No defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 21:35


I just had a chance to talk with three senior Obama administration officials.  In regards to President Obama's statement that "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home," I asked for clarification on how many troops would be coming home in eighteen months, and at what rate would they be coming home.

The answers made it clear that there is no actual timeline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan:

  • There is no defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal.

  • They will be "taking conditions on the ground into account" in determining the withdrawal.

  • The withdrawal is "a goal."
That is not a timeline.  At best, it is a message to the Karzai government that the Obama administration doesn't want to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.  However, there was plenty of room open in the response that they could stay there indefinitely, given the vagaries of the timeline.

If there was one hopeful bit in the discussion, it was the strong impression that there is a real debate taking place within the Obama administration about the rate and scope of withdrawal in 2011.  While is far from a guarantee that the troops will actually start coming home in 2011, but it is at least a sign that they might start coming home at that time.

On a personal note, I don't have a complicated opinion about the war.  As I wrote on Twitter tonight:

Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save.

I just want the war to end.  Tonight, there is still no clarity on when that will happen.

Chris Bowers :: No defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

No defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal | 128 comments
I am starting to get a little annoyed (4.00 / 5)
I am not one of those people who is reflexively against military action. If it is necessary for long term strategic goals to be met, then it I can buy those kinds of arguments.

But, they are not giving me anything to buy here. No one can define to me the long term strategic value of being there, and now, you are reporting that the deadlines may not be deadlines.  

No, these aren't deadlines at all. (4.00 / 8)
If you parse the speech (actually, you already did), he just threw out a 3-year timeline to assuage liberal voters, but he also put in the standard neo-con/neo-liberal crap about benchmarks (which we've also heard before, eh?). He also conditioned those benchmarks in terms that realists have recognized for years now are just too stupid to even bother with. This whole "they stand up so we can stand down" stuff is just banal at this point, so why do they even bother with this crap?

So no, there is no deadline. All he did was plant the expectation of a deadline, by kicking the issue down the road 12 Friedman Units. At which point, I assume they'll come up with the same old/new excuses to kick the can down the road for another three years. And so it goes...

As Andrew Bacevich so adroitly put it mid-October:

Implementing the McChrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding fundamentals of US national security policy: maintaining a global military presence, configuring US forces for global power projection, and employing those forces to intervene on a global basis. The McChrystal plan modestly updates these fundamentals to account for the lessons of 9/11 and Iraq, cultural awareness and sensitivity nudging aside advanced technology as the signature of American military power, for example. Yet at its core, the McChrystal plan aims to avert change. Its purpose - despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq - is to preserve the status quo.

snip....

As the fighting drags on from one year to the next, the engagement of US forces in armed nation-building projects in distant lands will become the new normalcy. Americans of all ages will come to accept war as a perpetual condition, as young Americans already do. That "keeping Americans safe'' obliges the United States to seek, maintain, and exploit unambiguous military supremacy will become utterly uncontroversial.

If the Afghan war then becomes the consuming issue of Obama's presidency - as Iraq became for his predecessor, as Vietnam did for Lyndon Johnson, and as Korea did for Harry Truman - the inevitable effect will be to compromise the prospects of reform more broadly.

At home and abroad, the president who advertised himself as an agent of change will instead have inadvertently erected barriers to change. As for the American people, they will be left to foot the bill.

This is a pivotal moment in US history. Americans owe it to themselves to be clear about what is at issue. That issue relates only tangentially relates to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the well-being of the Afghan people. The real question is whether "change'' remains possible.

http://www.boston.com/bostongl...

So who did we hear tonight? We heard some Wilson. We heard a shitload of Reagan and a tragic amount of Bushisms. But mostly we heard the bestest bullshitter of them all advertising what a totally political wanker he really is. I don't get the impression he even gives a shit about the consequences of his position. He just doesn't want to be called a "pussy" by the bullies on the DC media playground.

Personally, I might be able to take his words more seriously, if he didn't spew so much total bullshit. His missionary zeal in the last third basically destroyed whatever analytical credibility he had in the first ten minutes.

This is a guy who can make militaristic puffery sound really good, even to a lot of liberals.

That's a real problem going forward, methinks.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Actually we heard him quote directly from Ike's (0.00 / 0)
farewell address in the auditorium of West Point. Don't you get it? A black man named Hussein called out the MIC in the headquarters of the Continental Army and basically said the "War on Terror" is over. And got a standing ovation!

What more do you want the guy to do?

Again, when the emotions die down, we will continue with the Great Turnaround of America. With or without "Progressives".

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (4.00 / 1)
Why are 30,000 more troops going if it's over? That is real, talk about July 2011 may just be talk.

I imagine Obama hopes the "success" of the Iraq surge wil be repeated. I hope someone kills Osama bin Laden so we can declare victory. I wouldn't bet on either.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Is that snark, or were you trying to say something? (4.00 / 3)
I didn't hear that the WOT is over. I heard War on Violent Extremism several times. Tell  me, what's the difference? Indeed, the "struggle against extremism" was used by Bush, Rummy and many others. Additionally, that phrase can mean anything at all... which is to say it means precisely nothing.

Oh, and how about his talk about north Africa. That was really nice, wasn't it? Rather expansionist in most people's books, no?


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Take em out (4.00 / 3)
What he says matters less than what he does.  Obama continues to add troops.  Not keep the same number Not reduce them.  Not get them all out.  Add.

By their fruits you shall know them.

I've been down this route in Vietnam.  There is no daylight at the end of the tunnel just more tunnel.

[ Parent ]
What channel were you watching? (4.00 / 1)
I heard a reiteration of the GWOT, or to use the same Rumsfeldian phrase that President O seems to favor, "The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism". TGSAVE.

What will "America" find when it turns around?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Bag of dicks (4.00 / 9)
Implementing the McChrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding fundamentals of US national security policy: maintaining a global military presence, configuring US forces for global power projection, and employing those forces to intervene on a global basis.

Word. The goal of staying in Afghanistan is to stay in Afghanistan. We essentially have two choices: stay or leave. Looks like we will be staying in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
No one has nailed it better (4.00 / 1)


Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Hey, lives and money are no object.... (4.00 / 6)
unless you want health care or homeowners bailed out.  Watch him come back to tell us how broke we are and that we need to cut entitlements or die. You are way too nice.  
[ Parent ]
We already know that sending 1 US soldier to Afganistan will cost (4.00 / 3)
roughly $1,000,000/year.

How many average "underwater" homeowners would that help in the same year?
How many cancer screening exams will NOT be done so that we can send 1 soldier to Afghanistan?
How many VA psychologists will not be hired to care for these soldiers when they return?

I'm probably still being too nice.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
There is no exit strategy here (4.00 / 8)
just a timeline.

But he did not articulate any metrics or criteria that can be used to judge if we have met our objectives. Without such criteria articulated, it will be extremely difficult for him to get out of Afghanistan.

In this failure, he has repeated the mistake of Bush JR and LBJ.  

He wants to get out, because, I suspect, he knows we cannot afford this war.

But without translating how to evaluate when we are supposed to leave, he has effectively trapped himself in this War.  

An example from Iraq (4.00 / 2)
From the Christian Science Monitor, December 9th, 2005:

But most Republicans, meanwhile, weren't rushing to President Bush's defense, as he rolled out two big speeches in as many weeks defending the administration's record on a war that polls suggest has lost the support of most voters.

Underneath the public (and private) rifts in both parties, there's a growing consensus in Congress that the White House must be more concrete in defining what constitutes victory in Iraq - and more forthcoming in the metrics needed to measure progress.

Of course, the reason we can't articulate the criteria for success in Iraq and Afghanistan is at a fundamental level we don't really know what that means.  We are asking US Troops to fight and die, and we are saying we willing to accept the inevitable increase in civilian casualties, and yet we cannot define victory in anything but vague terms.


[ Parent ]
wait (4.00 / 2)
he said we were there to create "space." Get it?

2011
Obama to General: "Have we created the necessary space?"

General: "No."

[ Parent ]
Thank you for this clarification (4.00 / 3)
but the "war" is not just war, it's "nation-building" with our troops and our money.  

While nation-building has a humanitarian ring, it has no end. U.S. troops will still be in combat - die, become ill - and domestic issues will suffer.

There are a couple of good stories in the Washington Post today on nation-building. Here's a link to one about Kosovo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
 

Nor, I might add, is it a "just war" (4.00 / 2)
If nation-building, especially in this, a most extreme case, were even remotely practicable, we're simply no good at it. The whole nation-building theme is pure fantasy. When almost all of our so-called "aid money" is being stolen by the very same dude and his cronies... well, how does he think that's going to work out? Civilian surge? What's the friggin' point?

When this most intelligent and otherwise erudite person makes this, among other fantastical niceties, core items in it's so-called "strategy," this cannot end well.

A "strategy" based on illusions can never be successful. Thusly, one can only conclude the only real objective here is to simply stay.

Obama should be reading Clausewitz, not militarist pundits with single-digit IQs.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Helloo, David Kaib, pls take notice! (0.00 / 0)
Remember that we argued about if there are people who simply want out of Afghanistan because of the monetary and humanitarian costs for the US, with no regard about how this will affect the Afghan people? Obviously, Michelle is one of them.

Hmm, btw, isn't it right that this intuitìve dismissal of any nation building actually once was a rethuglican talking point?

[ Parent ]
As I said before (4.00 / 2)
saying you "want out of Afghanistan because of the monetary and humanitarian costs for the US" is not the same as saying you only "want out of Afghanistan because of the monetary and humanitarian costs for the US." Michele hasn't addressed the latter point.

