Obama's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan

sl -- "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"

Sorry ... Eric Margolis is an old cold-war reaganite who had his head firmly planted in Reagans butt for a good 20 long years. He had access to corridors of power in the Pakistani Military and was deeply embedded in Pakistan-Afghanistan during the cold war era and ofcourse he couldnt stop singing the praises of a long succession of Pakistani military dicktators.

dcbeltway (my buddy) is right as always. The Pakistani ISI needs to be dismantled completely for even a semblance of peace in the region. The U.S. troops and NATO presence must end. We need to cut off funding to the Pakistani military unconditionally.

We need to dismantle Pakistans state sponsored support of various jihadi terrorist outfits that were created to sponsor proxy wars in India and Afghanistan by the Pakistani military.

We need to impress upon Pakistan the need to abandon this ultimately perverse logic of 'strategic regional domination using jihadi terrorists and proxy wars' and instead the urgent need to pursue economic policies that uplift ordinary Pakistanis. This is imperative if Pakistan is to survive as a State and to bring Afghanistan out of this Taliban infested condition.

When Nader claimed that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000, I admit he had a point. When baby Bush was selected, I thought, "Well, how bad can he be, really?"

Of the two leaders in the 2000 Republican Primary, I thought John McCain as more evil than Bush. McCain is defined by his absolute desire to use the military and by his understanding of the Viet Nam war.

At will not be easy to change the direction of American foreign policy. In the six decades since WWII the empire momentum has a huge political advantage. If the Nader-nuts have their way and McCain is elected to GWB's third term, I doubt there will be an emergence of 3rd party to challenge the Republicans.

Progressives that rant against Obama here, are to be pitied rather than censored. Obama is the best chance to change the direction of this country because he has a chance to be elected. The Republicans and McCain will do everything to cast him as a wild-eyed liberal.

Obama's job now is to assuage those who fear liberals that he is not so liberal as to take away their guns, or fail to support the military, or abandon Israel.

I take heart because I believe that Obama is not a militarist, a unilateralist, or a unregulated capitalist.

The United States and the world will be better off if he is elected President.

If he is defeated, I hope it isn't like 2000, where 90,000 progressives voted for Ralph in Florida, and created the situation where Bush became president.

USAn

who's country did Osama bin Laden live in? What did they do about it? Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Aristocrat with a Charles Manson complex. I'm sure you'd get along well. Muslim people are not fooled by him. What election did Al Qaeda win? Give me a break. People like you will defend anybody who is anti-America even when they are right wing anti-communists like Osama bin Laden. Why was he in Afghanistan in the first place? Because he is an aristocratic anti-communist. The sooner he is brought under rule of law or dead the better the world will be. Progressives, above all others, should not fall for some Stalinist Pacifism that embraces nuts like Hitler, or seeks a Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Taliban. It is criminal. They would just as soon kill Progressives. Don't be simple. Hitler came to Russia. The Taliban would come to Kandahar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Obama seems to be reprising the role of 'Rebel' Al Gore in the summer of the 2000 campaign.

Through the spring and early summer of 2000 Gore had come down from the mountains in fatigues and a Castro beard and pledged revolutionary attack on "those corporate powers" aligned against the American people.

But by August, Gore was mugged by the DNC/DLC thugs fronting for the ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' that runs this "Vichy" facade of a democracy, and quickly abandoned all his populist/progressive pledges.

Now, in 2008, Obama did not even make it to August before collapsing like a cheap suitcase!!!

Reaganconservative July 21st, 2008 5:29 pm writes "wow, progressive my butt, regressive is more like it."
-you sound like a typical Republican.

Come on back. Explain yourself. You just spouted off a little but made no points. Precisely what are you saying? We should be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that what Reaganconservative is saying?

Who says you need to be in a war zone to know that the the colonial-style war for the plunder of Iraq's oil and the occupation of Afghanistan are both immoral and illegal?

Says who? A boot?

Jacq,

You said "I doubt you can find a citizen of this nation who WASN'T applauding the U.N.-US-led action in Afghanistan in 2001-2002." That's what I mean about the memory hole. I'm an American citizen and I wasn't applauding the US led action in Afghanistan. (Neither were most of my progressive friends.) Once I read that the US rejected out of hand the Taliban's offer to turn bin Laden over, I realized that the alleged justification for our "action" (what a euphemism!) in Afghanistan was one more lie from a government that hasn't known how to tell the truth in a long, long time. We invaded Afghanistan because Americans wanted revenge for 9/11 and the Afghani people made an easy target. I knew that then, as did thousands of Americans, and I knew that now.

