Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan
Running for president is a perilous endeavor. Candidates make mistakes.
And Barack Obama is making a serious mistake this weekend.
As he tours Afghanistan, the senator from Illinois says he is "more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking."
That would be good if it were the case.
Unfortunately, Obama is busy making promises.
After meeting with the Democratic presidential candidate inside the US base in Jalalabad, Afghan warlord turned provincial governor Gul Agha Sherzai told reporters, "Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector."
Translation: Obama is not listening. He is making commitments.
Specific commitments.
Despite the fact that there are more foreign troops in Afghanistan today than at any time since the 2001 invasion -- roughly 60,000 total, including 36,000 Americans - Obama is proposing to dispatch two more US combat divisions (comprising more than 7,000 soldiers) to Afghanistan. That will give the United States even greater responsibility for a technically NATO-led ooccupation.
The Democrat's send-more-troops proposal is precisely the same as that of Republican John McCain.
And it is precisely wrong.
Dramatic increases in the US troop presence in Afghanistan in the past year have done nothing to stabilize the situation on the ground in the country. In fact, US military officials acknowledge that attacks in eastern Afghanistan -- the sector of the country where the majority of US forces currently operate -- are up by 40 percent so far in 2008.
So, too, as recent events remind us, are US and Afghan death tolls.
More troops will not cure what ails Afghanistan.
That's because, even though the cover of the latest edition of Time magazine refers to the fight in Afghanistan as "The Right War," and even though Obama seems to have bought into this particularly dangerous variation Washington-insider spin, there is nothing right or smart about deepening the US troop commitment in a country that has a long history of thwarting the best-laid plans of great military powers.
The US media and political class has never focused very seriously on the war in Afghanistan.
But in Canada, which was smart enough to keep out of Iraq, but not smart enough to keep out of Afghanistan, there has been much more attention to the conflict.
That attention has fostered a serious movement calling for bringing Canadian troops home.
More than a year ago, the opposition New Democratic Party called for "an immediate safe and secure withdrawal of (Canadian) troops from the counter-insurgency mission and to focus our assistance, not through counter-insurgency but through development and aid."
"The combat role is the wrong role for Canada and it's not making life more secure for Afghans," declared Jack Layton, the NDP's parliamentary leader.
The NDP leader and other Canadian critics of the country's military presence in Afghanistan argue, correctly, that while foreign forces have been training Afghan army and police units since the conflict began, the security situation in Afghanistan has not improved.
The Canadians suggest that one of the big problems is the fact that the foreign presence in the country is a too-narrowly defined military occupation directed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, rather than a broader, more-thoughtfully conceived mission under the leadership of the United Nations.
"Instead of extending a strategy that isn't working, Canada must aim to support and facilitate efforts towards the peaceful resolution of the Afghan conflict," says veteran parliamentarian Alexa McDonough, the NDP's spokesperson on international development issues.
Argues McDonough: "Canada should lead the international community towards a political solution, not continue the failed military approach. This means the international body in charge should be the United Nations, not NATO."
Instead of making ill-thought commitments of additional US troops to another quagmire, Barack Obama should be listening to the wise critique from engaged Canadians regarding a misguided and misdirected foreign military presence in Afghanistan.
John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written The Beat since 1999. His posts have been circulated internationally, quoted in numerous books and mentioned in debates on the floor of Congress.
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
76 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems the only thing you leftists know what to do is to be critical of Obama on everything.
Ever hear of a guy named McCain?
What hasn't Obama taken a wrong turn on?
Vote Nader.
Well said, John Nichols. Thankfully, there are leaders in Canada who, unlike Barack Obama, have come to the realization that sending even more troops to Afghanistan is the last thing that Afghans would wish to see. One wonders if Obama will decide to view the villages and homes that have been ripped apart by American bombs and listen to the Afghan families that have been maimed and crippled by American firepower as he takes his tour throughout Afghanistan. But it is quite doubtful if Obama, the alleged "peace candidate", will admit that the United States has no business killing and grievously wounding innocent people in Afghanistan. Will Obama ever explain why it is acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan but not in Iraq? It is a double standard to proclaim that Americans do not belong in Iraq but that they should be in Afghanistan, where they can spread death and destruction among the Afghan people.
I want to see justice for what has taken place over the past 7 years.
Only one man will deal it: Ralph Nader.
Bring sanity back to our nation.
Vote Nader.
