The "peace movement" already dropped the ball when it dubbed Afghanistan the "good" war, as opposed to Iraq. In reality, Bush never had to invade Afghanistan--the Taliban were willing to turn over Obama to a neutral third party. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were necessary wars. The real question the "peace movement" should have asked after 9/11 was, "Why did this happen?" But that answer would have required a critique of US military bases in Muslim countries, US irrational support for Israel's war crimes in Palestine, and US and Israeli racism against Arabs and Muslims. Neither Bush, the Democrats, nor the "peace movement" were willing to ask those questions, or hear the answers. Thus we reap the consequences.

The first thing we need to understand and be clear about are the motives of any US president for wanting to stay in Afghanistan. imho, they don't differ essentially from those of Soviet leaders when they invaded Afghanistan after being snubbed by the Afghan president. The best contemporary account we have of Soviet motives was given by a Soviet insider who had access to internal debates before he defected:

The Western press attributed several motives to Moscow. Some said we were worried about the impact on Soviet Muslims that an upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and Afghanistan could have. Others said that we insisted on having "our own man" or that we were inflamed by the terrible deaths that Afghan insurgents were inflicting on Soviet advisers. There is something in these interpretations. But they miss the real point.

What moved the Politburo was the thought that the Muslim revolution in Afghanistan could succeed and that, as a result, the Soviet Union would actually be thrown out of Afghanistan. The repercussions of such a blow to our prestige would be unpredictable. The Soviet Union could not run such a risk. The Politburo was determined to show that the Soviet Union would not be pushed about.

So, what it basically boils down to is the need to "save face" for a superpower (and it's cat's paw, NATO). This was the same reason why US stuck around in Vietnam for 7 years after even Walter Cronkite called the war "unwinnable" on the evening news.

As the influential Economist summarizes, "Defeat would be a body blow not only to the Afghans, but--and more importantly, of course--"to the NATO alliance". Those who consider 'forging the 21st Century Alliance' a worthy cause should stand by Obama as he proclaims and then implements his plan to escalate the Afghan War. The rest of us should not support this Quixotic adventure for the sake of swollen pride.

A strategy for Afghanistan? How about minding your own f...ing business and dealing with your own socio-political mess rather than invading and occupying foreign lands in order to export your totally corrupt system to others who want nothing to do with it.

Sometimes I don't know what's worse: the corporate imperialists, or the "liberal" do-gooders who are so over-eager to accept "politcally correct" rationalizations for armed interventions.

"It's not enough to simply say "Troops out now.""

Actually it is.

-"How can we stop Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan from being a training ground for militant fundamentalists?"

Try supporting the democrats in Pakistan instead of dictators like Musharraf and let the people there know who's side you are on.

-"How can we bring those involved in terrorist attacks to justice, and prevent future attacks, without waging an open-ended war?"

Have you heard of the "criminal justice system"?

-"Should we advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and if so, based on what criteria?"

Yes. Now would be a good time.

-"How can we work with the peace movements in NATO countries to have a more unified and effective position?"

Share a dialogue with them. Some of them can tell you how they got their soldiers out of Iraq.

McCain isn't sooo much worse. He just says that to get Obama elected. Really, I think that might be it. The Dems have been loyal players, it's their turn to run the Empire.

Howard Zinn says Obama is only slightly to the left of the Republicans and that was before he capitulated.

Support Nader! Support McKinney! Let your voice - at least - be heard at the ballot box! It's all we have at this point, having given all to the Democrat Party. Sad.

The peace movement needs a strategy, period. Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to work on how to get a functioning peace movement, with less hidden or strange agendas, and a more comprehensible program that doesn't just alienate most of the folks we need to reach? Most people DO agree with us, but we don't make it easy for them to join us in peace building. Calling names, getting upset because people enjoy "American Idol" (or in my case baseball or football!) isn't useful or peaceful, either. I simply stopped going to the rallies and marches when I realized there were too many hidden agendas that had nothing to do with building peace or allowing folks to develop peaceful strategies. Articles like this don't really help, they hinder.

"We know that war is not the answer, but what is?"