And I'm still wondering how we put Obama's feet to the fire if we've all sworn to vote for him no matter what. I plan to vote for Obama, if only because it will improve our image abroad, but I want to know---where is our leverage to make him move leftward rather than rightward if he gets our support no matter what?

Dougwagner wrote:

"The Taliban did sanction 9/11"

Citation please?

My only recollection was that the Taliban asked the US for evidence of Bin Laden's culpability in the crime before they would arest Bin Laden. It sounded reasonable to me.

I think people here are forgetting that even the Afghnani feminist group RAWA considered the Taliban an improvement over the bloody corrupt warlord regimes that had filled the vacuum after the Russian regime.

Reaganconservative wow you assume none of us have been there. My husband is Afghan and grew up there.

Obama has made a lot of wrong turns lately, all sharply to the right. He's proving himself to be a political chameleon and has fallen under the sway of hawks such as Brzezinski, whose miscalculations gave rise to the Taliban. For every "enemy" we kill, we make 100 others with our heavy-handed military response. This is not a national government that can be defeated and will surrender, as in WWI and WWII. 9/11 should be treated as the crime it was, committed by mostly Saudi nationals, and not as an act of war by a sovereign state. Obama is preferable to McCain, but only just.

"start with things as they ARE, not as you would wish them to BE." Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

Look! Do we really presume to KNOW what Obama is going to do when elected? NO! But he has MADE this PROMISE (and he's pretty good at keeping them)that he will begin to end the War in Iraq, start toward instituting Universal Health Care and make DEFINITE impact on the Environmental situation all within his first 100 days.
What other choice (really) IS there? four more years of the same politics and policies or something absolutely 'new and different'. Obama is NOT 'beholden' to the Military Industrial Complex, he is NOT 'beholden' to the Oil and Gas interests, he is NOT 'beholden' to large corporate donors PERIOD. Oh-and by the way, Obama HAS asked, SEVERAL times, that WE do OUR part. He is NOT 'superdad' or 'king' or even 'petty dictator'. He is running for and hopefully WILL BE elected PRESIDENT. At LEAST he's cognizant of the FACT that there ARE American troops in Afghanistan and that we ARE fighting TWO wars without end. Afghanistan became nearly 'nonexistant' in the last 5 years. And look at the mess that's starting again. The Taliban has managed to 'spring' its imprisoned members, the drug trade is out of control and well-NO ONE has managed to FIND BIN LADEN which is the reason we went to Afghanistan to BEGIN WITH. I doubt you can find a citizen of this nation who WASN'T applauding the U.N.-US-led action in Afghanistan in 2001-2002. But we were distracted by this little 'adventure' into Iraq-because we were PROMISED cheap oil! Hahahahaha!

Chamberlain felt he had an agreement with Hitler that allowed him to take care of what Chamberlain saw as the GREAT MENACE of the day--Stalinism. This item and the research it's based on takes all Reaganconservatives to the woodshed for a sound beating. Appeasement is now a propagandistic term disconnected with the supposed context of its times. Those that use it are anethema to the great majority of the planet's people who Love Peace and Loath War. Those that promote war must be called murderers, torturers, looters, rapists, and infidels/heretics for that's what they promote, and through their promotion violate the very words of Law from the Holy book they presumably obey as such promoters seem to always call themselves Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

France did not appease Hitler; it was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who pursued a policy of appeasement. But what do facts matter when you can slur France and liberals at the same time? Indeed you don't need a liberal reporter to tell you what to think; you need a functioning cerebrum.

wow, progressive my butt, regressive is more like it. You all would appease Hitler just like France did, and then blame the republicans when the sh_t hit the fan! Grow up, smell the roses, stop drinking the cool aid. Appeasement is nothing more than surrender, always has been and always will be. None of you fools have ever been to Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter. I have been in both, and I don't need a liberal reporter to tell me what to think. I put my boots on the ground and have first hand knowledge before I go spouting off! Go ahead, take the plunge, put your butt on the ground in country then come back and whine about it!