Of course, I also conceded that some people hold the view that at best you have demonstrated one person holds. And you conceded that I and others did not hold that view.  As I said, you can't attack other people who oppose the Afghan war because some people hold that view.

By the way, here is the opening to the link Michele offered, which is about the impact of so called nation building on people in another country:

Nearly two years after the newest country in the world declared independence, outside powers are still firmly in control.

About 14,000 NATO troops are on hand to keep the peace, a decade after their arrival to protect Kosovars from annihilation by next-door Serbia. With just 2 million people in Kosovo, that's more than twice as many foreign soldiers, per capita, as are currently deployed in the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan.

The economy is a basket case, with a 45 percent unemployment rate. Most people are dependent on foreign largess. Kosovo even lacks an international dialing code. Landlines are all cursed with Serbian numbers, even though Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo's independence. Cellphone numbers are borrowed from Monaco or a Balkan neighbor, Slovenia.

Being against the Afghan war meant you were against the Afghans was also a right wing talking point - the issue is not whether it's a talking point but whether its true.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Recall that Bill Clinton's action - sending U.S. troops to Kosovo (0.00 / 0)
was sanctioned because it was humanitarian.

I have nothing against humanitarian aims in countries that need U.S., but that's not the point in Afghanistan.

What's going on now in Afghanistan, with Obama's decisions, is to extend WAR.

I'll say it again: THERE IS NO WAR. Who, exactly is the enemy? Is it Al quaeda, reduced to a mere 100 members in Afghanistans? http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

It is a humanitarian expedition. Where is NATO? So far, from what I've read, only Great Britain, the great colonizer, has acquiesced to send more troops.

Why isn't it Afghanistan troop "surge" cast as humanitarian? Answer: because it is not. It is war for the sake of war and to prop up our corporate military-industrial complex.

[ Parent ]
omg (1.60 / 5)
seriously - sounding whiny, dudes.

either a: the reasons for the war are as stated, in which case, we can't just all LEAVE for crissakes.

or b: there are global strategic reasons for being there that we (the gp) cannot be informed of (in polite company) and so fuck off - none of your opinions matter.

what do you want? a certified copy of the President's birth certificate hand-delivered by a Marine to each and every household in the United States?

meh.

what? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
yeah, it's definitely (b) (4.00 / 2)
I heard Moscow is behind the Taliban. The communists control your union too.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
I can't really follow your argument, especially about the birth certificate. (4.00 / 2)
And this comment would be much better if it wasn't accusing others of being whiny, and if you had taken more time to elaborate on your point. However, imho this isn't TR worthy, so I rate it 4 just to unhide it.
[ Parent ]
He's saying (4.00 / 1)
if we don't salute Obama's war we are wingnuts.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I totally oppose this war (4.00 / 1)
and mourn the expenditure of money that is so desperately needed here at home for children, education, health care, food, renewable energy, infrastructure repair, jobs, and a million other things.

Not to mention saving the lives (45,000 per year) of the uninsured. That's considerable, compared to the 3000 or so who died in 9/11.  

That's considerable, but I hope you have some thoughts... (4.00 / 1)
..on what shall become of the Afghan people if the US withdraw, too. Or else this horribly looks like the typical selfish US foreign policy: Do everthing you want, guided by your own selfish interests, create a mess, and then refuse to repair it when the adventure becomes too costly.
[ Parent ]
We are not the world's cop or mother. (4.00 / 2)
If you want to get all humanitarian, lets get our kids off welfare and provide health care for people in this country that doesn't require a second mortgage on a home - if you still have one.   And what makes you think we can change anything over there even if we do stay, and are you proposing we stay forever because that is what it will take?   Whatever chance they had to impact Afghanistan was blown eight years ago.  This is more money for Haliburton and Blackwater.    
[ Parent ]
Not? For decades, the US eagerly volunteered for that job! (4.00 / 1)
Only with its own corrupt plans in mind, of course, but still. And now, suddenly, not the world cop anymore? Interesting how quickly the attitudes change once the costs become higher than the "national interest" that can be gained.  
[ Parent ]
Btw, then the US should get the hell out of Iraq. NOW! (4.00 / 2)
If America is NOT the world cop, is has excactly NO reason to be there. Yankees go home!
[ Parent ]
Nice (0.00 / 0)
Like dkmich or I have the power to do your bidding.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
No fooling... (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to pay for cop.  You want to pay for cop, make a donation.  
[ Parent ]
Why? (0.00 / 0)
on what shall become of the Afghan people if the US withdraw, too.

Why should the US left be the only ones to worry about this?

Many other nations have pulled their soldiers from Afghanistan - why aren't they tagged with pursuing narrow interests?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The same thing that happens if we stay. (4.00 / 2)
Warlords versus warlords. Right now the US is supporting one set of warlords over another, that's all.

The Afghan people have zero hope for self-determination as long as we are there. They may not have it for a while after we leave, either, but they have more of a chance with us gone.

Notice I say "when," not "if," because just like every other super power that tried to control Afghanistan it's inevetiable that we leave sooner or later. If Obama won't be the one to pull out, the Republican who replaces him will, ala Nixon.

You can't win an occupation you can only choose the amount of humiliation you wish to endure.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
quite right! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
We're getting out prudently.

Chin up.

Woo-hoo! More death! (4.00 / 8)
I feel better already.
[ Parent ]
And withdrawing would mean "less death"? Pls explain. (0.00 / 0)
Really, this kind of shallow arguing is annoying. Afaik nobody has ever made a compelling case why leaving Afghanistan on its own should result in less Afghans dying. Would you pls present your arguments first, instead of always repeating a mantra as if its a universal truth?
[ Parent ]
Less Americans would definately die, and (4.00 / 2)
if Afghans still die, it won't be Americans killing them.  And the direct cost of human life is not the only cost to human life involved.   Every dime we spend over there killing people is money that could be spent here and abroad providing medical care, education, clean water, etc.

Last but not least is the pure cash cost of this war.  If it is so great and necessary, why isn't he willing to put it on the budget and pay for it????  Oh, I forgot.  He gave it all to the banks, and he won't repeal the Bush tax cuts.

The one thing he is great at is mesmerizing people. Everytime he delivers a speech, it like a hypnotherapy cue to cluck like a chicken hand him our grandkids check book.  

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily a bad argument, but... (0.00 / 0)
...the US should have been clear baoutthat when they started this war. I'm sure this would have seriously reduced the coalition of western nations supporting the move. Nobody likes a nation who invades a country with purely its own interests in mind and refuses to ake any responsibility for achieving peace. As I see it, when the US went in, they accepted an obligation to stabilize that country, and they can't simply abandon it now.
[ Parent ]
We started the war (0.00 / 0)
because the Saudis and Egyptians symbolically castrated us on 9/11. Someone had to pay and the ones who hit us were our "allies," so it had to be someone else.

Do you really think the Afghans want us to continue killing them?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The Egyptians? I don't remember them playing a big role. (0.00 / 0)
This was a Saudi/Al Quaeda endeavor, with the Taliban playing an important part as willing hosts for the group. That some terrorists were from other nations isn't that important. However, of course, the Bush team never really thought about calling the Saudis to task...

And do you really think the Afghans want the Taliban to continue killing them?

[ Parent ]
Oh Gray (0.00 / 0)
The Taliban is the Afghans, or rather includes Afghans. You can wish that the situation was more clear cut - evil external enemies threatening willing local American allies, but its not that simple.

The US is the clear external actor. That's why much of the opposition to the US is based in opposition to occupation by foreigners. This is also the best recruiting tool that terrorist groups have. You can dispute the truth of it if you want, but that is why people argue that our presence makes things worse. (That and because our military is propping up the government so that popular support and political reconciliation are less important than support from Washington.)

Perhaps unwittingly, your thinking mirrors US arguments for Vietnam - we had to fight outside aggression - when the real outside aggression was us.  

No doubt the Afghans don't want to be killed, and I suspect that they don't care whether its the US or its opponents that do it.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
David, you're not wrong, but fact is,... (0.00 / 0)
...this conflict won't stop after a US withdrawal. I think we should talk about different scenarios here, and this of course has to include the scenario what will happen if NATO pulls out, and if those consequences are still preferable to the others. That's the question no pro-withdrawal commenter has answered here so far. And, as I recently pointed out, some obviously only care about US casualties. This makes the "it's better for Afghanistan, too" argument look quite hypocritical.
[ Parent ]
Pro-withdrawal commenters have may not have (0.00 / 0)
offered a detailed a plan at every turn. Then again, where are the pro-war commentators who have clearly laid out how continued occupation will bring peace and prosperity?    

I have not suggested that the conflict will stop after withdrawal, only that it makes an end more likely.

We might spend more time talking about the specifics you claim to care about if you stopped trolling for people who allegedly only care about American and not people in other countries, or if you admitted that US war policy is presently only concerned with American security despite what you wish the goals were.

The question I have for you is this - Obama claims he's going to give us a very different war than the one you want, he claims that his goals are the ones you have labeled immoral when made by some commenters. Does that effect your thinking about the war?  Do you think Obama is lying and he really secretly agrees with your humanitarian / national building mission? Since he is selling something far more narrow, what happens when he seeks more resources and people no longer trust him? Is a continued failed war that does not involved all the non-war policy options that you think are important going to make things worse or better, especially if it just puts off a withdraw?  

Defend the war we have, if you would like to, but there is no sense talking about a war we are not going to have.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Also, if its about the costs, what about Iraq? Much more troops.. (0.00 / 0)
..are still there, and so the majority of the costs is coming from that presence. Shouldn't the US firstly end their presence there? This would free lots of money for healthcare reform, job programs, education, you name it!