If Barack Obama is getting advice from the likes of the provincial "Governor" Gul Agha Sherzai, then US forces will be stuck even worse in Afghan quicksand if he's elected. Here's a little backgrounder on the guy Obama listened to:
After the collapse of the PDPA government (Communist regime) in 1991, Gul Agha served as Governor of Kandahar from 1992 until 1994. His rule was reputed to be exceptionally bloody and vicious, even by Afghan warlord standards....In August 2003, President Hamid Karzai decreed that officials could no longer hold both military and civil posts, and replaced Gul Agha with Yousef Pashtun as Governor of Kandahar. However, after much lobbying, Gul Agha was able to retain his governorship temporarily. In 2004, Sherzai was appointed Governor of Nangarhar Province, after a spell as "Special Advisor" to Hamid Karzai. Sherzai was removed as Kandahar Governor after criticisms of his warlord-style leadership, poor human rights record and suspected involvement in opium trafficking in the province.
The brother of "President Unocal" Karzai is described in internal US military documents as someone who "receives money from drug lords as bribe to facilitate their work and movement."
Disgusting. The candidate is so out of touch with the majority of Americans. People will continue to debate the dubious merits of going to a voting booth in a non-democratic republic. Mr Cheerleader is now asking for more helicopters, tanks, guns and troops so that the golden Afghan hills are finally stolen and controlled by his most important constituents, the MIC. Grainy camera phone footage is the best coverage of the meeting between his presumed highness and President Unocal. And that, friends, is no better indication of how much royalty is hated by the average serf in the street, here or there.
Seems to me that stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan requires first establishing what stabilization means, honestly asking what kind of social structure and government is possible. Nobody really asked that question after the Russians withdrew, and in rushed the Taliban to fill the void. Who are the Afghans? What do they want? How do they want to live? What is the relationship between non-Taliban Afghans and Afghans? Is it possible to negotiate with the Taliban, or are they really the evil gun-toting brutes they are always depicted to be in the US media? It doesn't seem to me that they will be going away anytime soon. Could we just call the bluff of these more militant groups (Al Qaeda, Taliban) and say OK, you hate America because we have been killing your people and colonizing you, and you want to have a government based on Islamic law. We say, OK, that is your right, but you have to respect human rights and international law as well. I don't know...I guess I have more questions than answers.
With Iraq and the re-mapping of the Middle East lost, the last remaining beachhead for US Imperialist planners is Afghanistan. A major asset for US planners there is the fact of NATO involvement, a trap most NATO countries avoided in the expansion of the Iraqi Holocaust. The tactic being espoused by Obama is to redeploy US forces from Iraq to "finish the job" of "pacifing" Afghanistan. How this can be done without further destabilizing Pakistan is unknown.
The financial implosion of the Imperial Metropole will severely constrain Imperial planners and their activities regardless of who becomes the next elected Emperor. Thus the importance of NATO forces in Afghanistan--they don't cost the US Empire any money. Events are quickening as the defeat of the US Imperial project becomes harder to deny along with the facts of internal economic decay and rising public unrest. The GOP is very desperate as recent BushCo actions demonstrate; DLC Imperialists are no less desperate as proved by Obama's actions.
It's to hope Obama's "people" will see to it this very good (and useful, if he's as smart as we'd like to think he is) critique is placed on top of his reading pile.
This isn't either/or, folks. We all know McCain has to be defeated, and that Obama is the only candidate running who is in a position to do it. The presidential election is not the time for protest, brothers and sisters, it's time to minimize the damage. If we don't hold Obama's feet to the fire on critical issues, and passively allow such huge policy missteps as this, we are inviting the replacement of one set of disasterous foreign policy blunders with another, and all the unsustainable negative fallout that follows.
Nobody really asked that question after the Russians withdrew, and in rushed the Taliban to fill the void. Who are the Afghans? What do they want? How do they want to live? What is the relationship between non-Taliban Afghans and Afghans?...I don't know...I guess I have more questions than answers.
A good way to start getting answers would be to read recent columns on Afghanistan written by journalist Eric Margolis, who has been covering that region for more than twenty years and is author of War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet. His writings regularly appear at commondreams. These are his insightful columns from the last three years in chronological order:
Three Big Lies About Afghanistan
The War In Afghanistan Is Only Beginning
Afghanistan: Time For Truth
Great Northern Whitewash Over Afghanistan
Why Europeans Are Not Eager To Die In Afghanistan
The March To Folly On The Afghan Border
At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan
Right on, sl63. It's high time Americans got educated on Afghanistan. Start with the fact that Alexander the Great was fatally wounded trying to get Afghanistan to bend to the will of his vast empire. Margolis is a very good place to begin a crash course.