I've got a question for everyone reading this thread. I'm not asking this as a third-party "provocateur" (although I appreciate and often support those perspectives), but as a citizen who can't wrap his modest brain around something.

How can one hold a candidate's feet to the fire on issues like supporting FISA and continuing the lies of the "War on Terror" while simultaneously swearing to vote for that same person regardless of those vexing issues? It seems to me (and it could just be my political naivete talking) that you can't have it both ways.

It also seems that solving this riddle out is pretty important. Too bad we never seem to find the time to do it, since now is always the "wrong time" for one reason or another.

Just think. If the Bush administration had accepted the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden to a third-party nation where he could stand trial, we could have avoided all this bloodshed and nonsense in Afghanistan.

Does anybody else even remember that our government received this offer and refused it within a week of 9/11, citing the "the US doesn't negotiate" two-party line (which inevitably, and without any sense of irony, precedes the "negotiations failed so we have to bomb them" two-party line)?

Does any other CD reader remember that we got involved in Afghanistan not only to "get bin Laden" (a pretty unnecessary goal in light of the fact that the Taliban offered to hand him over) but also to free the women of Afghanistan from the repressive clutches of the Taliban (the trope used to bring feminists and other liberals into the "attack Afghanistan" camp)?

One of my biggest concerns is the ever-growing hole at the center of American public memory? How are we expected to really make changes if we ultimately accept the liar's version of events to begin with?

Speaking of Brzezinski and Afghanistan, here is something he just said about the need to avoid "repeating the Soviet experience":

"It is important for US policy in general and for Obama more specifically to recognise that simply putting more troops into Afghanistan is not the entire solution . . . We are running the risk of repeating the mistake the Soviet Union made....Our strategy is getting in deeper and deeper."

He added that while the Soviets invaded the country thinking there was a communist Afghan elite on which they could rely, "we have to be careful not to overestimate the appeal of the democratic Afghan elite, because we run the risk that our military presence...will gradually turn the Afghan population entirely against us".

Afghan society was deeply conservative and resistant to dramatic change, he said.

Afghanistan is about nuclear war, extremism, stability, and the world community. It is not in any country's interest to have a war next door. The Taliban did sanction 9/11 and trying to say that we are engaged in Afghanistan to take their oil is ridiculous at this point. Destroying the Taliban or bringing them into the democratic process is critical to both Pakistan and Afghanistan's future. Allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely is criminal post 9/11 and Madrid.

To understand the situation in Afghanistan, one must return to the Soviet Union/(SU) invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Why did the SU invade Afghanistan? The answer is simple. They wanted access to the Arabian Sea (Indian Ocean) for an oil pipeline (and other export shipments) through Afghanistan.

And why did the United States arm the Afghan warlords (Nothern Alliance), the Arab al Qaeda fighters, and the Taliban to resist the SU. The answer is also simple. The U.S. wanted to prevent the SU from getting that vital access. The U.S viewed Caspian Basin oil as a world resource of strategic interest to the U.S., and we were not about to allow the SU to control it - even though, at the time, the Caspian Basin was part of the USSR.

And the U.S. chose to use a proxy army rather than confront the SU itself militarily.

Had the SU (or anybody else) done that to us, we would have most probably nuked them.

That proxy army defeated the SU and then became our enemy, when we turned around and attacked them after 9/11

And what about the Afghan people? What is their primary interest? Again, the answer is very simple. They seemingly wish to be left alone, to live in the same kind of society that they have maintained from the beginning of history. They live in a tribal society ruled by hundreds of warlords that provide protection and secuity within their domains in return for tribute (taxes) from the tribe members. They also have super-warlords that control groups of tribes who often shift allegiance from time to time.

It is a grim tough primitive type of society, where power rules, and changes can only be achieved by the use of force. But who is to say that they should not be allowed to live that way?

But they still live that way despite past efforts (and use of force) by the British, the SU, and now the U.S. to impose a powerful (foreign influenced) central government on them.

Within each tribe, there were tribal laws, religious laws, and degrees of democracy, but there was no central government powerful enough to control the warlords.

In truth however our own much touted modern democracy merely centralizes democratic decision making and camouflages the power structure that underlies governance.

And finally, the trump questions need to be asked:

Did the British care about what the Afghans want? -- answer: "NO"

Did the SU care about what the Afghans want? -- answer: "NO"

Does the U.S care about what the Afghans want? -- answer: "NO"

Does Obama care what the Afghans want? --

The answer is probably "NO"

Will it be possible to impose a powerful U.S. friendly central government on the Afghans?

My answer is probably "NO"

Obama's answer seems to be "YES" - AND HE IS WRONG !!!

My prediction is that Obama will continue the present policy of buying off Afghan warlords to do all the dirty work we wish to do in Afghanistan - until the world community puts a stop to our international violence. His campaign promise to actually send more troops to Afghanistan is most likely just (I'm as tough as McCain)campaign rhetoric.

Nichols is emerging from his cocoon and makes a good right turn from fawning to pointing out the serious flaws of the traitorous, warmongering, chicken hawk Democratic candidate, Obama. Well done.

The statements made by Barack Obama during his visit to Afghanistan over the weekend verify that his campaign for president is the mouthpiece for a significant section of the American ruling elite that is insisting on a shift in US policy in the Middle East and Central Asia. Far from proposing any retreat from militarism, Obama is arguing for a faster drawdown of troop numbers in Iraq and a reduction in tensions with Iran, only in order to facilitate a major escalation of US military operations in Afghanistan, potentially extending them into Pakistan.

Obama: "There's starting to be a broad consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, [and] deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now's the time to do it... If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we've got to start doing something now."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/bara-j21.shtml

Among progressives the tide has turned on Obama. I can't help but marvel over DPAs who read article after article exposing the traitorous Democrats and their warmongering candidate and conclude: Boy, those Republicans are horrible, vote for Obama!

Then they stash their empty little pointed heads back into that soft, puffy, mound of creamy white sand that feels so comfortable. Way to go.

Dougwagner - No, Afghanistan was about oil too. If you look at the placement of NATO/US bases, they follow the proposed Unocal pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. With the supposed massive oil fields in the Caspian and a shipping terminal on the Afghan/Pakistan coast, this would have cut out the Saudi/OPEC middle man completely.

Too bad the Caspian Sea oil fields were mostly dry holes. Now the deal that was feverishly cut with the Taliban is dead, and so are a lot of innocent Afghans.

Yes, Siouxrose thank you:). We are friends on this board.

When my husband was an Afghan refugee in Pakistan many ordinary Pakistanis treated him lower than dirt. My husband was not poor like many Afghan refugees he was actually a refugee with means but still a refugee. Regardless he was still treated as less then human by many of his fellow Muslims. The corrupt Pakistani police use to shake him down routinely for money and many other corrupt government officials have done the same to the Afghan refugee community. There are also a lot of militant Pakistanis whose fundamentalism is a threat to Afghanistan, Kashmir, India, and the West. Nimblehuman perhaps there are some Pakistanis who are good people...too bad my husband never got a helping hand from them when he was in Pakistan.

Imagine, the country could have been rebuilt rather than destroyed, and the raison d'etre of the Taliban would have been eradicated, Afghans could have been at least bolstered--drinking water and food help one's political motivations--to reclaim their country...

An Afghan-American agrees with you about the wasted opportunity:

...the American policy has failed seriously during the last six years. They have not won the confidence of the people; they have not built trust in the community; they have not introduced the kind of government structure that would have helped bring about better reconstruction, spend the monies that we have spent there better and more effectively.

So that really Taliban strength is not so much that people support them, but that people have stopped supporting the current government and the American policies and have become extremely disappointed with the way we have carried on our policies, failed policies, that is, although it's not acknowledged yet that these policies are failed.

But, the bigger problem is that these "failed policies" are inherently incapable of "success". Here's an excerpt from Paul Theroux's Dark Star Safari on why transplanted ideas of Western NGOs and governments don't work in poor nations:

An entire library of worthy books describe at best the uselessness, at worst the serious harm, brought about by aid agencies. Some of the books are personal accounts, others are scientific and scholarly. The findings are the same.

"Aid is not help" and "aid does not work" are two of the conclusions reached by Graham Hancock in his Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige and Corruption of the International Aid Business (1989), a well-researched account of wasted money. Much of Hancock's scorn is reserved for the dubious activities of the World Bank. "Aid projects are an end in themselves," Michael Maren writes in The Road to Hell: The Damaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity (1997). One of Maren's targets is Save the Children, which he sees as a monumental boondoggle. Both writers report from experience, having spent many years in Third World countries on aid projects.

While these writers are kinder to volunteers in disaster relief than to highly paid bureaucrats in institutional charities, both of them also assert that all aid is self-serving, large-scale famines are welcomed as a "growth opportunity," and the advertising to stimulate donations for charities is little more than "hunger porn".

"Here is a rule of thumb you can safely apply wherever you may wander in the Third World," Hancock writes. "If a project is funded by foreigners it will typically also be designed by foreigners and implemented by foreigners using foreign equipment procured in foreign markets."

As proof of that rule of thumb, the most salutary and least cited book about development in Africa is an Italian study, Guidelines for the Application of Labor-Intensive Technologies (1994). Revolutionary in its simplicity, it advocates the use of African labor to solve African problems. After describing the many social and economic advantages of employing local people, who would work with their hands to build dams, roads, sewer systems, and watercourses, the authors, Sergio Polizzotti and Daniele Fanciullacci, discuss the constraints imposed by donors. Donors specify that purchases of machinery have to be made in the donor country, or that bids be restricted to firms in the donor country, or that a time limit be placed on the scheme, which encourages the tendency toward large contracts and heavy spending on equipment." Labor-intensive projects are few in Africa because so much donor aid is self-interested.

This isn't even taking account the monumental corruption involved in the "reconstruction" bonanza of Afghanistan.

waterboard dumpserdive u.s olympics obama is a lier need to take it to the steet doobie bros neil young ect donation concert red cross pressure hearings need nader dennis gravel paul pentagon papers ect

DCBeltway, as the son of a man from Pakistan and a woman from Alabama I really find your "blame Pakistan" posts very offensive. It is not "Pakistan" and "Pakistanis" who want to see Afghanistan in turmoil, it is the Inter Services Intelligence agency of the Pak Military and a group of Islamist military officers who continue to aid the Taliban in order to further their own agenda. The US government has supported these creeps at least since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (as you are probably well aware since your husband is from Kabul).

In short, most Pakistanis take no joy in seeing the disaster that has been made of Afghanistan. The common people of Pakistan are no more responsible for this tragedy than the common people of the US are responsible for what the Bush administration has done over our loud protests. You are right on the money on one point: stop funding the Pakistani military dictatorship, and the situation will change in both Pakistan and in Afghanistan for the better. Please take care, though, that you do not indict an entire country based on the actions of its autocratic and self-serving leadership. By that standard, all of us in the United States are just as guilty of "supporting" W and his neocon thug squad.

Thanks to S163 and all who provided more info on Afghanistan.

I remember the time immediately following 9/11 was open to possibility. Many idealists like me thought that it was finally the moment when the US would be forced to try to understand the Middle East, its language and culture, its distinct history and diversity, and the horrors and destruction we had already wrought there, like the desertion of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Imagine if, rather than bombing a country "back to the stone age" in which there was nothing left to bomb anyway, post 9/11 US took a deep breath and acknowledged, or at least sought out, specifically how Afghanistan was involved in 9/11 (fine--eradicate the Al Qaeda bases, but don't bomb the entire country), and then worked to improve the situation there by straightening out its Pakistan policy, sending in aid organizations which they protected, and rebuilding the infrastructure of that country. Imagine, the country could have been rebuilt rather than destroyed, and the raison d'etre of the Taliban would have been eradicated, Afghans could have been at least bolstered--drinking water and food help one's political motivations-- to reclaim their country, and the US could have confounded all of the groups that portray it as a hateful, destructive country (no more recruitment propaganda, no more feeding this war between east and west). I have never recovered from my keen awareness of watching that moment of opportunity be monstrously squandered.

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_...

"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=2...

"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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 I agree with you.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

it's all about the anglo-american policy of ME occupation. talking about a theatre of this policy in isolation, is worse than useless.

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.

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!

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.

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.

dcbeltway July 20th, 2008 4:07 pm

Pretty much right I believe.

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?

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

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.

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.

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 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

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. Three Big Lies About Afghanistan
2. The War In Afghanistan Is Only Beginning
3. Afghanistan: Time For Truth
4. Great Northern Whitewash Over Afghanistan
5. Why Europeans Are Not Eager To Die In Afghanistan
6. The March To Folly On The Afghan Border
7. At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan

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.

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.

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 r