And it would result in learning important lessons about the aftermath of such a withdrawal. And since Afghanistan is the much ore importatn theatre than Iraq, those lessons would be invaluable for coming to a good decision on how to go on there.

[ Parent ]
Afghans don't call in airstrikes (4.00 / 1)
Afghanistan without NATO won't be pretty, but neither is Afghanistan with NATO.

The difference is that if we withdraw, the various power blocs might have some interest in negotiating a workable settlement. It'd be kleptocratic, anti-democratic, terrible on women's rights and just about every other kind of right, and it still wouldn't remove every last extremist militant group, but that'd still be an improvement on killing the locals just because we're too stubborn to accept we made a mistake.

And if things do degenerate when we've gone, America still maintains significant over-the-horizon capacity. America can still be the world's policeman if it wants to be. It has the capacity to stop genocides and the like. It just can't play classroom monitor too.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
"negotiating a workable settlement"? With the Taliban??? (0.00 / 0)
Why should they go for a lousy compromise? If Nato leaves the country, they are winning!

And yes, Afghans con't order any airstrikes, they don't have an airforce to speak of. That's why the bloodtoll for the Afghans would be much higher without NATO.

As for "killing the locals", pls provide some numbers! Pls remember, Afghainstan is a nation of 28 million people. Do you really think a Saria regime would be less worse than the persistent, but limited civilian casualties in the war against the Taliban?

And then, America's alleged "over the horizon capacity". It's totally useless without having an airbase near the region (where???) and without intelligence distinguishing the good from the bad guys.

However, this sounds good: "It has the capacity to stop genocides and the like." If only this were true, and the US would really do that!

[ Parent ]
The "shallow arguing" is to pin all the problems on the US (4.00 / 1)
then scold the US for being the "world cop".

How were the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan created?  Which nations are responsible for leaving the "mess" of receding colonial empires?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
To be a bit more sober for a moment (4.00 / 5)
Paul, I just talked with senior administration officials who don't even know when we are getting out.  Somehow, reassurances that we are going to get out "prudently" ring hollow after that.
[ Parent ]
All that means is there is no planned exit (4.00 / 6)
And that doesn't mean anything either. Of course, that's the whole problem, or a huge part of it.

But throwing out 2011 sure did the trick in terms of driving a wedge between liberal groups, eh? Obamabots can say, "Hey, we're getting out in three years! Go Empire!" and the sentient among us can say, "Dude, what makes you think that's even close to being true?"

And there you go. Macchiavelli would be most proud of Barack Obama this evening. Divide the base and let them fight amongst themselves. Until 2012, when we'll hear another story....

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I gave you a 4 not because I am certain on this issue (4.00 / 4)
I am actually not, but leaning against Obama's decision based on a run in with some bots over at mydd.

I asked the end goal question. I even posted FlaDem's comment because I think he's far more forgiving than I am, but nails my concern.

The best answer that  I got was that this extended stay probably won't change anything.  That we would be in the same place after we leave years from now as we  are now, which begs to me the question- then what is the military objective?

When I ask then what then is the military objective, I got what you just posted.

Therefore, what I am certain is  that tonite allows the Obamabots (I use the more crazy one's at Mydd to determine this sort of thing) to  do their normal dance.

I see too much of this- lord, 4 more years of Bush-like supporter's logic. Is this going to be the permanent state of modern American politics? ONe cult after another?

[ Parent ]
ha (4.00 / 1)
on your first reference to bots at mydd I thought you meant "robots." I know things have changed there but didn't realize androids were taking over.
[ Parent ]
Not all is changed (4.00 / 1)
Just some. Typically Obamabot stuff.

In this situation, I am trying to ask questions, and their response is to bait, bait, attack, bait, etc. Question my logic for asking a questioning. Call it "bruh logic" etc.

Then when they can't win on that level, they will respond but in such a way as to not really answer the question. When you become more specific, they continue to not fully  respond to the meat of the question, etc. It is all tactical behavior.

I had thought this time unlike say with health care where I am fairly certain about what I think on the issue or the economy- that this time they would be a little more forgiving of doubt rather than certainty. I was mistaken. Same nastiness shit, different channel.

[ Parent ]
I was over at dKos and it was really, really bad... (4.00 / 10)
There are so many people out there who claim to be "progressives" and yet all they can say is, "I've got my man Obama's back" and crap like that. That kind of unquestioning support of a person, putting aside any notion of principles or even actual intended outcomes... well, it just seems very authoritarian-follower stuff to me.

Hell, I'm not certain on this whole thing either. I don't think anyone is at all, whether it be some bot or Obama himself. Realistically, there's really no way to be absolutely certain.

As for objectives, the military objectives are determined by the political objectives. What is the desired political end-state in Afghanistan? I ask this question genuinely. The military objectives follow from that first question. Without a political program, there simply can't be any real military objective beyond simply staying and burning through another $2 Trillion in deficit spending and a few thousand more American and EU lives. God only knows how many more Afghans are in for it now.

For me, this whole thing blows up when the administration acts like Karzai's government is somehow a viable one. We've had years now to realize that whole idea is just BS. So what's the real point of all this then?

We prop up a crooked narco-state no one outside of Kabul likes at all? How is that supposed to "work out"? How are we supposed to build up an army that already has a 25% desertion rate all the way up to 400K? Obama is divorced from reality if he actually believes his own BS.

For me, it's these questions that are the problem here. We're not getting anything resembling honest answers, so there's no way for us to suss out just what the hell it is they're thinking... assuming we can call it "thought."

Sun Tzu said no nation has ever profited from a long war and countless nations have learned this lesson countless times. Yet we're somehow so very, very special we can avoid this verdict in the very same area that's defeated every empire of the last 3000 years?

Jeebus. This whole thing is totally wacked.

Judging by a lot of the comments I've seen over the last few hours (though not here, thankfully), the "left" is going to become a lot smaller real soon. The Bots have got their own War Fever now. That's just effing bizarre.


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I think you have summed up my concern: (4.00 / 5)
There is an authoritarian element to the way some support for President Obama.

 I disagree that this is not a progressive trait. I don't buy the argument that being authoritarian is only a right leaning trait.

In America, however, the authoritarian trait comes from the right. In that sense, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing  a false equivalence.

But we have enough history to know that this desire to be controlled is indeed a human trait.  

I think that idea of being safe under a leader is what they seek out of president Obama rather than wanting to hold him accountable, and in this case, ask questions that are going to make some sense of what we are being told.

I think back on how Senate and House members described President Obama's position on the public option versus how ardent supporters used only his public statements as the entire representation of truth. I think you are going to see the same thing here. It does not matter what the facts are. They are going to fashion or attempt to fashion a narrow narrative just as described.

[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 2)
And I don't want to say that authoritarianism only comes from the right. The American communists of old certainly had their authoritarian streak a mile wide.

As for actual progressives, it's been pretty rare and given that Obama in particular certainly isn't a leftist of any sort tends to support the notion that he's a RWA, though not as high scoring as say, Bush. And his followers aren't as high-scoring as Bush's, but it's still pretty much right-wing authoritarian followers we're talking about.

Just reading some of the comments over at dKos about Obama's war and just how enthusiastic they were about it makes them anything but left-wing.

Your characterization describes it nicely. They're scared and they want papa to protect them from whomever or whatever.  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Yeap- this diary at the site comparing (4.00 / 2)
anyone who disagrees with the war to being like some crazy birther woman the diarist met:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

The Bushian right wing approach of demonizing dissent through questioning moral character with highly manipulative framing.

The framing being "If you don't support the President, then you are not being a good progressive  (and are in fact a crazy birther) because progressives want to help others like the poor women of Afghanistan."  She may as well have written if you don't support this war , you don't support the troops because this frame is like ideological catnip.

Highly, highly manipulative stuff.  What she is doing is using left/progressive framing to reinforce rightward policies. I imagine many of them do think they are progressives, and probably are. That's why I disagree with you on the level of the left not being manipulated by framing. Now, of course, these people want to be manipulated, but still- it is clear she choose to use a left leaning narrative to do the emotional hiding of the ball.

The fact she is very emotional and 'sensitive" and blah, blah,blah, because what she is doing is just plain wrong considering the circumstances only adds to the "progressive" authoritarian element. We are there helping those people!

Now, I am not sure what I believe about how to address the foreign policy issues, but I come of the school of realism. Whatever we need to do over there is going to be because we are helping our interests regarding terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, or should be.  How the hell is she addressing this?

You will see more of this stuff. Not less.  

[ Parent ]
Great point (0.00 / 0)
I think the only point of disagreement is that these people are not objectively left-wing at all. Subjectively, though, I couldn't agree more with you. The simple fact is, American Progressivism is inherently non-authoritarian, which is why I have a problem with such a notion. But these folks are more Stalinist than anything, just like their neocon brethren and sistren.

And yes, we're going to see a lot more of these "STFU Diaries." If it's not being organized, the Obamabots would be fools not to organize them. It's classic Rumor Control.

Remember those old WW2 posters? "Loose lips sink ships." They whole point of those posters was to prevent people from talking to their friends and family. Hence the term, "Rumor Control."

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
They're not progressives, they're cultists (4.00 / 4)
They need to believe in something, to make up for their inability and/or unwillingness to actually bone up on and take a stand on the issues for themselves--all that painful and inconvenient research and critical thinking stuff that's like so totally 2008. And Obama's what they believe in. He just happens to sometimes vaguely sound and act progressive, so they think of and call themselves progressives. It's the high school wannabe ethos applied to the political domain. These people are poseurs, and when they're called on it, they lash out with ad homs, not substance. Always a giveaway.

