Obama is a vote for Palin.

[HamdenRice]

52. Nitpick: 'does his policies benefit "the people" ' -- you mean, "do his policies benefit..."

Try to take a deep breath and stop hyperventilating.

[dionysus]

24. uh, a few dozen nutters pitching fits on a message board...isn't the base. sorry to dissappoint you.

:shrug:

[Kahuna]

26. Such nonsense...

:boring:

[AVID]

31. Then you should remove your Obama sig line, add your peace avitar, and join the revolution.

Although I am thoroughly against the increase of military presence in Afghanistan, to think so narrowly political as your post does, is an insult to the complex questions, horrific sacrifices, and oppression the average Afghan citizen must endure 24/7.

It's nice that you can come cozily into your chat room and discus a "base".
High tail it to Kabul, sip a chai, and see for yourself what the Taliban "base" wants.

[ShortnFiery]

32. KnR eom

[ClarkUSA]

38. The U.N. disagrees with you. Remember, they're the ones who called the Iraq war "illegal"?

United Nations (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

In a written statement, Ban praised Obama's aim to "balance military and civilian efforts" and focus on strengthening institutions and security forces in Afghanistan, noting that it would be a long-term but essential process...

Human Rights Watch said Obama's plan needed to strengthen civilian protection with a "clear strategy for combating corruption, removing warlords and holding rights violators accountable."

The human rights organization called the U.S. emphasis on rule of law in Afghanistan "long overdue" but said sufficient training of Afghan security was needed to "ensure basic human rights protections."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/02/obama.world.reax/index.html

[The Wielding Truth]

43. It's the quandary we are all in. It is such an extraordinary mess that

using the structure in place until another one can be built seems the most logical solution. It rides the consistency of policy while shaping the goal and mission. Like using the broken bridge to carry a new message while battling the current outlaws and supporting what is left of the national respected government. It's not the simple trail, and it will be difficult to join in and hard to follow. I will not waiver in my support until I give him the time to make some progress. Although it is terrifically painful form time to time.

Then, I think that if we would upset the boat and things got wet and some are lost, we would have made the turn and we would be going in the best direction for a civil democracy.

The method seems to depend on how badly corrupt and broken the Bush world view has left us.

We have trusted our leadership to a man,his intelligence, his image and his character. If we don't support him and he becomes ineffectual who will take the reins? Who has the money? We know he has changed some things without stirring up too much dust. I think he is making progress although, I too hate his deference to the Republican remnants and the powerful corporate lobby lawyers, who both have engineered the collapse of our civilized social democracy.

[Hansel]

58. Nice post. nt

[treestar]

54. How did he get the base on 2008?

If that one issue is that important to a person, they should not have voted for him in 2008. Period. There is no way this makes sense.

[Hansel]

57. Obama base knew he was going to do this.

He campaigned on it. He got roars from the crowds at rallies when he mentioned it. Loud roars and cheers. Those were his bread and butter supporters and none, and I mean none, seemed to be the least bit upset about this promise. Do you think they were just being polite?

Obama is not following the Bush doctrine no matter how hard you try to spin it. Obama is trying to clean up a mess that Bush made without destabilizing a region full of nuclear weapons and American hating extremists.

Obama is not squandering hope and change. He's been dealt a tough hand and it's going to take a couple years to get results. He doesn't have Harry Potter's wand and he's not a dictator. He has a spineless senate to work with and he isn't co-opting Bush's unitary government doctrine like I think some DU thought he would. He understands how the 3 branches work and he is trying to work within that structure and within the constitution.

Obama has lots of support throughout the world on Afghanistan because the world realizes what a tenuous situation it is even if some here refuse to see it. As Americans see he has that support and as things start moving, he will regain support from even some of the skeptical on both the left and the right.

Obama did not do the bank bailouts. Those were done on Bush's watch. If Obama had done them, they would have had far more strings attached. In fact, he attached strings after he got in office. And he probably would not have forced healthy banks to participate in order to mask the unhealthly banks. Even so, the bailouts saved this country's and the world's economic ass. There would be a whole lot more to bitch about if they weren't done and unemployment would have been closer to 25%+. And regulation will be put in place. You can bank on it.

America is still largely based on the health of its corporations. Obama did not make it that way, it's been that way for decades. He has to work reasonably in the framework of reality. He, again, cannot wave a magic wand and change things. He has to work with what he's got and do the best he can to make it better. It's a little naive to think that he's going to take down a powerful structure and destroy corporations that employ millions of people just to make quick change. Obama is not a corporatist no matter how hard you say it. He is a pragmatist. Two different things.

If you think Obama's base is not going to support him, I think you need to rethink who his base is. They are not necessarily who you think they are. They are progressives, but pragmatic progressives. Not the couple of dozen people here that constantly bitch about him and predict his demise every time he sneezes. There are a lot of people who are not happy about the war that will still support him. Because they still believe he is doing what he thinks is right. They don't believe he is some kind of a monster puppet. They know he is not Bush no matter how hard some try to claim he is. Bush was the worst president we have ever had. It is completely asinine to pretend Obama is anything like him.

[HughMoran]

65. BTW, this "move" is not a change in current policy at all

I have no idea what people are talking about - Obama's latest announcement increases troops at the same rate it's been since he got into office - there is NO change in the rate of increase and now he's set a cap of 98,000 and a date for withdrawal. This is actually progress.

[polichick]

66. I see the plain, obvious truth is not popular here. k&r