To start with here are a few good first steps:

- Stop funding and aiding the Pakistani military and ISI (Intelligence Agency). The ISI along with the U.S. is responsible for creating the Taliban and other extermist groups. The $10 BILLION weve spent so far in the last 5 years has gone directly into strengthening the Pakistani military. The ISI needs to be dismantled. Its essentially a terrorist organization funded by the State.

- Remove ALL U.S. and NATO troops.

- Involve neighbouring countries Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and China in solving the Taliban problem. The recently elected Pakistani leaders should be empowered to make the right decisions with regard to the border areas. The fact that secular parties actually won elections in the border areas is a great start.

- Empower the Pushtu majority and involve them more completely in the Afghan government. The Afghanistan government should look beyond the puppet Karzai.

- Did i mention stop funding the ISI. The Pakistani military and ISI should give up their strategy of supporting Jihadi groups so as to gain a foothold in Afghanistan and India. State sponsored terrorism by Pakistan must end. Pakistan should turn its focus to internal development of its own people.

>>How can we stop Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan from being a training ground for militant fundamentalists?>>

Adopt a policy in the Mideast of respect for Muslims. Start by ending the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Continue by advocating the UN, Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conference bring in occupying security forces approved of by the resistance groups, including the Taliban.

>>How can we bring those involved in terrorist attacks to justice, and prevent future attacks, without waging an open-ended war?>>

Start by indicting, prosecuting and convicting our own war criminals in the US. Then the rule of international law would be established. THEN set up special UN tribunals to indict and prosecute those who conspired to engage in terrorist acts (as distinguished from acts of legitimate resistance to illegal occupations, which only target and harm armed forces, never civilians)

>>Should we advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and if so, based on what criteria?>>

Yes, based on the UN, AL, and OIC filling in with acceptable troops to restore security while a legitimate (not a puppet) government can be established.

>>How can we work with the peace movements in NATO countries to have a more unified and effective position?>>

Do our work at home as a start.

>>What should we call for in terms of development aid to Afghanistan?>>

National, non-military development of .07 percent of our GDP at a minimum, plus reparations to nations who have been harmed or destroyed by US illegal, immoral aggression and occupations.

>>How can the Afghan economy be weaned from opium? >>

Transform poppy products to legitimate pharmaceutical pain killers and other meds in factories in Afghanistan. I used to be a chemist. That which makes opium can also make morphine-like substances made to a grade such as morphine that can serve as pain-killing meds in the global pharmaceutical industry. It would make Afghans real money, especially the farmers.

>>How can we truly support Afghan women?>>

End the NATO/US occupation, while substituting a legitimate occupation by UN/AL/OIC forces in a negotiated deal with the Taliban and other resistance groups.

>>What will happen to them if the Taliban take over again?>>

The issue is not who but how. The Taliban have every right to be part of an Afghan government *via a political not armed process*. Remember Kennedy's statement: If we make non-violent revolution impossible we make violent revolution inevitable.

Also remember this: the US never sought the extradition of OBL, even though the Taliban offered . . . twice, while asking for evidence. The invasion and occupation were never legitimate.

Maybe we should demand at the outset-- meaning now-- that Obama and McCain tell us what "victory" in Afghanistan looks like.

Of course, they wouldn't dare, because any vision would be laughable on its face.

Tell you what, let's just abandon both Iraq and Afghanistan. How's that sound? Let's have Al-Qeada have free hand to set up bases and maybe we can get another 9/11. Hey maybe this time it can be a nuclear 9/11. Would that make you creeps happy? Satisfy you? Maybe you could hope the terrorists took out Salt Lake, God forbid, as Michael Moore pointed out, why are the terrorists killing New Yorkers? We are on your side-yeah Salt Lake.

The Taliban have every right...you're the kind of non-judgmental asshat that would say, the Nazis have every right.
I swear you far lefties are nutz and are going to get millions killed-UN Tribunals??? Absolutely insane-thank the teacher's unions for your idiotic lack of historical perspective.