I stopped posting there several months ago, in part because I got fed up with this nonsense (although a completely unrelated development in my life precipitated it, but I'd been thinking about leaving the site for some time prior to it), where you have to endure waves of trollish bot attacks whenever you dare critize The One, when you're just trying to engage people in intelligent discourse about key issues. WTF does "I've got his back" mean, anyway, especially in the unconditional manner in which it was stated? That when Obama does it, it's not as bad as when Bush did it? One literally cannot be a progressive and think that way.

To be a progressive is to, duh, be for progress. POSITIVE progress, not stasis or regression--and to not justify the latter just because your guy's at the helm.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I understand we're on oppiste sdes of the withdrawal question, but... (4.00 / 4)
...still, thank you for being so thoughtful to ask this alll-important question: "What is the desired political end-state in Afghanistan?" I guess you really it cuts both ways, because this has to be answered for the withdrawal alterantive, too. And it also comes with an unavoidable second question: "What is the realitic plan to accomplish that?"

As long as there is no answer, it seems to me as if the Afghanistan problem simply is a question of what is the lesser of two evils, again. Oh, and btw, I think the Afghan people themselves should have a much stronger say in that than the have now. Of course, ti wouldn't make much sense to insist on staying if a vast majority want the NATO out. And it also would be quite irresponsible to quit if most of them fear this would result in even more violence. It would be good if the discussion would focus much more on reasonable arguments about what's best for Afghanistan, and the region, and less on the question if this becomes too costly or if this violates the anti-war reflexes of many here.

[ Parent ]
Answer these questions: (4.00 / 2)
1.) What is the objective in Afghanistan?

2.) How do you propose that objective be accomplished?

3.) How long will it take to accomplish the objective?

4.) What are the costs in terms of blood, treasure, and political capital?  Have we the resources to accomplish this objective, whatever that is?

If you can't answer those questions, then you have no business waging or continuing a war.  Obama can't answer them any more than Bush and his crowd could, because there was never an honest discussion or an honest set of answers to these questions.  Therefore, Obama needs to withdraw soldiers -- both public and private -- from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible.  A set of goals must be established -- the capture or killing of bin Laden in Afghanistan-Pakistan, and the full withdrawal of all military from Iraq.  A date for withdrawal needs to be set, say, within one year (not three).  A solid strategy for accomplishing these goals must be laid out before the American people, to gain our support.  And an honest assessment of the costs must be disclosed to the public.

War is not something one starts lightly, nor is it something one finishes lightly.  But for any war effort to truly succeed, there must be honesty and accountability before the public.  America is not an empire; we simply haven't the taste for it.  But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were begun by vermin who think otherwise yet knew the people don't, and because of that never gave an honest reason for waging war.  As a result, no clear policy objectives were set, no honest discussion of the costs was brought forth, and no real plan for achieving objectives was created.  This doomed the war effort before it even began.  America's wars in the Middle East have already been lost.  We can try to save face and get out now, or continue the bloodshed in hopes that someone down the line will swallow his pride and pull us out.  There's nothing to be gained by doing the latter.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
Now, what is the magic word, SPA? Yeah, I know, "asap". :D (0.00 / 0)
I don't like to be commanded around, but I'll try, to the best of my knowledge and reasoning, and fully aware that there sure a folks who know more about the issue than I do:

"1.) What is the objective in Afghanistan?"
To bring the nation into a stable position where Afghans themselves are largely satisfied with their government and their situation, and willing to defend it against hostile takeover.

"2.) How do you propose that objective be accomplished?"
Political reforms that more closely reflect the actual power structure, and thus ensure that the government will be more acceptable for a majority of Afghans. More financial and organisational support to build up an economy that is less depending on the drug production and reduces the criminal activity necesarily coupled with it. Military safeguarding of the nation, and its borders, against a Taliban takeover. Ongoing, but reformed support for building up Afghan military abilities, focussing less on a central army and more on tribal militias and a "national guard" sytem for the provinces.

"3.) How long will it take to accomplish the objective?"
All in all, certainly a generation, 20 years or so. You have to take into accint that the thinking of the average Afghan has to change, too. However, a significant reduction of the foreign military presence to less than half the troop strength should be possible after five years. As I aleady repeatedly said, it's a gradual process.

"4.) What are the costs in terms of blood, treasure, and political capital?  Have we the resources to accomplish this objective, whatever that is?"
Blood toll will remain as high for the next two or three years, I guess. However, the bloodtoll would be even higher if NATO withdrew and the Taliban started another civil war about ruling the country. The cost would stay at present level, but it has to be taken into account that the costs fro Iraq will hopefully fall close to zero in the next year or so, if Obama is honest. A reduction of costs could also be accomplished by more determinedly going after Taliban donors, most importantly in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Also, much more could be done to ensure financial support from other UN members. Politically, Obama should be the right person to "sell" a reformed approach in Afghansitan, even if it's a long term presence, if he's deeply convicted it's the right move.

And as for the affordability, the US spends more for denfense than all other nations combined. It would take only a shift away from cold war weapons to ensure a stable  budget for the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission.

So far. My honest opinion. I'm sure the devil is in the details, but all in all this should be a reasonable proposal. And I totally support your view that so far "no clear policy objectives were set, no honest discussion of the costs was brought forth, and no real plan for achieving objectives was created". Exactly! This has to change now, regardless wether its for plans for a continuation of the mission or plans for withdrawal. Simply jumping into action without any strategy and clues what will happen would be irresponsible and brutally unfair to the Afghan people.

[ Parent ]
Thank you for answering. (4.00 / 1)
1.) What is the objective in Afghanistan?"
To bring the nation into a stable position where Afghans themselves are largely satisfied with their government and their situation, and willing to defend it against hostile takeover.

I thought it was to remove the Taliban and get bin Laden.  That was the objective Americans thought they were supporting in 2001.  What you just described is part of the strategy involved for the after-war, which has not yet come because the objective is no longer anywhere in sight.

"2.) How do you propose that objective be accomplished?"
Political reforms that more closely reflect the actual power structure, and thus ensure that the government will be more acceptable for a majority of Afghans. More financial and organisational support to build up an economy that is less depending on the drug production and reduces the criminal activity necesarily coupled with it. Military safeguarding of the nation, and its borders, against a Taliban takeover. Ongoing, but reformed support for building up Afghan military abilities, focussing less on a central army and more on tribal militias and a "national guard" sytem for the provinces.

And how do you propose to achieve these political "reforms" in a country that has been dominated by warlords for decades, if not centuries?  What you're proposing is nation-building, and for eight years that has been thoroughly botched.  How do you propose we fix all that?  You answered the first question twice, because nation-building is not a strategy -- it's a goal.  DO you know the difference?

"3.) How long will it take to accomplish the objective?"
All in all, certainly a generation, 20 years or so. You have to take into accint that the thinking of the average Afghan has to change, too. However, a significant reduction of the foreign military presence to less than half the troop strength should be possible after five years. As I aleady repeatedly said, it's a gradual process.

"[T]wenty years or so."  DO you really think we have the resources to sustain such a long term project?  We can't even rebuild our own nation, certainly not in a generation or twenty years.  What makes you think we can do it in another country?  What resources have we got, in terms of manpower, money, and raw materials, to accomplish this nation-building project?

"4.) What are the costs in terms of blood, treasure, and political capital?  Have we the resources to accomplish this objective, whatever that is?"
Blood toll will remain as high for the next two or three years, I guess. However, the bloodtoll would be even higher if NATO withdrew and the Taliban started another civil war about ruling the country. The cost would stay at present level, but it has to be taken into account that the costs fro Iraq will hopefully fall close to zero in the next year or so, if Obama is honest. A reduction of costs could also be accomplished by more determinedly going after Taliban donors, most importantly in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Also, much more could be done to ensure financial support from other UN members. Politically, Obama should be the right person to "sell" a reformed approach in Afghansitan, even if it's a long term presence, if he's deeply convicted it's the right move.

And as for the affordability, the US spends more for denfense than all other nations combined. It would take only a shift away from cold war weapons to ensure a stable  budget for the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission.

You say the blood toll will remain high.  Define high.  4,000 a year?  9,000 a year?  More?  And how many Afghans will die or suffer horrible conditions?  Thousands?  Millions?  Come on, give me a ballpark figure.

The U.S. spends more on war than on any other nation combined, not defense.  And most of that money goes to weapon systems (Star Wars and other nuclear weapons programs) and other private projects (like meddling in the affairs of other nations -- from overthrowing democratically-elected governments to assassination-training for right-wing guerrillas).  Comparatively little actually goes to maintaining troop levels, supplies, and equipment.  We've been spending well over a half trillion dollars annually on war for going on twenty years, and spent eight years mismanaging two major wars begun by dishonest politicians with aspirations of empire.  As a result, our own economy has collapsed and we can't even provide basic services to our own citizens.  Obviously, we cannot afford the costs, both in money and in blood.  We're up to our eyeballs in trade deficits, too.  So there goes the resources.

I'm glad you took the time o answer my initial round of questions, and I thank you for it.  But you need to bone up on what your answers really mean, because they lead to other questions you don't seem to know the answer to.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
Have something other to do now, so only short responses. (0.00 / 0)
"I thought it was to remove the Taliban and get bin Laden.  That was the objective Americans thought they were supporting in 2001."
All involved governments knew that it would make no sense to simply reove the Taliban an AQ and then leave the country, letting them return at will. Bush should have been more honest about nation building being unavoidable.