Want to stabilize Afghanistan without the massive bloodshed and stupidity our current policy ensures?
Pull all the troops out. Commit to buying all the opium at a good price (turn it to medical uses wherever needed). Slowly introduce other ways for Afghans to make a good living. Stop bombing wedding parties. Support the Afghan government in targeting terrorists of whatever persuasion, but let them handle it.
Then focus back home on burying the Republican party so goddamn deep they never come up for air again.
A police action turned into:
an invasion
and occupation
with escalation
for the corporation
who run the election
for leaders of our nation.
It's come to this. The only way to get the ear of the previously weakened Taliban who now rule thanks to the Republican Party and other conservatives.
In Doing What He (She) Has to Do to win the election, the settled wisdom of the Democratic Party is that first and foremost, in Troubled Times (the only times we have, alas!) the Democratic candidate MUST convince the anxious and fearful Amerikan people that he or she is a Mighty Warlord who does not shrink from battle or threat.
Thus, Obama must march about twirling his War Boner like a drum majorette twirls a baton. What dexterity!
It would seem that the strategy for firming up Obama's Warlord bona fides recognizes that Iraq is PLAYED, and that the residual uneasiness about the whole Iraq fiasco has trickled down even to the jingo-minded yahoo masses whose votes are so crucial. So it would be foolish and counterproductive to campaign on a promise of rehabilitating the Iraq occupation and bringing about Victory.
Afghanistan, however, still retains some belligerent cachet; even a bloc of liberals and moderate progressives originally supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a just ("good") use of unilateral military force. Never mind that the invasion was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and predicated on the ludicrously simple and shallow conception of Osama bin Laden as a comic-book villain, or a black-hatted bad guy who'd ridden out of town with his gang to their hideout in Hole-in-the-Wall. What else WAS there to do but send out a posse to bring this heinous criminal gang to justice? At least there was SOME ostensible connection between the events of 9/11 and Afghanistan.
And, as luminaries like David Letterman observed at the time, "we" had to do SOMETHING! Uncle Sam couldn't just sit there with his thumb up his ass after what those bastards (allegedly) did to us!
Obama and/or his strategists shrewdly calculate that there's enough general approval for staying the course in the Afghanistan quagmire to promote the idea that it's merely been poorly managed by the present maladministration, and that the right President will repurpose the project to achieve Victory.
In the process, Obama has to resort to the same bogus terms of reference used by the present warmongers, e.g. "vowing" to "defeat al-Qaeda" and bring its terrorist leaders to Justice, dead or alive.
Listen to CANADA? What, a candidate for Top Gun taking the lead from CANADA? Are you fucking out of your mind? Oh, sure, this Harper guy has his own cute little War Boner going, and it's at least big enough to beat down a teenage enemy combatant-- but no one ever got elected to the US presidency by identifying with CANADA, for God's sake.
However, lest I be perceived as incorrigibly cynical and negative, I will concede that I have no doubt that Obama will put away his War Boner and shed all of the snakeskins he's been wearing during his second term. And will forever afterwards be revered as a Man of Peace.
________________________________________
"You know what that is? That's PRECISION!"
The Taliban are not supported by Afghans, neither are the War Lords. Pakistan supports the Taliban. Cut off all aid to Pakistan until they end thier support of the Taliban and watch how fast this war ends and Afghanistan stabilizes....money talks in Pakistan so cut the purse strings. Bring the Afghan War Lords to trial for crimes against humanity. Turn the poppies into medicine as the Senalis Counil proposes. Create jobs, build schools, reconstruct the roads and infrustructure.
Pakistan's support of Taliban can be found here---http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
It not a wrong turn since he's been consistently promising to go in this direction.
It only appears to be a wrong turn if you haven't been paying attention.
The French have this proverb: "enfant brulee craint le feu" or "a child that has burned itself fears the fire." Obviously Senator Obama does not understand that our country has burned itself in Iraq because he is dead set to do the same in Afghanistan, a country for which nobody has an exit strategy.
I am not surprised though. I have long known that Senator Obama believes that he can solve any global problem by speaking loudly from a podium. That belief is known as hubris and also as megalomania.
zzz: you are so right, this is not a "change of direction". Obama will merely shift the vile killing fields from Iraq to Afghanistan.
kman2: you ask why I am critical of Obama and not of McCain? Because I will never vote for McCain hence I can ignore him. I know what to expect and he will never change. I must hold the feet to the fire of anyone I support. Regrettably Obama is losing mine very rapidly.