Rich Griffin:

I don't think the problem is that the peace movement alienates people. The people against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan vastly outnumber the ones in favor. The corporate media is unfortunately the gate-keeper regarding which voices get heard and which get marginalized, hence they have succeeded in making a majority look like a whacky minority. This also creates the Catch-22 of having to resort to more elaborate and sensational stunts in order to get an anti-militaristic/empire message across. Remember that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq we experienced some of the largest marches against militarism in human history. The corporate media ignored it or minimized it, and went right along running their commercials for the war - which they labeled "the news."

Thank-you Medea. Important topic - I'm glad you have the courage to bring it up, and especially to suggest the possibility of talks with the Taliban. Yes, call for talks with the Taliban.
In my understanding of the root causes of violence, in any situation where one group of people labels another group of people as the "bad guys," or inferior, and therefore needing to be dominated by the use of force, there is the potential, the likelihood, for this dehumanization of the other to lead to physical violence.

Here's my suggested strategy:
1) treat everyone as valued human beings - be willing to talk to everyone, the leaders of any official or grassroots group, to gain and spread understanding of their perspectives;
2) vocally oppose all violence, whether it is U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan government or Taliban violence, calling media attention to the human costs of violence; and
3) relentlessly advocate for support and allocation of resources for meeting basic human needs, including the need for human dignity.

Ways to support Afghan women....
I really appreciated the 2008 Women for Women International survey of Iraqi women. Perhaps something like this could be done to give voice to concerns of women in Afghanistan?
I would also suggest literacy and job skills training so that these women are better prepared to advocate for their own needs.
And advocate for resources for local economic development to ease the daily lives of women - support for basics like clean water, food production, health care.

The peace movement that I was in then, and am part of now, never supported the war in Afghanistan. Assuming that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, the proper response should have been a police action with international cooperation. It is amazing that so many would buy into the logic of destroying a country to capture a few foreign criminals hiding on Afghani soil, but that is what America did.

As far as criticizing the peace movement goes, if you don't support the peace movement you by default (silence is complicity,) support the war movement. If you don't like some of the activities or strategies of the peace movement, then get involved and bring in your good ideas and hard work. We would love to have them. I can tell you, I've been doing this for 6 years every week and its getting old. I don't have much patience for listening to criticism from those who don't get off the butts and do something.

Medea, first off, give Ralph Nader your support if you're serious about peace in Afghanistan as Obama ain't gonna help you.

As for the rightwing motherfucker MM29, what he doesn't want to tell you is that Al Quaida has a strong presence in Iraq and Afghanistan because of US occupation. As a matter of fact, Al Quaida was created by the US back in the 1980s and empowered with US taxpayer money and WMDs sent by the US. The truth is Al Quaida has and will continue to be clever in using the US's own weapons, physical and strategical, against us until we all shut up and quit backdoor funding them.

Pakistan and the ISI are the founders and funders of the Taliban people. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/index.htm

So therefore Medea the Peace Movement needs to start in Pakistan don't cha think? Gyptian as always your posts are the voice of reason this subject. Thank you again.

Ways to support Afghan women...
I really appreciated the 2008 Women for Women International survey of Iraqi women...and advocate for resources for local economic development to ease the daily lives of women--support for basics like clean water, food production, health care.

It's important to listen to views of people, especially women, on the ground who are acculturated in ways that differ somewhat from, say, those of well meaning feminists working out of NGOs based in metropolitan areas such as New York City and London.

As proof of the necessity of listening to local voices, you might want to listen to this (MP3) interview that aired a few days ago of 3 women, 2 Afghan--including the outspoken member of the Afghan Parliament, Malalai Joya--and one Western. The Westerner (probably English) is the New York Times correspondent in Afghanistan, Carlotta Gall. She was by far the most gung-ho, ill-informed, and self-righteous of the three.

Also, a pertinent comparative question related to plight of Afghan women asked by Noam Chomsky in this clip. (starts at 0:17 and relevant comments are between 2:20 and 3:45).

read A Thousand Splendid Suns for an inside view of the human cost of the invasions of Af'stan.

See here for Afghan women's voices.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/jamila/html/default.stm

Please note that the majority of Afghans have suffered 30 years of war. Men and children too.

It has recently occurred to me that the current American administration now looks at war as the norm.

They talk about the Global War on Terror (GWOT)lasting for decades.