"And how do you propose to achieve these political "reforms" in a country that has been dominated by warlords for decades, if not centuries?"
Warlords are interested in getting more power, and reducing Karzai's role. Federalist reform should be no problem.
"What you're proposing is nation-building, and for eight years that has been thoroughly botched."
Bush years. 'nuff said.

"Come on, give me a ballpark figure."
Wikipdia: "As of November 23, 2009, there have been 1,464 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF) since the invasion in 2001." That's the level, and regarding the huge idfferences in military power beween NATO and Taliban, I don't see why it should change much.

"DO you really think we have the resources to sustain such a long term project?"
Yes. Just look at the huge defense budget.

"And most of that money goes to weapon systems"
Exactly. That's the problem. What are nuclear subs good for nowadays, for instance? Dropping off seals in foreign waters? There are much cheaper solutions to this military problem. Less useless high tech weapons, more money for missions increasing global security is the solution, imho.

[ Parent ]
Thank you again. (0.00 / 0)
Why does it make no sense to topple the Taliban, destroy al-Qaida, rebuild the country as quickly and efficiently as possible, and then get out?  That's standard procedure in any war effort.  You cannot expect to occupy a country indefinitely unless you plan on bringing it into the empire, and again, we are not an empire.  What we could have done -- what we should have done -- was go in with the idea that we would, once the job was finished, use a plan similar to what was implemented with Japan and West Germany to rebuild those nations in the post-war.  Once that mission was accomplished, and it was in a relatively short amount of time, then we could have pulled soldiers out.

But none of this was ever done, never planned or intended by the people waging the war.  So now we're in a quagmire we can't win, and all for what looks like the sake of pride.  No one wants to be the guy blamed for losing a war that was already lost years ago, so the "plan" now is to kick the can down the road in hopes someone else picks up the responsibility for disposing of it.  That's not even close to being a good policy, and the only thing that will be accomplished is that more people on both sides die and our resources drained further.  Just because the same failed policy is now owned by Obama and Co. doesn't make it any more right or desirable than it was when Bush and Co. owned it.  Team Obama is no more equipped or inclined to enact a competent plan than the last bunch to occupy the White House.  Or have you forgotten that Obama kept most of Bush's creatures?  That's something you need to understand.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking you mean well.  I hope you see that what's really driving this "surge" of soldiers in Afghanistan is no more than sheer stubborn, foolish pride.  It's not about saving lives or finishing some undefined job, not anymore.  It's about pride, and pride is what gets people killed for no good reason.  It's time to leave.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
For my part (0.00 / 0)
#1 and #2 are complete bullshit.

Afghanistan was not in that position before the US invaded, and I see no reason why we have to build a nation there before we get out. Those are noble long term goals, to be sure, but why the US has to keep soldiers there for such to be accomplished is a question you've failed to answer.

#3 Is a great theory - but let's see what happens when we start asking around for some $ from those sitting on the sidelines and jeering.  Care to fork over some cash? Why not try and make "Rebuild Afghanistan" an issue in the next German election?

#4 See response #3.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Screw you, Mr. ( I assume) Gray because a woman would never take your position (0.00 / 0)
your nationality is showing.

I.e., not American, but British war mongers non par exellence!

[ Parent ]
No personal insults, pls. (0.00 / 0)
I understand that woman have equal rights to be offensive, but don't forget the OpenLeft comment policy: "Be excellent to each other". Hmm, I hope you don't wanna say that "screw you" is a serious argument, made in search of excellence?
:D
[ Parent ]
Btw: Never say never again! (0.00 / 0)
"Beyond ideological and partisan divisions on the war, women have shifted against the war more sharply than men and are far more apt to say troop levels should be decreased (51 percent) than are men (38 percent). Nearly six in 10 women say the war was not worth fighting, up from just under half last month."
http://goatmilkblog.com/2009/0...

See? Not "women" in general! A majority of them, ok, but four in ten disagree. So, why this shameless exaggeration? Isn't the truth good enough for you to use as an argument? Do you think dishonestly distorting reality works in your favor? Maybe at another blog...

[ Parent ]
The true reason for the surge (4.00 / 2)
well, we all know it -deep in the recesses of our conscious, we know it. Bacevich quoted above articulates some of it, even he won't mention all of it.

A pattern of great speeches, lulling the liberal base to sleep. he sounds so good! so smart! we have a president who is a great learner (if not a quick one, judging by the 3 months). Isn't it great not to listen to the old moron bush?

Perhaps a smart president is more dangerous than a stupid one - others said this in the many comments I saw. A smart speaker is better at pulling the wool over our eyes. A smart pepresident makes the pundits happy - there's so much more to analyse!

But what is it exactly that we sort of know but don't want to? that this 'surge' is, ultimately, evil - just as the invasion and demolition of Iraq was? OK there are more evil things in the world, and certainly plenty through human history. Evil it may be - like all conquests and occupations, like the soviets before us in afganistan, that beget the taliban.

But why this and why now? why not muddle along in afganistan until health reform is done? we are muddling in plenty of other areas, don't we?  

Sacrifice (4.00 / 4)
Was there any talk from the senior administration officials about Rep. Obey's call for a surtax for those making over 150K (or whatever)?  Or, is the financing strategy just to borrow?

President Johnson imposed a much greater and broader surtax to pay for Vietnam.  Congress didn't like it but they went along.  If the sacrifice was shared a bit there might also be stronger opposition to the war.

I think it is (0.00 / 0)
over 35K to be taxed.
[ Parent ]
History repeats itself: "Skeptical Dems Resign Themselves to Obama War" (0.00 / 0)
look at this, you'll see the answer to your question:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_...

[ Parent ]
Re. Your fine statement (4.00 / 7)
Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save.

I saw this from Steven Walt over at FDL:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/12...

[The United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.

And of course on top of killing Muslims we have gulags, torture, denial of rights, etc.

It's so depressing to me that so many progressives still accept the premise that the United States can defeat anti-American violence through war and occupation. Of course, this is exactly what we should do if we were trying to create anti-American violence.  

I agree and was glad for Walt's comment (4.00 / 2)
saw it at antwar.com too. At least one person is pointing out the unbelievable cost in lives to people who happen to live in the wrong part of the world and have a religion for which our leaders and citizens care not.

To me the Iraq war was an atrocity - far more Iraqis killed and lost due to sectarian wars ignited by the US than Saddam ever caused. and he was described as evil. How do we measure evil? by facial hair? by who does the killing.

I have an extremely bad feeling about this escalation. It will not end up well for us. just think of the likes of me - as progressive as they come who may not bother to vote next time.

If it's a waste of time, and all we get after all the work is a smarter sounding and better looking president, is that reason enough to engage? maybe things should be allowed to really deteriorate for a while, who knows...

[ Parent ]
Hey, I saw your post over at dKos... nice job (4.00 / 1)
Assuming that was yours, of course.

I was absolutely shocked at a lot of the comments over there tonight. Real True Believer shit. Damn.

Per this comment, also spot on, methinks. In the name of National Securitude we're making damn sure we have a multitude of enemies for another generation or so.

Very progressive. Er, wait a sec....

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Would it be better if the Afghan army would lose one soldier... (0.00 / 0)
...for every insurgent killed? Would it be better if more Americans would be killed? Would anyone then say this is a "more fair" war in any way? Really, what does the efficiency of the US army have to do with the general question?

And excuse me pls, aren't both the Taliban and their regional opponents Muslims? So, what is the generalization doing here? Looks lile Walt wants to make this look as if the US simply is on a cruzade against the whole Islamic world. Come on, this is ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
How this is far from getting out eventually (4.00 / 1)
Let's not forget that reducing our troops means nothing, because when that happens, it will be all for show -- it will be "combat troops" instead of all troops, and they will not account for the contractors, who will be increased in numbers as the troops get pulled out.    
kill far more than it will save? (4.00 / 1)
Are you sure about that?

I don't like where we're at either, but I'm unconvinced that immediate withdrawal is the responsible thing to do given what's out there to take our place.  Yes, it's pretty ill-defined.  Yes, there aren't clear goals.  But it does sound like a change in tactics, and Obama's talking about dates -- for the first time that I'm aware of -- that's he's going to be held to.

I know the modus operandi of this site lately seems to be to whine about absolutely everything all the time, but Obama's decision doesn't strike me as being made casually and I don't think the lack of specifics on the withdrawal necessarily means that it's totally open-ended.  I mean, did you really expect for officials to give you specific withdrawal numbers 18-24 months out?  Of course they're going to hedge and be vague.

Doing anything requires immediacy at SOME point (4.00 / 3)
So by your definition, getting out will ALWAYS be immediate and thus irresponsible. This is the nonsense "precipitous withdrawal" argument that's been made since 2004 or so, and it's as silly now as it was then. And what, pray tell, will "take our place" "out there" that would in any way put us at risk? The Taliban threaten US security? Since when?

The whole point of the Afghan invasion in late '01 was to capture or kill the people who were behind 9/11, Bin Laden & Co., NOT to overthrow the Taliban or "liberate" or "stabilize" Aghanistan. We FAILED at that mission, and can't turn that failure into a success by pounding yet more sand into sand, because those people are long gone. The reason for being in Afghanistan no longer exists, so I fail to see what this should or could accomplish.

We cannot stablize a country that probably needs 20-30 years for that to happen under ideal conditions, which can hardly prevail with our military there in full force. The whole "deny Al Qaida safe haven" argument is sheer nonsense, because they already have it in Pakistan, and if that failed, they'd move onto any of a host of failed states. Remaining in Afghanistan is sort of like attacking Al Capone's safe after he'd move crosstown.