You wouldn't know that there is domestic opposition to Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, from reading the mainstream press or watching the C.B.C., which USED to be a liberal national public broadcaster but has been cowed and bullied by the right and by horrific budget cuts, and also, I think, hoodwinked by the smooth-talking Liberals who got us into that mess in the first place. Never mind the private networks.
Yes, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have been consistent in their criticism of involvement in the Afghan quagmire, but their voices only get out to the majority of the population through periodic press releases, on Question Period on CPAC, and on their websites, it seems. These two parties are also very embattled and worried about other issues, which means that their priority focus cannot be consistently on Afghanistan.
We need to struggle at the grassroots level and also through continuously calling the media on their bias.
Barack Obama took a wrong turn long before he got to Kabul. He voted for the FISA overhaul that eviscerates the Constitution. He has not called for the systemic changes we must have in energy, campaign finance, climate change, Palestine, or really anything else. He has mesmerized the public and the pundits with his silver tongue, and he's strewn promises from LA to Baghdad---too clever by half. But, when it comes down to the wire, he's Bush Lite.
I'll be voting for Cynthia McKinney and building a strong Green Party to be a true opposition party.
Here is Nader's statement on the McKinney nomination:
"I want to congratulate Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente on winning the Green Party nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I wish them well and hope they go into all 50 states and spread the message of the Green Agenda. The country needs a diversity of voices that are unrelentingly progressive, forthright, candid, and documented in good sound civic values and the well being of all the people.
"Although the Nader/Gonzalez and Green Party platforms have many similarities, we are not competing for votes, but instead we are allies joined in a common struggle to tap the huge and growing numbers of millions of unsatisfied voters who want to vote for something better than the lesser of two-evils. The more progressive voices and choices, the more widespread will be the definition of freedom as participation in power.
"In Cynthia McKinney, the Greens have an energetic and courageous candidate unafraid to challenge America to be better for the millions who are marginalized, overcharged, underpaid and ignored by the two-party duopoly. Her vim and vigor offers the Green Party an excellent chance to break through in 2008 and provides voters one more viable alternative to the DemReps. I wish her and Ms. Clemente good luck."
John M. Wages, Jr.
US House Candidate, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
Must have been on the phone or something when the US Congress declared "war" on Afghanistan. Aren't they an ally?
No, seriously - The United States of America is not in a state of "war," either officially or Constitutionally, with any nation on Earth. So when "John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger," writes "The US media and political class has never focused very seriously on the war in Afghanistan," one must ask: what f**king war are you referring to, exactly?
And is this the so-called "change we can believe in?"
"Afghanistan must become "the central front" in the war on terror, Barack Obama said Sunday.
Isn't part of "change we can believe in" not continuing Bush's bullshit perpetual "war" on the tactic of "terror?"
BO supporters - that's okay with you? That he doesn't even have the balls to admit there is simply no such thing as a "war on terror," but instead plans to continue the myth, which means continue the illegal spying and the illegal, indefinite imprisonments and the transfer of generations of wealth to "defense" and "security" contractors?
dcbeltway July 20th, 2008 4:07 pm
Pretty much right I believe.
1. Is there a tape or link of the conversation between Obama and Gul Aqha, where OB makes these promises? Please provide.
2. If the American people want a Green party president, or independent whatever, don't you think it would be wise to work on this endeavour way before the upcoming election?
I believe in a multi-party system.
Obama is there in Afghanistan because the massive military corporations want him there. People will believe the lies because they come from someone who is apparently fresh. Although he is not tainted yet with holding office and pushing the the same old US policies we have known for years, it will not take long to realize this man is just another tool. The US wants Afghanistan, and they are prepared to pay the trillions of dollars of printed paper and blood necessary to keep it. They do not want it for the good of native inhabitants.
I'm sure John McSame has an excellent plan for us all.
Three wars for the price of one.
Look you guys, vote green for President and that's what you get. Hope you like all that war.
I'll be happy to vote Green for my Senator and my House member and my state senator and my state Representative....oh gosh...guess what...the Green party doesn't see FIT to BOTHER with my district on THOSE races. All they seem to care about is the Presidency so that their man McSame can win!
And here I thought the Green party really cared...sure doesn't seem that way to me!