This also in my opinion applies to Afghanistan. It is a part of the GWOT and they will keep fighting as long as necessary.
I pose the this question 'what is the US and NATO's long range objective in Afghanistan? What are their goals'?

I fear that we need to examine our objectives and clarify our goals. We certainly cannot exterminate everyone who looks like a Taliban or who wants the occupying army out of their country.And with every civilian casualty we make more enemies. It is a lose / lose situation.

The question that must be asked is 'what is causing the insurgency'? Once this question is answered then we must treat the cause of the problem.
It is education,development, employment and access to hospitals and medicine that will do much more that occupying armies.

This applies too the tribal areas across the border in Pakistan, they too need proper schools, hospitals and employment. In life one gets what one pays for and in this case I fear it has been too little too late in Afghanistan.

Hey Fred,

Did you get the memo? Al-Qeada is done in Iraq. Gone. Beaten by our troops. Even your Both Ways Barack wants to send additional troops into Afghanistan. Hmmm, why did he oppose the Surge in Iraq and now wants to do the very same thing in Afghanistan? Because he's a lying hypocrite! Who will say or do anything to get elected. Still feeling all warm and fuzzy about him?

Also I love the way you fringe lefties zoom from 0-60 into swear level anger. Me, entitled to my opinion? In your Stalinist America, I'd be sent off to a camp or my family charged for the bullet you'd love to put in the back of my head-yep, free speech advocates, aren't you?

BTW, have family serving in Afghanistan and they tell me the Afghanies are very happy we've disposed the Taliban. The country hasn't been destroyed as some of you sycophants have said, you're liars. The Taliban were stoning women and throwing men off buildings and toppling walls onto them. You people are sick-15M people liberated and because it was George Bush, you make up lies. If we had a responsible news media, your horseshit would be laughed at, instead we get nightly, hair on fire fabrications from Herr Olbermann-and the funny thing? YOU BELIEVE IT!!! because you hate this country the way it is and want it to be some alien thing-good luck, this ain't Europe

Media Benjamin, a movement leader who has been visiting Afghanistan since 2001 is filled with questions. Many people on this string offer specific, constructive, common-sense answers to Benjamin's queries.

There seems to be a profound disconect here, and that disconnect is between movement leadership and the rank-and-file (and potentital rank-and-file).

The fundamental question, it seems to me, (which is touched on by a number of responders) is:

What exactly are movement leadership doing to listen to, communicate with, and ORGANIZE the rank-and-file?

Leaders need to lead, not just perform.

MM29 said: BTW, have family serving in Afghanistan and they tell me the Afghanies are very happy we've disposed the Taliban.

MM29 on this your correct. I have family there, but they are Afghan. And Afghanis are the currency. Afghans are the people. They are damn happy the Taliban are gone. They don't like the warlords though.

Thank you for the correction dcbeltway-

dcbeltway July 24th, 2008 5:30 pm
MM29 July 24th, 2008 4:56 pm

Thank you both for the insight on the Afgans.

MM29 July 24th, 2008 5:38 pm
Could I suggest that it would be better to make your comments with a little better language and if you read what you posted.....aren't you sounding just like the radical left you are critisizing? Maybe it would be better to frame your argument differently?

Could I suggest the same for others?

"As far as criticizing the peace movement goes, if you don't support the peace movement you by default (silence is complicity,) support the war movement."

This is and absurd assertion.

"to Barack Obama — who opposed the invasion."

If you are going to trot out that tired old claim based on him calling it a "dumb war" but not an illegal one.

Then have the decency to include this quote from Meet the Press in 2004.

Obama:
"There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage"

Medea,
"It's time for the peace movement to come up with a position on Afghanistan. We know that war is not the answer, but what is? It's not enough to simply say "Troops out now."

What complete BS! Here we have Medea saying "War is not the answer" then immediately implying that maybe it is the answer. Medea just what are you smoking? There is no solution for this that involves the US military. If you were dropped into any number of failed states like Haiti or Zimbabwe, do you not think there would a million problems needed to be fixed? Afghanistan is not the only country with poor Women's rights, or problems with drugs, crime, or religious militants - it just happens to be the one we are occupying. We invaded that country on the flimsy pretext of catching Bin Laden and disrupting his "terror networks" despite numerous offers from the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden if we would provide evidence of his guilt, which we refused. How can you justify continuing to occupy Afghanistan seven years later?

"How can we bring those involved in terrorist attacks to justice, and prevent future attacks, without waging an open-ended war?"

By impeaching our president, bringing the troops home, and heading to the Hague to accuse our own Congress of War Crimes.

Step one: decrimilize heroin, take away the profit from the druglords and Taliban and solve the overcrowding in aour prisons at the same time.

It is obvious that many of us are concerned about what is likely to happen-- historically speaking-- to Barack Obama in Afghanistan.

Fewer of us, but still a substantial minority, are concerned with his apparent favoritism toward Israel when total evenhandedness is the only American point of view that makes sense.

A still smaller sliver group, of which I am a part, is convinced that the "carrot and stick"
tactic for use on Iran is much too facile a formula and only fifty per cent reasonable.
"Carrot" may or may not work with Iran in any age or year. "Stick," however, will never work, according to the book "Yellow Ribbon" by Bruce Laingen.

That said, the most thoughtful members of our persuasion are well aware that of the current crop of president, presidential cronies, and presidential candidates, Barack Obama is the only person who isn't a moron.

No chance. The American clueless "progressives" continue to support St. Obama, who wants to make ht his war.

I think the comprehensive "theme" for me is that (more) aggressive action against the Taliban and/or Bin Laden will almost certainly jeopardize the last 5+ years of "nationbuilding."

There is surprising agreement internationally that "left on its own" (to be torn apart by carrion feeders, wolves, jackels, vultures or exploited by the traditional "elite"), Afghanistan will be bled dry for its geopolitical location and it's opium trade, but it and it's citizens will never achieve some sort of "viability." It needs "help" and "protection" to be sure, but it is a very traditional, backward, conservative moslem nation that has strenuously and successfully resisted attempts at modernization.

Related to this, there are massive problems wrt women's rights, forcing western values on a traditional feudal country (where a teeny tiny portion of the population is controls a truly absurd amount of the wealth), stunning illiteracy, child mortality, and dreadful life expectancy, and such low per capita income only African nations score worse. Poverty and hunger appear to be the norm and empower the warlords AND the Taliban.

I think "Afghanistan for the Afghans" may be premature ... there's been talk of a regional multinational coalition, though I don't know how reasonable that would be.

Given our corrupt and divided (extreme) priorities and our incorrigible use of excessive force and air power ... as in Iraq, it certainly appears that WE are not the people to rebuild Afghanistan (see also the number of "coalition forces who do not want to work with us shoulder to shoulder believing we are a liability to their safety) ....

Although we act as though the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, even in its heyday, it controlled only a (notorious) portion... we need some Afghan experts.

MM29,

You maybe a dumb fuck to listen to FAUX NOISE but had you actually been to Iraq and Afghanistan, you would have seen that I stand correct. Pull your fucked up head out of the Bush/Limbaughian toilet and learn some truth for a change. You'll realize what a rightwing lunatic ass you've been for too long.

Medea is my nominee for Secretary of State...!

Its easy to criticize Medea Benjamin but let me tell you this ... while the rest of the country ( 90% including a lot of CD posters) were clamoring for war with Afghanistan and later Iraq, Medea and Code Pink and a whole lot of others were conducting radical left-wing street protests in SF and other cities, mobilizing public opinion the best way they could and spending every living moment raucously screaming their opposition on the streets and i joined them many many times while they did this, sometimes in dramatic fashion. She is probably playing devils advocate by posing rhetorical questions but hey ... you can misconstrue it any way you want.

s163,I listened to all of the interview you suggested - thank-you.
http://a4.g.akamai.net/7/4/27043/v0001/kalw.download.akamai.com/27043/YourCall/071508yc.mp3
Malalai Joya spoke repeatedly of the need for security. My concern is that Americans listening to this might think, "We have to send troops to provide security" (even though she also said that Afghans won't accept foreign troops). I don't have the means at the moment to pose my question directly to Malalai Joya, but I wonder who she would like to have provide security for the people of Afghanistan, and how.

riddimboy,

I have respect for Medea, especially since she turned against the dems and began advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Do you agree with her when she opposes ending the occupation of Afghanistan?

"She is probably playing devils advocate by posing rhetorical questions but hey … you can misconstrue it any way you want."

How am I misconstruing this statement?

""It's time for the peace movement to come up with a position on Afghanistan. We know that war is not the answer, but what is? It's not enough to simply say "Troops out now."

zzz

I happen to agree with Gyptian's analysis above ... he/she seems to have a lot of good points in dealing with this situation. 'Troops out now' alone will not solve the problems. We did create all these problems and we dont just walk away. Maybe our troops along with a host of other troops from other countries can help stem the Taliban onslaught. Im no expert on the matter ...

You referred to the impossibility of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan--after all Russia had three times the troops there and a large Afghan army and yet-after 9 years and 15,000 killed the Russians were defeated. So here we and Nato are almost in the same situation--fruitless war. Neither we nor the Taliban can be defeated. So stalemated war is not the answer

Suggestion-troops out-humanitarian and economic aid

Malalai Joya spoke repeatedly of the need for security....I wonder who she would like to have provide security for the people of Afghanistan, and how.

Malalai Joya and Roya Aziz, the two Afghan women were adamant that Afghanistan didn't need more "one-dimensional" i.e. "military" solutions imposed at pain of death by high-tech weapons systems.

Afghanistan has only enjoyed peace under one formula which was hit upon by the founder of Afghanistan:

Ahmad Shah was clearly the creator of the nation of Afghanistan...he was clever in exploiting his good fortune, and he showed exemplary intelligence in dealing with his own people. Having started his rule as merely the paramount chief of the Durrani, Ahmad Shah never sought to rule the Pashtuns by force. He reigned in consultation with a council of eight or nine sirdars (or sardars), the most powerful Durrani Pashtuns, each of whom was responsible for his own group. He sought the advice of his council on all major issues. Although he favored the Durrani, and especially his own lineage, the Sadozai, he was conciliatory to the other Pashtun chiefs as well.

Any outside power that tried to bend the Afghans to its will without following some variant of above formula has only dug itself, and the people of Afghanistan, into a deeper hole. The trouble is the outside power can, and one day will, walk away, leaving the people of Afghanistan holding the wreckage. Unless, the internal arrangement of the various ethnic and religious groups isn't stable--even if it's not to the liking of, say, ACLU activists based in Manhattan--peace and security will remain a wistful longing in Afghanistan.

This was also emphasized by an Afghan-American professor interviewed by PBS:

...the government in Kabul needs to reflect the values of the people of Afghanistan, particularly those who are supporting the Taliban or who are at least allowing them to operate from the areas.

And Afghanistan's population, particularly the Pashtun belt, has changed considerably in the last 30 years. They have become far more Islamically conscious and more practicing and more caring about Islam[ic] practices.

I agree with Earthian's proposals for Afghanistan policy which imply that we first reverse US imperialism and put the USA to work promoting international law, justice and solidarity.

US-based capitalism, imperialism, militarism, and zionism are all intimately connected, and together spark or fuel the great majority of geo-political problems on this planet.

If Americans had upheld their civic responsibility, read the alternative press, connected with their own self-interests, and voted third parties in 2002/2004/2006, this would have stopped the imperial steamroller dead in its tracks.

We need a progressive revolution here in the USA which then prevents the problems so we don't have to spend time hunting for solutions.

rt "We need a progressive revolution here in the USA which then prevents the problems so we don't have to spend time hunting for solutions."

All this is very well and i agree its needed but the problems in Afghanistan are more immediate and need urgent resolution before it implodes-explodes. By the time we formulate a progressive revolution most of Afghanistan will come under the sway of the Taliban and once they are deeply entrenched it would be living hell for the people of Afghanistan.

riddimboy
"I happen to agree with Gyptian's analysis above … he/she seems to have a lot of good points in dealing with this situation. 'Troops out now' alone will not solve the problems. We did create all these problems and we dont just walk away"

I went back and read Gyptian's post - I agree too - but I think you haven't read the post carefully enough. Did you miss this part?

"- Remove ALL U.S. and NATO troops."

Pretty unequivocal, right?

In any case, from your last point about how we created this mess so we can't leave, I can only discern that you must say the same thing about Iraq. If not, then why? What's the difference?

I don't follow the logic of putting the invaders in charge of fixing the country they have invaded. That is classic imperialism. Where is the accountability in keeping US forces and NATO forces in Afghanistan? What will our combat forces be used for? Handing out candy or killing more Afghans?

If we invade Iran and destroy the country, would that give us the right to occupy it, simply because we might claim to be (wink, wink) rebuilding the country and reforming their backwards culture?

The "you break you bought it" rule ignores that not-so-tricky issue of sovereignty. These countries weren't for sale. We had no right to break them. We have no right to buy them.

riddimboy,
One more thing, since "walking away" applies to withdrawing the troops, I sure am glad we "walked away" from Vietnam. Much too late though.

The type of "walking away" that I can't stomach, is that we never paid them reparations for the genocide we committed on their soil. So if you support pulling out the troops now, while sending massive humanitarian aid to Afghanistan through third parties (like Doctors Without Borders, Unicef, and Amnesty International etc...) then we can agree.

Read "Three Cups of Tea" Mortenson

Medea is aware.

Bring home all our troops from every country on Earth right away. Focus on energy and transportation conversion here at home. Let Afghanistan alone.

The occupation is by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The name alone shouts that they don't belong in south central Asia, a 12 hour flight in a 747 from the North Atlantic.

The United Nations, properly supported, can adequately organize the humanitarian efforts needed to help the Afghan people.

I don't accept the offical story of 9/11. But even if it were true, how much training do you have to have to use a box cutter to threaten a flight crew?

Medea should know better than to fall for the fear tactics of the ruling class who want our army in Afghanistan to defend and protect an oil pipeline designed to bring oil through the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan from the Caspian Basin to the Arabian Sea.

Which is an idiotic idea for many reasons, one of which is that we have sent so much cash to China that they will be able to out bid U.S. consumers for the fuel anyway, so it won't matter if it comes direct to China via the pipeline being built through Iran or the U.S. UNOCAL pipeline through the Pashtun areas. The only difference will be that Halliburton will be able to profit from constructing the UNOCAL pipeline, but will be shut out of the Chinese/Iranian alternative.

"So if you support pulling out the troops now, while sending massive humanitarian aid to Afghanistan through third parties (like Doctors Without Borders, Unicef, and Amnesty International etc…) then we can agree."

Once again .. i agree with gyptian's post above. Sending Doctors without Borders is not a political solution (its a humanitarian one) and the doctors will be slaughtered in a week if the Taliban is in power. I do believe WE the U.S. created the problem and even at the expense of American deaths we need to fix the problem in Afghanistan.

riddimboy,

I asked you a couple of questions, you didn't respond to any of them. Perhaps it was confusing which were rhetorical and which weren't. Maybe you didn't feeling like answering. Maybe you have no answers.

Let's get this straight, for a second time you have stated that you agree with gyptian's post, but that includes:

- Remove ALL U.S. and NATO troops.

So, again, do you agree with that?

You assert that
"Sending Doctors without Borders is not a political solution (its a humanitarian one) and the doctors will be slaughtered in a week if the Taliban is in power."

Yet, you appear to be completely ignorant of the fact that Doctors without Borders started working in Afghanistan in 1979, continued through 1996-2001 under the Taliban, then had to suspend operations due to the US invasion, and finally with the killing of five MSF aid workers in June 2004, they withdrew from the country after 24 years, citing security concerns.

Anyhow, with Karzai (Mr. Unocal) in power you already have your so-called political solution. What you are actually suggesting is that we support the initial policy of regime change against the Taliban, and continue fighting a civil war in order to keep our man Karzai in power. Frankly, I prefer my humanitarian solution to your political one.

Medea claims it isn't enough to say, "Out now!" She must love Obama more than she loves peace and justice. It's all there is to say.

Medea,
"It's time for the peace movement to come up with a position on Afghanistan"

Ok, let's come up with a position. To do that- let's define what this Afghan war is about.

Let's suppose for a moment that the reason the presidential candidates refuse to clearly define their motives on afghanistan is perhaps because their motives are unlikeable, unsellable, old, and worn out- and if spoken would create such a strategic backlash... they know they best keep those real motives quiet.

Suppose that the Cold War never ended. Or if it did end... soon enough some rich families got nostalgic about all the military industrial money they use to play with... and decided that the good old Cold War was so great for business they just couldn't let a good thing go to waste.

Remembering that the Cold War was fought in proxy countries... countries located strategically close to the super powers' interests.

Wondering "why to invade Afghanistan when the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?" That's a strange way to defend.

Wondering why entire army divisions instead of special ops bounty hunters are needed to get Bin Laden.

Makes you sorta want to pull out a map and see what else could be of strategic interest in Afghanistan, a country of sand. Oh, you say. Russia and China border Afghanistan. How curious. The neocons must have the communists furious.

What a perfect picnic setting for our missile defense wedding. Right in the commies backyard boys... can you believe it! Cuban missile crisis reverse engineering.

And while we're there... we'll tap the energy crude kegger... that was destined to pump China full of black Iranian Yeager.

Killing 3 birds with one conservative stone. Cold War Part II has begun. Mission accomplished boys... we've got the communists... I mean Taliban on the run.

Do you think a gaggle of radical repugs could manage to delude themselves into this twisted "I love Cold War" logic?

I do.

Do you believe them when they say their just looking for terrorists under the bed?

I don't.

Do you have repug boogiemen in your head?

...Coachroches scatter when you turn on the light...

I think the peace movement needs to demand talks with Russia and China... not the Taliban. And we need to demand an end to the Cold War.. which is only getting hotter in strange places like Afghanistan.

THANK YOU for bringing this up!
I have been wondering why the peace orgs and Left have been silent on this.
In fact...everyone is silent on Afghanistan.

...I have been so upset with Obama's remark about increasing troops in Afghanistan and staying there until there is victory....it seems that the accepted mainstream way of thinking is that Afghanistan is the "right" war and once again media and politicians are not questioning US involvement...or Obama's Bushlike solutions.

There is a great article ( whenever I include the url my comment is not posted) I have been passing on in the TIME mag..It makes an excellent argument for NOT sending military to Afganistan.
Thursday, Jul. 17, 2008
How to Save Afghanistan
By RORY STEWART / KABUL

We MUST educate people about the ROOTS of the TALIBAN in order to make dialogue with the Taliban palitable to the American public.

We MUST go back to the Cold War, to the 1970's, to the initial funding and INCUBATING of muslim extremist schools in East Asia, in what Kissenger called at the time, the "SOFT UNDERBELLY' of the Soviet Union. We purposely helped create muslim extremists so they would tear at that "soft underbelly"...now we are paying the price because we cannot control the extremists...(so similar to having helped create the Miami-Cuban extremists in the US, for example...)

We should have a "Truth and Reconciliation" forum about this era.

This forum should look as official as possible, and have Russian, American, Afgan, Pakistani participants, as high level/legitimate as possible to discuss the perspectives of their countries at the time, the fears and ambitions that were in play, etc...

We should contact JIMMY CARTER to see if he can make any public comment on this, if he has any regrets, rethinkings of HIS role in the purposeful build-up of religious extremism in East Asia. As such a man of peace, if he can see the BLOWBACK to what he was a part of in the late 1970's....

These steps are necessary in order to make dialogue with the Taliban palitable to the American public.

zzz

Dont put words in my mouth. Doctors Without Borders is not going to solve the problem in Afghanistan. Are you naive enough to believe sending in UNICEF or Amnesty is going to solve the problems in Afghanistan ?

Yes I believe ALL US and NATO troops should butt out of there but i dont believe we should wash our hands off. We need to firstly have a genuine desire to solve the problems faced by Afghanistan. Like Gyptian said above we need to involve the neighbouring countries, we need to stop our funding of the Pakistani military and we need to ensure the Pushtuns get a say in the government. Also are you actually reading gyptians post: "The Afghanistan government should look beyond the puppet Karzai.". Ofcourse ... as long as your 'question' is answered out of context youve 'won' the argument and off you go ... how old ARE you again ??