Obama decided to escalate because he's afraid of his generals, the GOP, and the defense lobby. This has nothing to do with US interests. I know you want to believe it does because you were probably raised to believe in that whole Born on the Fourth of July bullcrap about god and country and the need to defend it from all those furriners, but that doesn't make this particular myth any more legit. I bet you believe that Spain really blew up the Maine, too.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Kovie, come on, you're simplifying things. (0.00 / 0)
There was a broad coalition of nations supporting the US move against Afghanistan. And of course it was about toppling the Taliban, since that was the only way to unseat Al Quaeda there. Just lok at the 2001 news reporting about the issue, it was clear that this was about getting rid of that extremist regime. So, don't engage in photoshopping history, pls!

"We cannot stablize a country that probably needs 20-30 years for that to happen under ideal conditions, which can hardly prevail with our military there in full force."
Well, I agree that stabilizing that nation takes a generation. However, it is a gradual process, which will allow a reduction of the military presence over time. Once there is a government that is accepted by the majority of people, and when the citizen will have more to gain than to lose from peace, the Afghans themselves will become able to take over an increasing amount of the security job.

And of course this also depends on the developments in Pakistan. It would be a dire mistake to only look at the single nations, and not at the regional picture as a whole. But right now the Pakistanis are obviously making progress in destroying the Taliban strongpoints. This won't result in the fundamentalists simply vanishing, but it will seriously reduce their power. In light of this, it would be irresponsible now to torpedoe those successes by allowing the extremists to simply exchange their Pakistani presence for an Afghan one! Quite to the contrary, the concerted, and increasing pressure on the Taliban from both the east and the west has a good chance to result in them losing their last safe havens, and in making them a much less powerful underground group. Fundalism won't die, of course, but the Taliban wouldn't be its public spearhead anymore, and lose much of their "attractiveness". And this would greatly help in bringing peace to the region!

So, sry, but there's much speaking for a further NATO presence in Afghanistan. Of course, this dosn't say that Obama shouldn't comeup with a clear vision of what shall be accomplished, and how. And especially with some ideas about how to come to a political and economical situation that is acceptable to the people, and thus will be supported and defended by them. Simply withdrawing accomplishes nothing in that regard.

[ Parent ]
"Once there is a government that is accepted by the majority of the people" (4.00 / 2)
You're dreaming if you think Karzai has any incentive to become that leader whilst he still has both US and warlord backing. He has no incentive to broaden his coalition if it's not in danger of falling. Basic game theory, originally derived from anthropological work just over the border in Swat, makes this lesson very clear. People don't share power more than they need to, because it lessens the benefits they receive relative to others.

Nor would a government accepted by the majority of the people stabilise things. We're talking about a multi-ethnic nation with no democratic tradition and a long history of revolts. Somebody will always reach for the gun, because overthrowing a government in Afghanistan is easier than balancing competing power interests to get 50% support.

Nor do the majority of the people matter. Afghan civil society lacks the institutions to create a democratic transition. There are no unions, precious little of a higher educational structure, nothing to create identities extending beyond tribe and clan. You therefore have a system where geographical power blocs, rather than demographic groups, are what needs to be appeased. Furthermore, the hierarchical nature of Afghan society - and I include tribal councils, on the basis that such pre-state gatherings are, across the world and the ages, only superficially democratic and a medium for sustaining elite control - makes it easy for small cliques to control geographical power blocs.

And that's before we even get on to the exclusion of women, the lack of avenues for dissident voices to be heard and the endemic corruption. We aren't just trying to do nation-building. This is society-building, and you cannot do that quickly unless you're willing to make Genghis Khan look like a hippy.

Within the next decade, the best we can hope for is a situation where Karzai has to widen his power base after we withdraw. Anything more than that is Utopianism.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I'm not necessarily thinking of Karzai (0.00 / 0)
Actually, I wouldn't mind if he would become the scapegoat for the failure of the Afghan adminstration's failure to connect with the people. Maybe a total new start, with new faces, is necessary. And, btw, I doubt that Karzai really has the warlord's backing. The very limited power of the government shows this is not true. Karzai is jsut the lowest common demeanor, someone who isn't too big a threat for any warlord's ambitions.

And since realistically the warlords are running the country, while at the same time not a single on of them is popular and powerful enough to become president, I have said all of the time that a more federal structure of the Afghan democracy, refelvcting those undeniable power structure, would have been much better. The centrist approach was and is simply ridiculous.

"Afghan civil society lacks the institutions to create a democratic transition." Prolly correct. And that's why the democratization drive should have started at the local and tribal level, so that people can get first hand experience of the system.

"This is society-building, and you cannot do that quickly unless you're willing to make Genghis Khan look like a hippy."
Yup.I never said it can be done quickly. But it wouldn't necessitate a alrge scale presence for decades, either. It's a gradual process.

"Within the next decade, the best we can hope for is a situation where Karzai has to widen his power base after we withdraw. Anything more than that is Utopianism."
That is prolly utopian, too. Karzai, the guy who wants the leader of a unified Afghanistan, is more part of the problem than any solution. Again, imho Afghanistan needs a more federal structure, and a president that is less powerful regarding the interior. More of a spokesperson for a Senate consisting of warlords, actually. And I don't think Karzai wants that or would allow that. But a reform is unavoidable. There should be another Loya Jirga where the real powers correct the course. The current system doesn't lead anywhere, I fear.

[ Parent ]
Nope (4.00 / 1)
The primary, proximate objective of invading Afghanistan was to capture or kill (or at least operationally hurt) the people behind 9/11, i.e. Al Qaida, of which NONE were Taliban. Toppling the Taliban and stabilizing Afghanistan was a secondary, longer-term, fuzzier objective, whose primary goal was to make it much harder for AQ to reestablish a base there, with a bunch of disengenuous feel-good claptrap about burkas and Buddhist statues and freedom thrown in for PR effect.

We've pretty much failed at ALL of these (although it does appear that AQ was temporarily hurt by forcing it to flee its bases and killing off some of its lower-level operatives, but this was more than made up for through recruiting--which we enabled--and regrouping). And I see absolutely ZERO chance that we'll succeed at any of these by adding another 30K troops, and I thoroughly reject your premise that by upping the troops and giving them a few more Friedman Units (which even Friedman himself is now opposed to), this will change. It will not. Please provide me with historical evidence to the contrary. There is none.

Like all defenders of this move, you're throwing together a bunch of truisms (give them more time! increase troop strength! kill off the Taliban! destroy their safe havens! win their hearts and minds!) and concluding that it amounts to a plan for "victory". You really think that we can kill off enough Taliban AND destroy the motivations behind such movements AND build up a stable regime in its place in less than a generation or two? Hah!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
"So by your definition, getting out will ALWAYS be immediate and thus irresponsible."

No, but immediate withdrawal is the option not taken here, right?  I mean Obama's talking about beginning withdrawal in 18 months -- any shorter than that is effectively immediate.  Is there some middle-ground withdrawal that I'm overlooking here?

And like Gray said, you're misrepresenting the goal of invading Afghanistan.  It was to go after AQ and Bin Laden, sure, but it was also explicitly to remove the Taliban and ensure that they couldn't come back to power.  Remember the Taliban leaders telling muslims in the weeks after 9/11 to stay away from skyscrapers?  Their government was making fairly explicit threats against the US, and toppling that regime was broadly supported, including in the US.

As far as what we can actually accomplish in Afghanistan, well, I agree that's incredibly uncertain.  But personally -- after the awful way we've neglected the country since we invaded -- I think a 1-2 year last best attempt at improving the security of the country before we leave is a reasonable and responsible thing to do.

But don't misread me, I don't think it has a whole lot to do with US security.  Terrorists are always going to be able to find somewhere to hatch their plans.  I think it's more about not bailing on a country that we've ravaged, like we have so many times in the past.

[ Parent ]
Oh dear god (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, we're there to help Afghanis rebuild their ravaged nation. Uhuh.

It's easy to advance such silly propaganda when it's not you or yours who are personally paying the price for such "good deeds". Not that there's any lack of blindingly stupid "patriots" who ARE willing to pay such a price. But none of that actually makes what you're saying this war is all about any truer. There are still people who believe that the Vietnam war was justified, too, and not just on national security grounds.

For a country that apparently wants to "liberate" the world, we sure have a funny way of doing it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Then why should we be involved militarily? (0.00 / 0)
But don't misread me, I don't think it has a whole lot to do with US security.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Obama wants some Republican votes in Congress (4.00 / 1)
On domestic bills he can't get any Republican votes. So what's bipartisan Barry do? Escalate a war.
Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)
I'm wondering what platform the Democrats are planning to run on in 2010.

"We suck, but the other guys are even worse" just doesn't sound like a winning slogan.

Democrats: More of the Same since 2006! (0.00 / 0)
Also: "Don't change horses in midstream!  That's just common sense!"

That line was from the movie Wag the Dog.  A war was faked so a campaign (read: corporate) marketing strategy could succeed.  It worked so brilliantly in the film, so why not do it again in real life?

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
How many children will go hungry? (4.00 / 6)
And how many families will go homeless, while Obama chooses to send 30,000 more $1,000,000 a year troops to patrol mountains in who-the-fuck-cares?

This isn't about our security. Our security starts at home, with a safe place to eat and sleep. This is about a national security state.

In case you hadn't heard, Mr. President, half of all children need food stamps now. And this is your solution for our "security?" Yeah, just pick out a few of those kids that needed food stamps, and send them over to Afghanistan, while paying the military-industrial-vampire complex $1,000,000 a head to do it. Awfully big-hearted of you...