The first (two-line) post by kman2 gets first prize here for clarity. "Ever hear of a guy named McCain?" Super clear.
dcbeltway also, I think, has it correct that Pakistan is either going to "help" the world contain the Taliban, or we have no earthly reason to be aiding Pakistan at all. Yes, they have nukes. But they don't need to be getting Western money while they let radicals get closer and closer to obtaining those nukes.
it's all about the anglo-american policy of ME occupation. talking about a theatre of this policy in isolation, is worse than useless.
Obama says, "As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win....."
"[I will send] two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan..."
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan....
We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't [tolerate it].. "
"We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will TAKE OUT high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Sounds like Obama is pushing for a surge in Afghanistan. In Iraq he says he will withdraw, but for an undetermined number of residual forces to maintain security. He is also adding fuel to what we now know is the bogus GWOT. Why? I am reminded that Joe Lieberman said recently he though AQ would give us another terrorist attack in order to test Obama in his first year. Thats why. This is change? Seems like same-old same-old to me.
The Obama apologists will say this is all a political strategy aimed at winning over centrist voters. The reality is that Obama is telling you there will be no change. History tells us Democrats get us into the really big wars where we lose 50,000 or more troops. Obamas foreign policy adviser is Brzezinski whose actions in the Carter adminstration gave us Al Qaeda and indirectly the Taliban, and the Ayatollahs in Iran, and indirectly Hezzbollah. Brzezinski is a war hawk, focused especially on conflict with Russia and China.
Looking at Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Tibet and Myanamar, and Serbia (Kosovo independence), all countries being portrayed in a negative light by the MSM over the past year, we are told the governments there are either threats to us, or threats to their own people. The reality is much different, not saying anyone of them are ideal governments, just that we are only given a very slanted view of what is going on. But what they are, are countries that have resources and/or geostrategic locations who have close ties with Russia and/or China. All the ingredients for another World War are in place. You have an Empire in financial crisis who needs a good war, conditions that led to the first 2 world wars. You have potential enemies that have been built up, much like Hitler (financial investment much like China, and Russia-Oil) and Japan (Iran sanctions, while in Japans case we cut off the oil).
In a Foreign Affairs article last year, Obama said the lesson of the Iraq debacle was that "We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future,....We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a GLOBAL SCALE."
Republicans get us into wars too, but they tend to be little ones. A vote for Obama may be a vote for WW III in my mind. McCain may be the lesser of 2 evils, he is unpopular even among his own base, and is less likely to gain support for unpopular policies. Obama is being built up as a cult leader. These are the type of leaders that lead the sheep over a cliff.
Obama will lead many more sheep off the cliff than McCain, since most of the sheep see McCain as a wolf, while Obama is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, and by the time people wake up and see it, it will be too late.
Last week Obama was parroting Bush's worn-out "oceans no longer protect us" talking point. Now he says we have to "win" the war against terrorism. I would ask him what I would ask Bush (if I could): How do you know when you have won a war against an idea; not a country, but an idea. When Japan and Germany surrendered in 1945 it was clear that we had won a war. But how will you know that you have defeated terrorism? How will you know that there is no longer any group of people, foreign or domestic, who hate the US enough to carry out acts of violence such as we saw in Oklahoma City and on 9-11?
The answer, of course, is that you CAN'T win a war against an idea.
Obama is, with each passing day, sounding more and more like more of the same.
Republicans get us into wars too, but they tend to be little ones. A vote for Obama may be a vote for WW III in my mind. McCain may be the lesser of 2 evils, he is unpopular even among his own base, and is less likely to gain support for unpopular policies.
Jerry Hough makes a similar case in his recent book: while Republican presidents traditionally talk tough, Democratic presidents are actually more likely to be "true believers" in their own rhetoric. Democratic presidents have generally had fewer qualms against turning into "armed missionaries" who then do not understand why the benighted world resists their efforts at forcible enlightenment (Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense to two Democratic presidents who escalated the Vietnam War, still seemed painfully puzzled in The Fog of War about why the Vietnamese spurned American attempts at bringing the good things of life to their country):
...all five Republican Presidents of the postwar period had a détente policy and that all but Reagan in his first term reduced military spending. All four Democratic Presidents prior to Bill Clinton raised military spending, each quite substantially, and all had serious confrontations with the Soviet Union.
...The Republican Party found it politically useful to balance its pro-détente policy with hard-line rhetoric toward the Soviet Union and defense, while the Democratic rhetoric emphasized arms control and global cooperation. The difference between rhetoric and real policy in both parties was a stabilizing factor in foreign policy, but the reunification of Germany left both parties with rhetoric alone.
P.S. The phrase "armed missionaries" is from the French Revolution. Ironically, it was uttered as a warning by someone who is regarded as an idealist, incapable of hard-headed statesmanship:
The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
dcbeltway
"The Taliban are not supported by Afghans, neither are the War Lords. Pakistan supports the Taliban. Cut off all aid to Pakistan until they end thier support of the Taliban and watch how fast this war ends and Afghanistan stabilizes….money talks in Pakistan so cut the purse strings. Bring the Afghan War Lords to trial for crimes against humanity. Turn the poppies into medicine as the Senalis Counil proposes. Create jobs, build schools, reconstruct the roads and infrustructure."
You are correct that the Taliban is supported by Pakistan and was an ISI creation, yet we have been Musharraf's strongest ally. So wouldn't that indicate that we have no desire to stabilize Afghanistan? Since we are (indirectly) funding all sides of the conflict? Doesn't that also raise some troubling questions about our relationship to the ISI and the official story of 911?
They're all Quigs.
Quaggenbush himself.
Quaggenbush McCain.
Quaggenbush Obama.
Quaggenbush Rodham if she still figured in the equation.
Call them Quags or Quigs or anything you like. They probably used to be called Whigs.
I've never been to Vietnam or Iraq but I did stay in Afghanistan for a couple of months, locked in Kabul while war raged between Pakistan and India.
It was a high (ahem), fascinating place with smells from the open sewers in the huge heat of the day, and with odorless, freezing mist
at night. And with unbelievable mountains everywhere and fields with two or three farmers trying to pull a single plough. This was in the sixties.
The American and Russian embassies were huge and pernicious installations, biggest buildings in the place, swamping everyone in sight with stupid lies and propaganda.
Why were the embassies so big? Because Afghanistan is perpetually a political and economic vacuum.
Or a whirlpool. Or a quigmire. Or a quagmire. Or quicksand.
And because what the Russians and the Americans, jealous of the British, secretly wished was to be murdered in the Khuyber Pass.
Look, I was sadder than most people when The Taliban destroyed the two statues in the mountainside. But I'm sad when a friend is murdered here in America, too, or dies.
I'm sorry, Mr. Karzai, but beautiful as your country is, it's not mine. AND MINE HAS ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS IT NEEDS TO SOLVE RIGHT HERE AT HOME!
The American and Russian embassies were huge and pernicious installations, biggest buildings in the place, swamping everyone in sight with stupid lies and propaganda.
Why were the embassies so big? Because Afghanistan is perpetually a political and economic vacuum.
This has been going on for a long time. 130 years ago, it was the British who were embroiled there.
bottle said: It was a high (ahem), fascinating place with smells from the open sewers in the huge heat of the day, and with odorless, freezing mist
at night.
I'm sorry Afghanistan was not the "Four Seasons" and up to your standards bottle. Afghanistan is a poor country number 5 from the bottom on the UNDP index. My husband is from Kabul and your post reeks of racism.
Democrats get us in the big wars, where we lose 50,000 people.
You heard about the war in Iraq? A MILLION deaths HAVE occured there and we ain't done. Your rascism is automatic. THEY WERE PEOPLE TOO. WHOSE LIVES ARE AS VALUABLE AS YOURS.
I guess a million corpse ain't a "big war" when they are brown skinned in the grave.
To refer to what we've done to Iraq, all the death, the horror, as not a big war is immoral.
Or did Democrats get us into Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Iran? (Special Forces right now.)
Little brother, you nailed it.
We could have taken out al quaeda in 2000 or 2001 in Afghanistan but we didn't. Much has changed since then. It's doubtful a large scale military presence will do any good there, same as in Iraq. Obama is trying to fight a war whose time came and went 5 years ago. I actually think al quaeda has morphed. It's either non-existent now (how much actual information have you seen lately about their whereabouts?) or they have developed diffuse support across the Muslim world that cannot be defeated by a "global war on terror". Obama seems to buy into that concept and it's an across-the-board disaster for the United States.
LITTLE BROTHER said, "the Democratic candidate MUST convince the anxious and fearful Amerikan people that he or she is a Mighty Warlord who does not shrink from battle or threat."
Thank you. You've made my case for MARS rules. And your post is powerful.
KARLOF1: Great post.
In the little town where my sailboat sits in a harbor, I just learned that some Pakistanis bought the little harbor. I was told they are buying others around this part of Florida which is 2 hours from Tampa, the command center of the Iraqi debacle.
The FBI came into Cedar Key to investigate some "strange types" who were utilizing its tiny air strip.
Remember the Dubai port deal that did not come through? I just wonder if anything is up with Pakistanis buying docks in locations off the beaten path. These days suspicions make sense.
My point was not to sound racist, but Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, and if they do support the Taliban, it's not outside the realm of reason that some might be plotting something within the domestic U.S. These types of activities, like the 911 situation, work best when they utilize the everyday facilities in a way that's unexpected. There's no need for heavy weapons that way. It just seemed strange when I learned of this 2 nights ago.
Siouxrose I agree with you.
lisa3210peace,
"Or did Democrats get us into Iraq?"
Yes.
For the Iraq Resolution 81 Democratic Representatives voted yes, and 126 voted no.
For the Iraq Resolution 29 Democratic Senators voted yes, and 21 voted no.
And, of course, the democratically controlled Congress continues to approve any funding Bush requests.
"And Afghanistan?"
Yes.
For the The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists only a single Representative, Barbara Lee, voted no. All Democratic Senators voted yes.
"And Iran?"
Yep.
There too, a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Not to mention that Obama has said (in front of AIPAC) that "there is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran." "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." Although, you refuse to hear any criticism of Obama.
"You heard about the war in Iraq? A MILLION deaths HAVE occured there and we ain't done."
How many died in the Vietnam War, Lisa? 3.8 million Vietnamese. Not including those who died in Laos and Cambodia, or those who died from the lingering effects of the war (Agent Orange, malnutrition, landmines etc..)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19285476.htm
But I suppose we can only blame Eisenhower and Nixon for that, because Johnson and JFK were democrats, right?
Siouxrose,
"My point was not to sound racist, but Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, and if they do support the Taliban, it's not outside the realm of reason that some might be plotting something within the domestic U.S."
Yes, the Taliban was founded by the ISI. But your logic leaves out that we support Pakistan, and that without US support Musharraf would probably be in jail or worse. So if Pakistan is plotting through the Taliban to attack the US, you might as well just say that the US is plotting through Pakistan, which is plotting through the Taliban, to attack the US. Just like what probably happened on 911.
DC BELTWAY: Agree about it being strange?
I hope you got my apology a week or so ago on a thread where you felt offended by something I'd said. I really believe that apart from the trolls on this site, the rest of us need to set an example in showing the ways differences can be resolved with peace and mutual respect.
ZZZ: I guess I didn't want to go that far, although I have little doubt that 911 was the "necessary Pearl Harbor" and thus a planned inside job. Plausibly we will never know all the details, what with evidence stripped away, insiders part of a club that for all we know has taken a blood oath, with lots of lips sealed, that have led to many splendid (to them) profitable deals, etc.
I can only share with the forum a strange bit of info that came my way.
Bombing pitiful defenseless Afghanistan, breaking the left over rubble from 20 years of non-stop war into sand was already insane, but the horrible reality of airborne murdering of the innocents, which has been going on weekly if not daily for 5 years is criminal and needs to be recognized as that, and nothing less. There never was even a remote hint of an excuse for this assault, and it's gotta be stopped.
Osama and Taliban and al-Qaeda were all thought up, organized, trained, and bankrolled by the U.S.A.
If they really gotta bomb somebody they should bomb their own stupid selves
Hi zzz; The Democrats are soul-sold, political filth. If I may.
I recall though the inside job to get us going-I think Cheney & Co were in on it.
I recall the Administration smashing into Afghanistan with everyone in America for it because we "had to do something"
But then we get to the Iraq War. I remember George W. Bush saying Al Queda and Iraq in the same sentence hundreds of times, I remember a long protracted build-up to the war spearheaded by the Bush scum,
AND every single Congressmenan who had sworn fealty to Israel. Walt/Mearscheim, hello. That's all of them and that sucks.
But without Bush-Oil-Cheney-Oil we would not be in Iraq. They led the charge. Against tremendous oppositon. As I recall.
Yes Conress went along. Spell AIPAC
I'm sickened by it all, as I know you are as well.
Unlike you though, I'm voting for Obama this fall.
Respectfully, Lesser Of Two Evilist.
Because it's always a greater or lesser evil at the level of American National Politics.
That is why McKinney will NEVER be there.
She is a good and wonderful woman who would change things: Bang-targeted for defeat.
That dont work? Plane goes down.
This is an evil f****** arena. period. zzz.
...most of the sheep see McCain as a wolf, while Obama is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, and by the time people wake up and see it, it will be too late.
Historically, democracies have been harder to mobilize to go to war, but once ideological exhortation based on "glittering generalities" such as Freedom, Liberty, etc. has whipped the population to a high pitch of war fever, it's very difficult for them to pull back. This is in marked contrast to earlier aristocratic political setups in which wars were conducted with a degree of cynicism or at least in which no cosmic principles seemed to be at stake, which were often conducted by mercenaries, and which could be wound up at the word of two men if compromise seemed possible.
It's no coincidence that the origins of 'Total War' of the last century--which claimed well over 100 million lives--lie in the innovative Levée en masse (general mobilization of ordinary public) of the French Revolutionary Wars:
The levée was a key development in modern warfare and would lead to steadily larger armies with each successive war--culminating in the enormous bloodbaths of World War I and World War II during the first half of the 20th century.
For someone like Barack Obama, whose whole campaign is based on Kennedyesque inspirational rhetoric, it'll be much easier to plunge into unwinnable wars for some Peace Corps like cause such as: "liberating" Afghan women, saving "child soldiers" of Eastern Congo, ending the "genocide" in Darfur, reconstituting the "failed state" of Somalia from its shattered parts, etc, etc. His rhetoric is already veering in that direction. As an observer recently wrote:
Obama has "lamented the failure of the Bush administration" to issue "a call to service" and "a call for shared sacrifice....There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values," said Obama. We "need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century," which, according to Obama, will require an "increase in US ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines."
When the 'right' turn is the wrong turn.
It's not just for republicans. The conservative mind, which reacts to fear and authority, and doesn't really pursue rational thought (it would take too much time), is how many democrat supporters have come to make decisions. Like, vote for Obama because they don't want McCain.
I'm sorry, I don't want McCain or Obama. It's like deciding whether you want to be held 12 inches under water or 6 inches under water. You may think that you have more of a chance with one, but ask a drowned person if it made a difference how deep the water was.
Vote Third Party, don't support the corporate elite.
Vote third party and guarentee the corporate elite retaining power. Nader is the cult of a personality. At least the Green Party is a party that has worked on building a movement and not just a campaign. Still, vote for McKinney and it will change to McCain.
Bang your head against the wall.
I wonder if Barrak Obama will pull an 'Alexander the Great' and kack it in Afghanistan?
Too much to hope for?
Cuz if I remember my history right, Afghanistan is the tombstone of every empire that went in there.
lisa3210peace--I'd like to remind you that Bush/Cheney escalated an already existing Holocaust started by sanctions and illegal no-fly zone imposed by Bush/Quayle and escalated by Clinton/Gore; which is to say the Iraqi Holocaust is an Imperial act of a bipartisaan group of Imperialists. US Empire history shows without doubt that both political parties and their leaders are guilty of horrendous crimes, many perpetrated under the cloak of Cold War Anti-Communist Crusade Propaganda. That the same pattern of crimes continues long after the Cold War's end proves the Cold War Cloak to be a hoax. That more people seem to be reaching this conclusion is quite welcome.
Daniel David--Yes, I know McCain the unreformed War Criminal and arch Imperialist. And Yes, it's easy to see that Obama wants to become a War Criminal and arch Imperialist--His own words condemn him.
It ought to be stipulated that the foundation of the Progressive Movement is total opposition to the GOP/DLC Imperial Project, its institutions, allies, and appologists--that we seek their overthrow and a new direction the polar opposite of that taken during the past 65 years, since FDR declared "Dr. New Deal" deposed in favor of "Dr. Win The War." When Peace is considered a Radical position, while War is considered mainstream/status quo, something is fundamentally wrong--IF--people want to consider themselves civilized--or even Christian/Muslim/Jewish.
1 big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan: Iraq is about oil, Afghanistan is about 9/11 and the future of Pakistan and Iran as well. We should support democratic reforms in the central asia region, not fold the tents in the face of the Taliban. What promises have they made not to go after the Hazara, which could draw in Iran? Pakistan? nuclear powers? We need to stay engaged for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the Taliban's proven record of religious intolerance/dictatorship.
"McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html
"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."
- Barack Obama, the next President of the United States
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
"Massacres of Hazara in Afghanistan"
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/
"Pakistan's Next Red Mosque Problem?"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650518,00.html
"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their own powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who someday will come and accomplish his mission."- Leon Trotsky, "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism", Der Kampf, 1911 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm)
"Moderates Hold Key in Pakistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/world/asia/26peshawar.html
"Killing Ourselves in Afghanistan"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/