I have no words (fit to print) to express my disgust.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

"I just want the war to end." And I want a pony. (4.00 / 1)
Come on, Chris, this is really weak. There's so much we all want, peace, justice, a good living, for all of mankind, if possible. But I thought we in the reality based community acknoledge the fact that wanting something is no good enough, that we need a plan how to achieve that? And simply withdrawing from Afghanistan wouldn't end the war there, so much should be obvious. It just would be a war without the US involved., Is that all you want? If that's so, say that more clearly.  
Withdrawing would end the war for us.... (4.00 / 2)
and that's what I care about.  
[ Parent ]
Helloo, David Kaib, I found another one! (0.00 / 0)
See? Its only about the US for some people, they don't care about the Afghans or the region at all! Just what I said. Irresponsible, and ethically questionable.
[ Parent ]
Well said! (4.00 / 2)
So, when are you enlisting, seeing how much you love and want to help those poor Afghanis? Or are you all for such noble wars, so long as it's not your ass on the line?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I served for my country in the 80s. Too old now. (0.00 / 0)
Did you?
[ Parent ]
Nope, and proud of it (0.00 / 0)
But neither have I volunteered other people and their loved ones to sacrifice themselves in military misadventures whose only real purpose is to generate fat defense contracts, protect energy company profits, and make armchair warriors feel "brave".

With the possible exception of the months after 9/11, there has literally not been a major conflict that the US has been involved in since WWII (and perhaps Korea too, initially) that was waged for honorable reasons, so I feel no shame or guilt on that score.

I'm not slighting the motivations of those who volunteered, such as yourself, but there is no dishonor in not serving in dishonorable military actions. Sorry, you're not gonna get me on this score. A cheap shot, basically. Did they teach you that in the military?

We SERIOUSLY need to get over our orgiastic worship of military service and action. It is NOT noble if done for ignoble reasons, like making a bunch of fat old chickenhawks rich, and making a bunch of other fat old fucks feel courageous. It's truly pathetic.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
That's a somewhat hypocrital anwer, Kovie. (0.00 / 0)
It was YOU who came up with the question if I "put my ass on the line", I answered that I have done so in the past, and when I ask you if you did you take that as an attack? Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Kovie!

And what shall I make of "neither have I volunteered other people and their loved ones to sacrifice themselves in military misadventures"? Well, do you wanna imply, I do that? If not, what's your point, in the context of what we're talking about?

And may I remind you that I served in the German army, and that it's the first time since WWII that the Bundeswehr takes part in a war? Germany learned its lessons, and has pursuit a largely pacifist course for decades. And we still don't jump into military adventures, we have shown that when opposing the Iraq war. But we support the Afghanistan mission, after deep and heated discussions. Do you want to say that this is dishonorable? Come on, we can talk about if this is misguided, but not "honorable" really goes too far.

And then, of course there "is no dishonor in not serving in dishonorable military actions"! Did I ever say otherwise? Your kind of fighting strawmen here. What's that have to do with our discussion? Do you expect me to defend "fat old chickenhawks"? Sry, but I really think you're assuming too much here, and only add confusion to the discussion.

[ Parent ]
How many German soldiers in Afghanistan? (4.00 / 1)
I guess they don't care about anyone other than Germans, eh?

Ethically questionable.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
About 4400. First German participation in a war after WWII... (0.00 / 0)
...and the decision to support this actively wasn't lightly made. Still very controversial. But if you want us to militarize our country again, like we did in our imperial enthusiasm after a british admiral ordered "Germans to the front" in 1900, just say so! And then you bear responsibility for the consequences.

Really, I don't think it's a good idea to press Germans for more military spending and a strengthened Bundeswehr at all.  

[ Parent ]
Then you care more about Germans than Afghans (0.00 / 0)
Else you'd advocate putting your money and your fellow citizens where your mouth has been.

Really, I don't think it's a good idea to press Germans for more military spending and a strengthened Bundeswehr at all.  

See? I don't think its a good idea to press Americans for more military spending and a strengthened Pentagon.

Why does my statement equate with a moral failure and yours not?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
This is becoming ridiculous. (0.00 / 0)
Are you even aware of the historical sensibilities? No more answers from me, spitty. I don't discuss with such ignorants.
[ Parent ]
Can't handle your own words? (0.00 / 0)
Then don't toss them out.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I'm FOR the continued presence of the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan. (0.00 / 0)
So, what the eff are you talking about? You totally lost the direction, and have only been distorting my position with the last few comments! It's you who doesn't handle the arguments. And such "discussions" don't make any sense.
[ Parent ]
You mean you have no more safe havens (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Mr. Gray (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Huh? I don't understand your point, Ms. Kelly. (0.00 / 0)
?
[ Parent ]
Great work (0.00 / 0)
No relevance to what to do about the issue, but your continued vindication on a point I conceded on earlier that has no bearing is a real feather in your cap.

I don't consider it immoral if someone wants to end a war / occupation, when I believe that increase the possibility of peace for the people being occupied. I think advocating occupations is ethically questionable.

Also, Obama made his case purely on US interests (albeit largely ill defined), so you may well be advocating a policy that is "off the table" as they say.  

(PS - all this nonsense with trying to judge the German people based on how many died in Afghanistan is ridiculous. If you object to Gray's point, as I do, critique the point - don't engage in group based arguments.)


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Fire with fire (0.00 / 0)
Gray's argument is based on the group "Americans".  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
"increase the possibility of peace for the people being occupied" (0.00 / 0)
Yes, that is the question, would it increase or decrease the possibility for peace? Also, how many people would be killed on the way towards that peace? And how would that peace look like, would it be repression by a violent fundamentalist regime, something not really desirable? I would like to see more arguments that point one way or the other, that lead towards answers. But so far, this discussion has not been successful in delivering many facts.
[ Parent ]
You ask these questions as if they pose a challenge (0.00 / 0)
only to the anti-war side, which is nonsense.  How many people will die as a result of war?  Will war prop up war lords and violent fundamentalists? Will war create more violence?  How can there be political reconciliation if we continue to decimate this country?

And why is this decision Barack Obama's to make?  Why does he get to decide the fate of the Afghan people - without their input?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Well, as I see it, the anti war side hasn't really provided answers on this. (0.00 / 0)
And as for your questions, I think I already provided my takein this (which is not representative, but my personal opinion, of course)
1. More or less the same, for now. Why should there be a big change in the short and medium run? The basic picture hasn't really changed. And the surge will not make a big difference, just secure more of Afghanistan, and force the Taliban to move into less populated areas, where their attacks will have less of an impact. But since this doesn't effect their rates of renforcements, the numbers will stay the same in the next months.

2. Uh, how should the ongoing war result in propping up the warlkords and Taliban even more? I don't see any reason why this should be so.

3. Decimate the country? Come on, pls check the numbers. Afghanistan consists of 28 million people. Insurgent casualties and collateral damage combined are much lower than the growth rate. And political reconcilation depends on Karzai delivering results. The strange thing is, he had some successes, as evident in the poll I posted in QHs, but the Afghans seem to not to be ready to smell the roses yet. The question of overwhelming importance for the citizen is security. And Karzai isn't able to deliver that yet, without the help of NATO. The US seems now willing to rely more on local Afghans to hunt the Taliban down, and to keep the areas secure. Any increae of security may work for Karzai's favor, and boost political reconcilation. But nothing is guaranteed in that country. We'll have to wait and see.

[ Parent ]
Oops, forgot one: "why is this decision Barack Obama's to make?" (0.00 / 0)
Come on, David, this is really naive. The US invaded that country, the US always called the shots there in a very unilateral way, and despite all his loudmouthing Obama actually hasn't acted more multilateral than Bush so far. Of course, it's Obama's decision to make, who else should be responsible? Us Yurpeans? We would like to have a stronger say on the issue, but we don't want the leading role. Damn, we couldn't even find anyone both qualified and acceptable enough to fill that position. Or Karzai? He certainly wants the US to stay, because he has to know the security situation will become worse without them. But he is in no position to make decisions for the US. The sheer idea is ridiculous. So, who is left? The UN? They seem to be very eager to stay out of that conflict, thank you very much.

Really, I'm sure you can figure that out by yourself. What was your point with that question???

[ Parent ]
Would it really? (4.00 / 1)
or would it lead to having go back, go into Pakistan, or somewhere else in the region?

This doesn't seem as simple as everyone comes home and lives happily ever after.  

[ Parent ]
You sound like Joe LIEberman. (0.00 / 0)
It's interesting that your current signature:

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

Can be boiled down to:

Stay the Course!

Are you sure you're on the correct blog?  We don't need a new face on an old policy; we need a new policy altogether, one that works and will save lives.  That's not going to be accomplished by throwing more lives away on pride.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
as long as he's safely tucked inside the social safety net of a nation that is not blowing all their cash and credit on fighting the war - he's all for it.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
quite right! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Time to find a lefty primary opponent for Obama. (0.00 / 0)
Don't tell me there's no one out there in the Democratic Party willing to run against him in 2012, assuming Obama makes it that long (as it stands, the GOP has a good chance of retaking the House next year and you KNOW they'll begin impeachment proceedings ASAP).  Find someone and get him or her to run.  Don't make excuses for why it won't work, just get it done.

Obama and his corporate Democrats will never take the left seriously if we don't stop acting as though our prospects for making our agenda reality hinge upon Democratic victories and start forcing the Dems to do as they're told by the People of the United States of America.  The only way we're going to do that is by stop being subservient to the Dems and start making them subservient to us.  That requires running primary opponents against all conservative Democrats, including and especially Obama, and when necessary running independents against them in general elections.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

All along the way Obama lies (4.00 / 1)

No surprise to those of us who paid attention before and during the last (s)election cycle. But boy were we shouted down by the creepiest cult of personality I've ever seen.

Those of you who supported O-Man are also responsible for the policies he promulgates and have ardently or tacitly condoned his actions as you have elevated him to office.

Barack Obama is a war criminal. He is nothing more than an errand boy for big business and the US war machine that serves as the mob boss which protects the profits of big business.

Now let's turn to a little reality and actual history for those who are still unaware of how grotesque were the fabrications of O-Man last night:

In 1978 the Afghan government of Mohammed Daoud Khan moved against the leading Afghan opposition political party, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). A leader of the party, Mir Akbar Khyber, was murdered and most of the leadership of the party were arrested during his funeral (reportedly at the instigation of the CIA). In response, the remainder of the PDPA staged an uprising which won power in April of 1978. The party immediately published a series of reforms which echoed the failed attempts at reform in Afghanistan going all the way back to the overthrow of the "reformist King", Amanullah Khan, in 1929.

Within days, the CIA began to organize and fund the reactionary and Islamist "opposition forces" in the countryside of Afghanistan, who had already been the fundamental barriers to reform for over a century. This was 2 years BEFORE the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski has openly bragged that the purpose of the U.S. operations was to FORCE Soviet intervention.

The issues on which the CIA organized were the PDPA's Land Reform and the elimination of debts in the countryside (both of which attacked the power of the rural "warlords"), religious freedom (or the elimination of Sharia Law), and, most important of all, the granting of equal rights for women (which had also been central to the overthrow of Amanullah in 1929).

For the first time in Afghan history, a woman - Dr. Anahita Ratebzad, had become a member of the ruling Revolutionary Council. Less than one month after the uprising, Ratebzad wrote a famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."

In response, the CIA distributed leaflets throughout Afghanistan with Dr. Ratebzhad's face displayed prominently on them.

_____

Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

And who might you ask was Obama's favorite foreign adviser?

Answer: Z Biggy himself.  

[ Parent ]
I'd rec this, but... (0.00 / 0)
this one sentence precludes me: "Those of you who supported O-Man are also responsible for the policies he promulgates and have ardently or tacitly condoned his actions as you have elevated him to office."

This is the same logic of those who hold Nader voters responsible for Bush's war crimes. Lesser of two evils voters aren't responsible for the lesser evil's policies anymore than third party voters are responsible for the greater evil's policies. But aside from that, you bring up crucial history that is rarely discussed. My only concern is for the people of Afghanistan. The U.S. owes mass reparations for the 30 years of misery it has instigated and inflicted.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
Those of us who voted for him thinking he'd change things can't be blamed.  Those of us who withheld our voted from him knowing he was poison can't be blamed.  What about those who voted for him knowing Obama was a fraud and a liar, for whatever reason?  Nader didn't win the 2000 election, nor did he get enough votes to make any appreciable difference in the outcome.  But enough people did vote for Obama last year whose votes could, if nothing else, been used as leverage in forcing him to the left.  That wasn't done.  Don't people who voted for Obama knowing what he is bear some responsibility?  Isn't the first step toward being part of the solution accepting that?

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.
[ Parent ]
And if Obama had lost (0.00 / 0)
 Democrats would have said those on the left who didn't vote for Obama are responsible for whatever destruction and suffering McCain/Palin were wreaking.

Voting is a tactic and far too complex to boil down to "you voted for X so everything X does is your fault."

If someone supported Obama's campaign rhetoric on Afghanistan or supports his troop escalation, then yes, of course, blame them, but what about the people who have always been against the war but voted for Obama in a swing state because they feared McCain would nuke Iran?

I would've voted for Obama, knowing he was a fraud and a liar, if I'd lived in a swing state, because not doing so would've aided McCain/Palin. (In hindsight I seriously question that calculation, but I digress.)

[ Parent ]
No, it still would have been the Obama voters. (0.00 / 0)
The problem is in running conservative Democrats against conservative Republicans and expecting people to accept the false choice.  Either way, people are still being told to vote for a conservative -- only when given the choice between regular coke and diet coke, people seem to prefer the regular.  Of course, if the choice were between regular coke and regular pepsi, or better yet, between regular coke and a fruit juice smoothie, then watch and see what people pick.

If you would've voted for Obama knowing what he is, then I am sad to say you would have been part of the problem.  I'm sorry, but that's a fact.  I can pretty much guarantee that if Americans hadn't been so utterly fed up with eight years of Republican rule, Obama would have pulled a Kerry.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
I didn't say Obama voters who cast their ballots for him with full knowledge are wholly responsible.  But they do bear part of the blame because they knew and did it anyway.  We had an opportunity to force Obama to the left, and we blew it.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.
[ Parent ]
So Bush & Co. decided to give AMERICA another Vietnam (0.00 / 0)
And Obama is perfectly content to continue their "gift"-giving.  Wonderful.  So why bog us down in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Why do that knowing it would only hurt the U.S.?

I think it all boils down to having no other superpower left to fight, so the powerful in this nation decided to consolidate and expand their already considerable power here.  Our young adults are being thrown away on pointless, endless wars, our treasury is drained to pay the rich, our job security is nonexistent, and our economy has collapsed.  The conditions are now ripe for a military dictatorship, although I suppose one could argue that we already have one.

That's just one potential answer, of course.  But it's the only one I can think of and the only one that makes any sense.  Maybe I'm wrong; I'd sure welcome anything that can prove it to me.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
missing the obvious (4.00 / 3)
Read this entire thread and was shocked that no one chose to remember the oil and gas in the caspian sea basin. Getting that oil and gas to market is an old problem, requiring pipelines to salt water.

First(?) tried through Bosnia, and easiest (geographically) through Iran, the current favored route is through Afghanistan. Remember the "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" offer/threat before the war started?

This war isn't about anything nobel, just money, like Irak and so many more. And as is our usual custom, the people making the money will not be the ones paying the financial or blood cost of procurement.

The war is to gain and hold safe corridore for these pipelines, and is intended to last exactly as long as the pipelines remain profitable. After which we will abandon the Afgan people just like everyone else we ever exploited.

Notice our bases are on the proposed pipeline route.

As applies to so many crimes, FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

Yes, the pipeline and more broadly, the U.S. eternal policy of "Full Spectrum Dominance" (0.00 / 0)

http://www.democracynow.org/20...
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think Obama is expanding this war? And do you call it "Obama's war" now?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, this goes way back. I mean, the United States has sort of a comparative advantage in world affairs, namely, military might, not economic power, you know, not Treasury reserves. I mean, it's a very powerful state, but, you know, it's one of several. It's comparable to Europe. It's comparable to rising East Asia in, say, economic power. But in military power, it is supreme. The United States spends approximately as much as the rest of the world in military force. It's far more technologically advanced. And when you have a comparative advantage, you tend to use it. So, policy decisions tend to drift towards where you're strong. And where you're strong is military force. It's, you know, the old joke: if you have a hammer, everything you see is a nail. You know. And I think that's very much of a driving force.

And there's also a longstanding imperial mentality, which says we have to control and dominate. And in particular, we have to dominate energy resources. That goes way back. You know, after the Second World War, it's been maybe the prime factor in US [inaudible]-

AMY GOODMAN: And the energy resources in Afghanistan?

NOAM CHOMSKY: No, they're not in Afghanistan. They're in-mostly in the Gulf, secondarily in Central Asia. But Afghanistan is right in the middle of this system. I mean, there is a pipeline question. How powerful it is, you can speculate. But there have been longstanding plans for a pipeline from Turkmenistan in Central Asia to India, which would go-TAPI, it's called: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.

Now, that's of significance to the United States for a number of reasons. For one thing, if it-it would run right through Afghanistan and through Kandahar province, one of the most conflicted areas. If it was established, it would, for one thing, reduce the reliance of the Central Asian states on Russia. So it would weaken their role. But more significant, it would bypass Iran. I mean, India needs energy, and the natural source is Iran. And, in fact, they're discussing an Iran-to-India pipeline. But if you could get natural gas flowing from Central Asia to India, avoiding Iran, that would support the US policy, which is now very clear-in Obama's case, it's been made more concrete-of forming an alliance of regional states to oppose Iran.
In fact, that's-John Kerry, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently made an important speech about that with regard to Israel-Palestine. He said we have to reconceptualize the issue so it's not an Israel-Palestine problem, but rather, we'll sort of put that to the side, and what we have to do is create an alliance of Israel and what are called the moderate Arab states. And "moderate" is a technical term, means they do what we say. And so, the moderate Arab states include the brutal Egyptian dictatorship, the radical fundamentalist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, and so on. They are the moderates, and they have to join with Israel and us in an anti-Iranian alliance. And we have to, of course, break ongoing connections between Iran and India to the extent that we can and elsewhere. And that puts the Israel-Palestine problem-issue to the side.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to get to Israel-Palestine, but we have to break. And before we do, just a quick question. Do you think Obama should pull the troops out of Afghanistan immediately?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know, I think the Afghans should make that decision.

AMY GOODMAN: How?

NOAM CHOMSKY: They have ways. For example, what the peace movement calls for is their traditional way of making decisions: a loya jirga, major meeting of, you know, elders, other figures and so on, who will try to arrive at consensus on this with all the Afghans. And it should be their decision. I mean, we have no right to be there.

[ Parent ]
Thank you for that (4.00 / 1)
Chomsky is right: "We have no right to be there."
[ Parent ]
No defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal | 128 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox