Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama to Send 17,000 More Troops to Afghanistan
The increase would come on top of 36,000 American troops already there, making for an increase of nearly 50 percent. In issuing the order, Mr. Obama is choosing a middle ground, addressing urgent requests from commanders who have been pressing for reinforcements while postponing a more difficult judgment on a much larger increase in personnel that the commanders have been seeking.
![[In a Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008 file photo, Afghans are seen over the graves of family members allegedly killed on August 22, 2008 during a US led raid in Azizabad village of Shindand district of Herat province west of Kabul, Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Fraidoon Pooyaa)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/afghan_civilian_casualties.jpg "afghan_civilian_casualties.jpg")
In a written statement issued by the White House on Tuesday evening, Mr. Obama said that deteriorating security in Afghanistan demands "urgent attention and swift action" to address a problem that has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires."
White House officials said that 8,000 Marines from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will deploy in the next few weeks, aiming to be on the ground in Afghanistan by late spring, while an Army brigade from Fort Lewis, Wash., composed of 4,000 soldiers, will deploy in the summer.
An additional 5,000 Army support troops and so-called "enablers" will also be deploying in the summer, administration officials said, which will bring the number of troops deployed as part of this presidential order to 17,000. The decision does carries some political risks for Mr. Obama, whose election was interpreted by many Americans as a mandate to bring troops home from Iraq. But Mr. Obama has now announced additional American troops are headed to Afghanistan before he has withdrawn any troops from Iraq.
But White House officials said both of the units being sent to Afghanistan were originally supposed to be going to Iraq.
"We have the ability to do this because we will be drawing down in Iraq," a senior White House official said.
Mr. Obama is under pressure from his military commanders in Afghanistan, who have been pressing for reinforcements of about 30,000 soldiers, almost twice as many as the president has so far decided to send. The commanders hope to have additional forces in place by late spring or early summer as part to help counter growing violence and chaos in the country, particularly in advance of the upcoming presidential elections, which are expected to take place in August.
Mr. Obama will still have to make a decision on the additional troops that are part of Gen. David D. McKiernan's standing request. Defense officials say that Mr. Obama cannot satisfy the full request from Gen. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, without withdrawing a substantial number of forces from Iraq.
Richard Holbrooke, Mr. Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who is on his way home from his first trip to the region, is helping to conduct the administration's review of policy in Afghanistan. Administration officials say the review needs to be completed before Mr. Obama makes his first overseas trip as president, when he attends the NATO summit in France and Germany in April.
Mr. Obama is expected to press America's European allies at the summit for additional troops for Afghanistan, along with more development help.
121 Comments so far
Show AllWhy?
Here's your answer: Mr. Obama said that deteriorating security in Afghanistan demands "urgent attention and swift action" to address a problem that has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires."
The usual smoke. Do they really think 17,000 troops from Camp Jejune can fathom and control the actions of the Afghans?
What in the world could be the real reason?
Joe
This is a thoroughly stupid move by Obama. Names like 'The Taliban' are no longer relevant. They were fine when in government and doing oil deals. The Afghan resistance will become fierce and many more civilians will be slaughtered. The more this happens the worse things will become for Occupying Forces. The country is already destroyed. Pakistan will become involved and probably endure a civil war. Afghans are Muslims in a devastated war torn environment that Americans ingited to 'draw in the Russian bear'. Anybody who supported 'The Afghan people' would never condone this Occupation. This is military might in the Corporate cause to control and secure resources. It is an extension of Empire. It will end in untold unnecessary suffering for Afghanistan and her neighbours. It is the last straw in an already disasterous invasion of that land. Coffins a plenty. Shame on the USA and its NATO allies.
The Soviet Union was bled nearly to death in Afghanistan. Could the same happen to the United States? It at least looks like the States' professional soldiers and mercenaries are gonna suffer a good deal over there. They might even regret they ever ventured into that unforgiving (to invaders and occupiers) and proud land.
Omama - Change - What Change?
How did a group of 4 or 5 posts revolving around the issue of 911 being the crux of the our situation today suddenly disappear? It's not the first time for something like this.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Joe
If we were to withdraw from Afghanistan, the new elected government would be overthrown. The Taliban would invade from Pakistan and take over. They would most likely engage in the same brutal treatment of the people as they engaged in previously. Afghanistan would then be a safe haven if not training camp for terrorists.
I heard someone talking about this recently and citing the "insurgents" in Afghanistan as if that country was like Iraq. It is an entirely different situation. The Taliban have Afghan supporters. However, it is primarily a Pakistani group and this needs to be understood for what it essentially is, an invasion. The Taliban were never elected by the Afghan people. They overthrew an elected government previously and are set to do this again.
Intensive world pressure needs to be brought to bear on the real issue of that region, Pakistan. The government says it is cracking down on terrorists, but their efforts have never been enough for significant gains. They seem to be doing the minimum, just enough to keep getting billions of dollars of US aid. And that is a "bail out" I do not support.
I thank you for your contribution. It contains, however, factual errors regarding both the origin of the Taliban and their presence in Pakistan, to which nation they were driven by our initial invasion of their own nation,Afghanistan. The founder of that group is a native Afghan, born in the southern region of that beleagured country and it was and remains a solely Afghan oriented group.
http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a.htm
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Somewhere I heard that at this point, Afghanistan is being fueled by muslim fighter volunteers from all over the region. Men from all countries are coming to take shots at our MIC. It seems our interventionist plans never work out so well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
It is primarily a Pushtun group, made up initially of orphaned Pushtun schooled in Saudi-funded madrassas, who learned a form of Islam alien to that of Pushtuns. Its early members also included persons from Pak groups not indigenous to Afghanistan. The core Taliban were not driven to Pakistan by the US initial invasion, but by the Soviet invasion and the post-Soviet mujaheddin civil wars. The previous poster is far closer to the objective reality than the poster correcting that poster.
Are there not in fact two taliban groups, answering to differing leaders? Does not the one referred to (in Afghanistan) operate independent of the one in Pakistan? From the link:
For their leader in Afghanistan, the Taliban turned to Mohammed Omar, an itinerant preacher likely born in 1959 in Nodeh village near Kandahar, in southeastern Afghanistan. He had neither tribe nor religious pedigree. He had fought the Soviets and been wounded four times, including once in the eye. His reputation was that of a pious ascetic.
Is not the one in Pakistan led by the fellow who took credit for the assassination of Benezhir Bhutto?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Ahuh. Afghanistan is different is it? And Karzai is what? A former Unocal (oil company) operative. Sounds familiar.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
And this differs from U. S. terrorism how?
Obama goes looking for Osama.
Into the fields of the hypnotic poppy blindly march the noble Obamaian warriors. Brave soldiers saving the homeland from,,,,ah,,,, from,,,,,,,,,well hell just keep singing everyone,
"I'm stuck like a dope with a thing called "hope" and I can't get it out of my mind."
The Wild Card in this is the ISI.
They have used Jihadists since the mid-90's, The Taliban, to control Afghanistan (and prevent Indian influence-infiltration.)
Lashkar-e-Taiba is an ISI creation and did Mumbai.
Who controls the ISI? What are their stated and actual goals and aims?
To see all of Pakistan under Sha'ria?
A powerful wild-card that seems to favor Islamic extremism.
If the ISI did Mumbai, sponsored the Taliban, and SWAT has just implemented a strict interpretation of the Koran.....I'd say elements within the ISI are rocking Pakistan/Afghanistan. And more soon.
Joseph.
Here's something I wrote on September 30, 2007:
"The total land area of Afghanistan equals the combined size of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. In 2000, Afghanistan's production of the global opium/heroin supply was 70 percent. In 2005, it was 87 percent; in 2006, 92 percent.
This steady increase in annual poppy harvests has occurred despite U.S. military and coalition forces occupying the country since 2001. In reality, this increase can be seen as a direct result of coalition forces overseeing the distribution routes for this very lucrative crop.
The largest rise in poppy production has occurred in the southern Afghan province of Helmand. About the size of Klamath, Lake and Harney counties (in Oregon) combined, more than half of Afghanistan's poppies were grown here on 392 square miles of land in 2007.
For the past few years, between 4,000 and 7,000 British soldiers have been stationed in Helmand Province in an official effort to eradicate the poppies, but they obviously have had the opposite effect."
So now what?
These additional troops are being sent in to (1) protect poppy growth, (2) eradicate the poppies, or (3) help in the removal and relocation of poppies to other worldwide locations.
I'm going with #3
...and then there is this:
"Despite continuing internal strife and instability throughout Afghanistan, not to mention almost inconceivable poverty and chaos in the areas for which it is planned, the (pipeline) project became the transitional Afghan government's top priority.
On May 30, 2002, the BBC reported, 'Pakistani President Musharraf, interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and Turkmen President Niyazov agreed on the construction of a two-billion dollar pipeline to bring gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. Officials in Islamabad said the 950-mile pipeline would take natural gas from the huge Daulatabad-Donmez fields in Turkmenistan to the southwestern Pakistani port of Gawadar...'
If pragmatism triumphs over ideology, it seems likely that the oil companies involved, reported by the new Afghan government to be led again by the California-based Unocal Corporation will eventually reconsider their decision to bypass the shorter, cheaper and infinitely more workable Iranian proposal."
Please note - "the shorter, cheaper and infinitely more workable Iranian proposal" - should give us thoughts to ponder.
Read the Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan by Ted Rall - 2002.
Obama Do CHANGE!!!!yes!!he can!!!
http://sharilblog.blog.fonwar.com/
pragmatice, let me give you a bit of brevity. to become better informed. go read crossing the rubicon. if you can bear to. it's six hundred pages of brevity that i'm sure you already know all about.
Enigmatic Liberal, you're still buying the going after the Taliban-Going after Obama stuff, are you? Wow!
Yes, until I hear or read an alternative that passes critical reflection. Sorry, but I require more than just left or right dogma, and eccentric rants whose pitch establishes their truth.
PragmaticLiberal, listen up then. Don't buy the terrorist scapegoat talking point hook line and sinker. Can't you see any bigger issues at stake? Like the neocon desire to put the stranglehold on old and new Cold War foes once and for all? Afghanistan is just a centrally located, geo strategic piece of land. The 911 hijackers by far hailed from Bush's beloved Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is home to cave fighters. But China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan... now there's some serious firepower that gets the neocon's panties in a bunch. War by proxy is their same old same old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
Accepting your argument would mean to think that the neocons acted against that interest by removing resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Not much of a stranglehold attempt by them. But I guess they knew that the next president would return to their unfinished but,as described by you, so critical objectives.
In short, not very convincing (I am being very charitable now). It also is not anything already considered and rejected. Your explanation simply fails to explain why twice in two decades the US reduced its attention in Afghanistan significantly. Such withdraws mock your bigger issues frame.
Finally, big difference between neocons and liberal internationalists like Obama and Clinton. But for many here, none exist as both are not isolationists or pacifists.
Could you please explain the "big difference" between neocons and liberal internationists such as Obama and Clinton?
The aggressive, preemptive, unilateral use of military force v. greater attention to and first reliance on diplomacy and nonmilitary action, use of international and multilateral institutions, even helping to build them. The difference in personality--George W. Bush v. Bill Clinton; Irving Kristol v. George C. Marshall.
So, you prefer the "personalities" of the neolibs--my lord, who wouldn't. Put a smiley-face on this.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/02/2933
Obama looks to be a real sweetie, too. These people with the sparkling personalities are really not that much different from their neocon frat brothers. Supposedly, they do opt for the "softer kill" approach, although both neocons and neolibs are "neototalitarians". Both are globalist, New World Order functionaries.
I commend your Peace Corps sentiments and wanting to help people, but please don't get that confused with banging the drums for the bloody Empire.
I am not, nor will be, confused about the two. Until I see far more and convincing evidence regarding Afghanistan as US empire building, I will see it as a just cause (all war is not unjust, except to a Pacifist, which I am not)that is now being modified by international liberals (not neoliberals) to make the means both more just and more effective. Community control/freedom for all Afghan groups and development require security from al-Qaeda and Taliban (a violent extension of historical Pushtun colonialism). I believe the Obama administration understands this, as the Bush Administration didn't. No, it is much more than personality differences. Sorry you wish to remain oblivious to the evident distinctions.
You overlooked a response to the link concerning Clinton ("good personality") and his conduct relating to Iraq. Can you give me a clearer idea about who some of the "internationalist liberals" are (again, those with good personalities), as contrasted to those you would classify as "neoliberals". I think any of your "internationalist liberal" folk who exploit the phony "war on terror" would find themselves fairly comfy in the neolib groupings. (especially if they are at the same time facilitating the criminally orchestrated "Economic 911")
I already have described the philosophical/strategy major difference. For some reason you chose to not read that sentence, while only reading the sentence that followed it. Talk about selective perception!
I agree with you the term "war on terror" is ridiculous (how do you have war on a tactic). I wish Obama would drop the term and deal with the concrete War on al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Your belief that no difference exists between neocons and internationalist liberals is not shared by those two groups (but, I guess, to you they are just carrying on a faux quarrel to detract us from their sameness--clever devils that they are).
What I'm saying is that the MIC is envisioning a multilayered missile defense strategy. I think they want to fly a few of these 747 Airborne Laser missile defense planes out of Bagram Air Force Base, in Afghan airspace next door to China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan. The name of the game is to shoot down the enemies WMD missile during the boost phase... while it's still over the enemies territory, leaving only them to suffer the consequences.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32123.pdf
Quoting directly from the Congressional Research Service, "Airborne Laser (ABL): Issues for Congress" document published July 9th, 2007;
"System Overview
It is envisioned that the ABL would use a high-power chemical laser mounted
in the aft section of a modified Boeing 747 aircraft10 to destroy or disable all classes
of ballistic missiles during the initial portion or first several minutes of their flight
trajectory (from shortly after launch and before they leave the earth’s atmosphere).
Analysts indicate that during this period (up to several minutes) the missile is at its
most vulnerable stage — it is slower relative to the rest of its flight, it is easier to
track because the missile is burning its fuel and thus has a very strong thermal
signature, and it is a much larger target because any warhead has not yet separated
from the missile itself. Analysts also point out the advantages of destroying the
missile before any warhead, decoys, or submunitions are deployed, and potentially
over the enemy’s own territory."
"It is envisioned that a fleet of some number of ABL aircraft would be positioned
safely in theater then flown closer to enemy airspace as local air superiority is
attained."
"While based at some yet-to-be determined U.S. base, ABLs will likely deploy to forward operating locations such as Guam, Diego Garcia, RAF Fairford England, and Elmendorf AFB Alaska during crises. Although these bases are likely closer to tomorrow’s hot spots than the continental United States, they are still hours of flying time away from the Persian Gulf, the Korean Peninsula, and Central Asia."
"Some observers have questioned how the ABL would be employed to counter
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The consensus is that Russia and China
currently field ICBMs that could plausibly threaten the United States; there is no such
consensus on the future ability of North Korea or other so-called “rogue states” to
field such missiles. (Some believe that such capabilities will emerge in the distant
future, if ever. Others see the proliferation of such missiles as inevitable, and that it
could occur sooner rather than later.) Current estimates suggest that the ABL’s 400
km range (about 250 miles) is too short to stand outside Russian or Chinese airspace
and still engage those countries’ ICBMs in boost phase. Would the ABL fly into
these countries’ airspace during crisis to address potential ICBM launches in boost
phase? Or would the ABL’s laser need to be more powerful? Or will some alternative
be deployed to supplement or replace the ABL for these scenarios?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
mr. obama, you are on the fast track to being, in addition to the first black president, the only black president in the history of these hysterical united states. if it's opium poppy seeds you're after, just give me a call. i'll give you a fix. and what can i say to those who buy into the mic's propoganda and then enlist to support the cause, only to expect sympathy and condolences if and when they return home from the formerly rich white man's war?
ddg716, and the people who voted for him better start making some noise.
pragmatic liberal, you did, in your rather brief synopsis of the situation, fail to mention the word oil. or pipeline. since you are so well informed on the situation, tell us a bit about that.
I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for Ron Paul. Can't you read?
Afghanistan has some natural gas, but doubt if it is too exportable, given the circumstances of the country, the residents, and the topography. Of course, there were negotiations regarding a pipeline through parts of Afghanistan. Of course, why would you assume this alternative of several and available through negotiations with any government in Afghanistan is a mystery to me, except it follows well the establish frame of corporate imperialism which is so compelling to some. (I in fact am a sucker for it, when I lack concrete facts about a situation- a default position, I guess). But 9/11 happened and it orginated in Afghan safe havens provided by the Taliban for al-Qaeda. No nation can be expected to ignore that reality, even when it has well meaning persons who attempt to frame every use of military force to previous uses of military forces and the greed of multinational corporations.
I am not sure why you question my brevity of position statement, when yours is considerably briefer.
What are your "concrete facts" of 911 originating in Afghan safe havens?? And do they come from the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Dept., Thomas Barnett, Charlie Rose, Thomas Friedman, or whom. For sure, the FBI, in over seven years has not been able to substantiate any of those "facts".
Look at the map of the region. Afghanistan is pipeline for moving petrol (mostly gas) products out of the Caspian Sea.
Remember when Ralph Nader wondered whether Obama would behave like an "Uncle Tom". I guess we have our answer.
17,000 more soldiers sent into a war zone. Every single death or casualty can be blamed completely on Obama. He made the decision. He is responsible for the consequences. It didn't take long for him to join the long list of presidents who are war criminals. Change? I don't think so!
I do not know whether Common Dreams saves earlier contributions. During much of 2008 I wrote under the pseudonym "Poopdeck" that Senator Obama is a full-blown imperialist who would start his own wars. He now has done so in the worst environment imaginable short of the arctic or antarctic.
I am therefore not shocked. I will not be shocked either if some sort of attack will happen on Iran. Perhaps some blockade first. Mr. Obama once told the Chicago Tribune that our country might eventually have to take "sanitary actions" against Iran and "everything has always remained on the table" which obviously includes carpet bombing. He never explained what "sanitary" meant but what do you expect from a bag of hot air? He is sure that the Iranians are trying to build a nuclear bomb. Vice President Biden, a hawk on Iran, has started the propaganda war against Iran already. Hillary Clinton will soon join the fray.
Be not surprised if we remain in Iraq, if we attack Iran, and battle it out in Afghanistan for years to come. We are a nation of "wars" and "Czars". Old Russia has morphed into us.
President Obama vows that he will deny "training camps" for El Qaida in Afghanistan. He is kicking sand into our eyes because the 9/11 gang learned to fly the big planes right here in the USA!
In addition to be another "imperial presidency" Mr. Obama's administration is rapidly becoming a "propaganda presidency' with Barak as Secretary of its Department of Propaganda. One propaganda trip every week! Fall for it at your own risk!
Of course there will be more than 17,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. Obama has not the foggiest idea of how much are really needed and for what aim. In his life he has been miles away from anything military. He is a total ignoramus when it comes to warfare. The "commanders on the ground" know that and will keep calling for more. They will get more.
Just listen to our elected propagandist-in-chief. Afghanistan is on the verge of becoming 100% Talibanese. It is now or never. We cannot wait another day. It is urgent! These guys are boarding their junks in Karachi to attack Hawaii and California! They are smuggled into the USA in shipping containers!
Alan MacDonald
Imagine the PR opportunities on this one day for Obama.
In the same day that Obama signs the biggest spending bill in US history to supposedly revive the corporate empire's economy, he also signs the orders for more US imperial soldiers to fight (and die) in the corporate oil-territories.
If Obama's press advisers had been alert to the opportunities they could have reprised both of George W. Bush's two biggest PR coups in the same day by hanging a huge banner in Denver saying "Mission Accomplished", and having Obama himself smirk "Bring 'em on" as he signed the war act.
I Think alot of us are sorry we voted for Obama but in my own case i was voteing against Mcain .I thought about voteing for Nader or not voteing at all.The non voter is the majority i mean after all the same corporations give money to both sides does it really matter the rich minority makes the rules period .I think that voteing is just another myth they hand us to make us feel empowered just another kind of fraud the only way things would really change is a mass movement of change building communities that tie us together in some way we need to secure healthy food good water .until people can relate to life in some kind of real way we will continue to fail.We all continue to to sell our souls to the devil(our corporate masters).And anybody who thinks that they are going to fight it out with the government if this whole system collapes good luck there maybe a few that make it this way.But the majority will end up dead or in jail.WE have to out think them and outlast them.And obama is foolish to widen this war in afghanistan LETS GET THE HELL OUT
The Democrats who fell for the "change" shuck 'n jive of Obama, are as gullible as Republicans who believed Bush was renewing conservatism.
Welcome, one and all, to the "Progressive Wars."
zorex- you make a strong point. I personally believe the right is often masquerading as the left... to subvert, re-direct, influence, and take control of the real left. Sometimes I think the CIA/NSA itself is playing this game.
I do hold out a miniscule glimmer of hope (god they even have me using their catch phrases) that Obama, beholden as he is, will make some semi sane decisions. We shall see soon enough!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
... all the more reason to step out of the right/left paradigm. The electorate has been herded over the decades into this trap, presided over by phony right and phony left players for the corporate/military yin/yang.
This link points to much of what is already known, but I thought it was still a timely and interesting article by Wayne Madsen.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4391.shtml
Good research Mister Chips. Thanks for the link.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
Obama, welcome to the war criminals hall of shame. You sir, are a murderer, with your pretty speech and thoughtful facade. The result of your ambition are the splattered bodies of innocents simply wanting to live. Hypocrit.
Yes, this is a stimulus package. Funeral directors, coffin and artificial limb manufacturers and, of course, weapons manufacturers will benefit immensely.
The objectives of Western forces in Afghanistan are 1) to root al-Qaeda from their safe havens in Pushtunistan (Pustun areas on both sides of the Durand Line); 2) to prevent the return of Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Both objectives are justified. The first as the larger the safe haven the more capacity for organizing and training for large-scaled terror attacks, as already delivered from those safe havens and have been promised in the future. Exactly why would any government with a duty to defend its citizens allow such safe havens which have proven to be launching sites for destruction of life and property on the mainland?
Relatedly, those most responsible for 9/11, who have claimed responsibility, and who promise further destruction are still on the loose. Exactly why would any government attacked by them allow them their freedom from just retribution?
Regarding the 2nd objective, the Taliban allowed territory they controlled to be used as the safe havens mentioned above. They have not only housed al-Qaeda but have nurtured it, including cross marriages. They share also with al-Qaeda a Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. Why exactly would any government attacked from Afghanistan under the central government of Taliban allow them to return and provide succor for their fellow Wahhabists?
Further, Taliban governing was brutal, very brutal on nonPushtun and any Pushtun standing up to the Taliban. Ask the Hazaras, or the Tajiks, or the Uzbek, etc., if they wish to live again under a Taliban regime (or have that regime try to conquer their lands within Afghanistan). All of them suffered through Taliban pogroms Ask the urban women, whatever ethnic group, if they wish to go back to Taliban rule. Ask the parents who want their children to get an education and the opportunity for a less harsh life, if they wish a return to Taliban governing.
Yes, I know that US/Nato military have and will kill innocents and I believe that innocents should not be killed. Yet I, as opposed to some here, am aware that al-qaeda have and will kill many more nonPushtuns and noncooperating Pushtuns. I also know, as opposed to some here, that both al-Qaeda and Taliban, the Wahhabist connection, is also foreign to Afghanistan, so this is less like being in a civil war as it is protecting a people against an unwanted invasion of foreign influences ( funny, that argument can work both ways, isn't it?). Al-Qaeda is obviously a foreign presence. True Taliban are an arm of sectors of Pak intelligence comprised of unacculturated Pushtuns ( raised in orphanages as Wahhabist and not Pushtuns) and often even Punjabi and other nonPushtun Pak groups.
It is important to judge existing (and promised) practices and status quo with high-order ideals; but it is important to get the practices and status quo correct. Many of the critics of Obama's Afghan policy have a one-sided frame of the reality, while decrying the one sidedness of those opposing them. It is important to understand that equally high-ordered ideals can be held by the other side. Although I recognize to do so eliminates the use of the easily attacked strawman of political corruption and imperialism.
Obama is guided by these worthy objectives and unlike Bush he will not take his attention from them. He further knows that troops are not the answer, but a component of the answer which includes more and better diplomacy and more and better community development assistance (with the security necessary to both build projects and for Afghans to use the projects). He is doing what Bush should have done long ago. I fear that the window of opportunity to meet the objectives has been lowered, but, unlike some here, I don't believe it is shut. Maybe my bounded optimism regarding attaining the above objectives is a result from actually living in a provincial Afghan town, working with Afghans of all ethnic groups, and studied the history of the country long before 9/11 and its aftermath.
Now I'll just sit back and watch my premises and conclusion be called war mongering, murder enhancement, neo-imperialism, hateful, corporatist, imperialistic, apologist, and all the other leftovers from a previous era of antiwar protest.
Your "premises" come from "all the" leftover "war mongering, murder enhancement, neo-imperialism, hateful, corporatist, imperialistic, apologist(s)" as determined by a new generation "of antiwar protest".
You're confused. A police action is the proper response when a small group commits a crime such as mass murder. Invasion of a another state is a different matter.
Obama is just following up on Bush's original response: attack Afghanistan. You act like Obama's decision is some big break from Bush's policies, but it isn't.
Bush's initial bombing of Afghanistan killed around 3,500 Afghanis, all innocent of 9-11 planning. More Afghanis were killed than those who died in the Twin Towers. The Afghanis died because of executive blood revenge and war puffery. The invasion and occupation accomplished nothing except to put one warring faction, the Northern Alliance, in control of Kabul.
Your ability to identify tribes and spell correctly is impressive (except "Pushtun" should be "Pashtun"). However, what gives anybody the right to pick and choose which warring faction takes power in Afghanistan? And how many bodies is worth the sacrifice as you sit home safe and warm, and so self-assured? Will you pick up the gun and take on the new White Man's Burden? If not, maybe your expressed beliefs are a bit thin.
The Taliban are indigenous in Afghanistan. The Taliban government even proposed trying Osama bin Laden under Sharia law, but Bush rejected that. No one admires the Taliban, but keeping them from power is rather futile. It's like saying bombing the United States will keep the Republicans from gaining political power. This mission is quite absurd and it's doomed to failure from the start.
As for Al Queda, they have no army, navy and air force by which to attack the United States, especially from Afghanistan. Their principal source of recruits are the family members wrongly attacked by U.S. forces, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, the U.S. forces will only help to grow their forces as the body counts rise, and that will surely happen as Obama prepares to escalate militarily in the region.
As I say, there's no substitute for good police work. A few knocks on the door in Saudi Arabia, the mother county of funding for Al Queda, might be a lot more effective in solving the problem.
-TIA
They are Afghans and not Afghanis. Afghani is the currency. Afghans or Afghanis , unfortunately dont seem to have much value in the current scheme of things.
You are correct about the Afghans. It's also the plural for a kind of bedding. Along the same line, America, is not a country. It is two continents, North America and South America.
1. The Northern Alliance does not control Kabul. Karzai and much of his government are Pushtun, with window dressing at the cabinet level of other ethnic group members. One of the fears of the other groups is control by Pushtuns, whether it be the present government or Taliban.
2. Making Obama responsible for Bush's ill-considered actions is ahistorical.
3. Pushtun is a common spelling, as is what you offer. Closer to speakers of the language would be Paxtun. But you realize different dialects exist in Paxtu (Pushtu, Pashtu, etc.), right? Folks in Gardez sound different than those in Khost or Kandahar.
4. What gives anyone the right to choose who will dominate Afghan government? I would say the Afghans, but in ways that don't destroy the other groups. And I would say that the Taliban have forfeited any expectation to govern.
5. How many lives am I ready to see destroyed from my safe and comfortable room? I hope not as many as you seem willing to, or do you think that al-qaeda, Taliban, other Islam zealots, or just the pure banditry are benovolent presences in Afghanistan. So let me ask you the same regarding your preference for withdraw.
6. Sorry, but I am too old to go to war; but in my youth I at least served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Afghanistan to try in a small way to help on terms they requested. And you? Are you willing to go there now and do community development without security provisions? Do you think the kindly al-Qaeda and Taliban will let you?
7. The actual Taliban are not indigenous. They were orphaned refugees that the madrassas provided a sense of self and group, missing from their lack of close relatives. That socialization in madrassas was not Pushtunizaton, but Wahhibization. Not close to the same thing. So yes, physically they are Pushtuns, but culturally not so much. And not a few of the core Taliban have been foreigners to the Afghans, often Punjabi.
8. You really don't understand Pushtuns, if you believe for a moment that Umar would have turned in Usama and his chief lts. He would have violated the Pushtunwali's prescription regarding hospitality for those who ask it and would have lost all claim to legitimacy from Pushtun tribesmen (who affiliated with the core Taliban). also nothing is that simple or doesn't contain considerable negotiation, including getting a cab in Kabul. That was just his opening to get America not to invade, as he and others fully expected (assuming Americans understood just retribution as well as all types of Afghans).
9. The mission (capturing Usama et. al. and driving the Taliban from power) was working, if you remember, until Bush and his advisers made huge mistakes (trusting the Paks to close the backdoor of Tora Bora; believing that Tajiks would seriously invade a Pushtun area; and then, the really big one of making the U-turn to an unjust invasion of Iraq. It is pure hyperbole to say it was a failure from the start and illogical to say thus must fail now. And the mission is far from absurd--as I asked, why would any nation ever allow a hostile group who has already attacked its mainland and other places to have the same safe haven? Why would any nation allow those who hosted and nurtured such to return to power?. It is absurd to say that is absurd.
10. Yes, they have no conventional forces as you suggest; but yet they certainly did attack Us mainland, Europe, Middle East and from their safe haven command and training center.
11. The principal source of recruits for al-Qaeda is the madrassas throughout the world, sponsored and funded by wealthy Saudis and others. The chief source of recruits for the orginal Taliban were the refugue camps,largely the result of our inattention once the Soviets pulled out. You wish to have another round of thst wonderful time in Afghan history. And you think the administration and its supporters are callous regarding Afghan lives.
12. The military and administration seem quite aware of the concerns you suggest regarding innocent life taking and opposition recruitment. They will not have a perfect solution, but they seem to have better ones than ever before.
13. I certainly agree with you regarding getting tougher with the Saudis, but obviously there are limits to that, including we can't take another front for arms. Police action is a pipedream, given the scale--or let's put it this way, effective police action promoting worthwhile objectives would be hard to distinquish from military action.
14. Thanks for the civil discussion about a controversial issue.
+The Taliban made an offer to give up bin Laden to a nation that would guarantee a fair trial in accordance with Muslim law and also offered no death penalty. You slide past this offer by citing some cultural taboo on giving offense to guests. One cannot help but wonder why the offer was extended?
I really hope you live long enough to see the debacle that the policies you defend will surely bring.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
And I return the favor to you, if the US/NATO prematurely withdraw from the area before attaining the mission of rooting out al-Qaeda from its safe haven and preventing the return to Taliban government. Of course, you will then be blind to the debacle and misery caused by your preference, finding other stawmen to build and attack.
If you had any real world experience in a culture similar to Afghanistan, you would know why the "offer" was made and what would have happened to it (particularly in this case, given the cultural identification involved--that you try to mock away, again reflecting cultural ignorance). I suspect that you have never bargained for a taxi ride, a piece of meat, a movie ticket--if not, you really can't understand the bargaining arrangements and expectations in a society where such is commonplace.
Again you use my supposed "cultural ignorance" as a strawman of your own device. I can read history, I have traveled on almost every continent, and I fail to read any reference as to why you believe the Taliban's offer was not genuine.Had we taken them up on it I guess we might have found out, sadly too late for that. I presume that belief stems more from the fact that it topples your entire belief system like a house of cards.
The longer we use militarism to attempt to bend the Afghan people to our purpose the greater will be the ruin. Historical evidence is rather plain in showing this truth. You have your reasons and your motives I assume, as I assume that they are not as you have enumerated them to be.
For a man who never fails to condemn the supposed insults of others you show much contempt for the opinions of those with whom you disagree, but I would expect nothing less from one whose every effort is an attempt to sanitize and make necessary the continued slaughter of innocent people. There is an historical record that refutes at every turn your insistence that we can possibly win a military victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan for that matter. All we can do there with our current strategy is kill people and further alienate the survivors.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you murder the hater; but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King
"Man has closed himself up 'til he sees all things through the narrow chinks of his cavern." William Blake
You don't seem to realize that your alternative will mean "the continued slaughter of innocent people." Innocent people in the 1000s will die and be harmed no matter what, including if the Western militaries left tonight or after their departure. Many Afghans, particularly the nonPushtun ethnic groups, along with the secular Pushtuns, know it and know it will be from their numbers. So please, quit playing like only your alternative gives a damn about innocent Afghan lives.
I don't even know what you mean by winning a military victory. Yet you endlessly yammer about this misunderstanding of my position. One of my earlier posts even said I didn't think a military victory is possible. I am for community governance and development with security. Security must be provided because al-Qaeda and Taliban are not as benevolent as you appear to believe. This will require more boots on the ground, as Bush's invasion was meant only to militarily defeat and capture, and was done with as few troops as possible (along with using the Norther Alliance). It failed because hearts and minds must be won, but security is necessary to get to the hearts and minds. The Taliban won the earlier period because they provided security in exchange for acceptance of a harsh brand of Islam. They understood the importance of security for any project (albeit their project was the suppression of women and rooting out apostasy).
Your black/white thinking is very unproductive on this issue. It requires you to either ignore nuance unless it supports your preordained position or to mischaracterize another's position. And I have no contempt for others' opinions. I don't respect the ipse dixit tone with such great certainty taken by some.
Ventriloquism huh?
One the one hand you posture about troop increases but your puppet now claims a moral high ground unsupportable by the military presence you advocate. If people die in an Afghanistan sans our presence then it cannot be on our conscience, and further it seems to be a problem for them and perhaps the UN.
AlQaeda has had no role I am aware of in the internal politics of Afghanistan, they were guests there, guests who abused their hosts hospitality by using that safe haven to commit acts against other nations.The Taliban, once again, offered to give up bin Laden, I wonder at your silence regarding that issue, though you muttered something in passing about an insincere offer, what a crock.
At what point is the internal politics of other nations our responsibility? Afghanistan is a dirt poor little fly speck and their governance is their business. Pakistan , one the other hand, has nuclear weapons and thus is of prime importance to those concerned about those devices falling into the hands of radicals. A concerted effort by the UN would seem to be in order there.
We have an organisation called the United Nations, and that is where we should be working to resolve problems and create scenarios wherein people do not have to turn to radicals. But I guess such a solution does not push your warmongering buttons. No dead bodies over which you can gloat and claim responsibility.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"If people die in an Afghanistan sans our presence then it cannot be on our conscience, and further it seems to be a problem for them and perhaps the UN."
The "if" is just as certain as your "if" related to not withdrawing. No "if," innocent lives in Afghanistan and the West will be lost as a consequence of your preference. Live with it. Wait, you reject the responsibility of that lost by saying deaths after our withdraw won't be on our consequence. Sorry, the invasion and occupation occurred and Afghans took sides, many throwing off the oppressive yoke of Taliban government. Why did they do that? Not because they have some great love of foreigners, but because they used the foreigners to rid themselves of Taliban oppression. No responsibility for them? Absolutely laughable, if it were not so immoral.
"AlQaeda has had no role I am aware of in the internal politics of Afghanistan, they were guests there, guests who abused their hosts hospitality by using that safe haven to commit acts against other nations."
Good you put in your awareness there and the claim is false. AlQaeda were part of the Taliban Defense Sector; relatedly it had a role in Taliban's internal colonialization of nonPushtun tribal regions. It also kept order in some Pushtun areas for Taliban.
"The Taliban, once again, offered to give up bin Laden, I wonder at your silence regarding that issue, though you muttered something in passing about an insincere offer, what a crock.
The crock is your willingness to comment without a modicum of knowledge of Pushtun culture. Besides my own knowledge of Pushtun culture, let me differ to an expert, Abdulkadaer H. Sinno, from ORGANIZATIONS AT WAR IN AFHGHANISTAN AND BEYOND:
"There is no stronger evidence of the importance the Taliban gave to the preservation of Pushtunwali norms than their willingness to shelter Osama bin Lauden until the bitter end, the way a good Pushtun is expected to do for his guest. As one Taliban leader candidly acknowledged, Taliban leaders would have lost the respect of their followers and consequently endangered the organization's cohesion if they had given up bin Laden" (244).
In brief, once again you wish away (and insult other who won't) objective reality.
No need to go further rebuking the fallacies and errors of your post. Like I have said I have opposed every use of military on foreign soil in my lifetime with the exception of Kosovo and Bosnia. So I just laugh at your ill-conceived charges at my person and just take it as the flailings of someone who can not defend his position on facts and logic.
I will not "further" insult you for this very poor effort, so I will "insult"you by simply turning my back upon you. That defense of ignoring a seemingly legitimate offer by The Taliban to turn over bin Laden is the last straw for me. You wrap yourself in the mantle of scholar but underneath is a military uniform.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Tell it to the dead. I'm sure they'll find your arguments compelling.
Do you also want to kill the Christian zealots in the United States? How about killing Mexican immigrants? I'm just trying to follow your Peace Core logic to its end and see if we can apply it here.
Despite what you say, Obama is continuing Bush's policy, the global war on terrorism. I think most everyone else here gets that. Most everyone also sees that the great turmoil in Afghanistan has stemmed from the invasion of foreign powers. And they've never invaded to sort out proper ethnic groupings.
-TIA
I am no more in favor of dead innocents than you are. You seem to believe that your demand to withdraw immediately will not have dead innocents as a consequence. How many are you willing to accept in your drive to Purity?
Reducing to the absurd is not a bad tactic in a discussion, but it needs to be applied with considerably more art than you do here. What have I said that even remotely implies a willingness to kill US Christian zealots or Mexican immigrants? Are you just throwing thoughts at random?
What is your proof of your assertion of continuing the Bush POLICY? The Bush policy was to invade Afghanistan on the cheap and then remove necessary resources before attaining the original objectives (root out Al-Qaeda from their safe haven and remove the Taliban from present and future control of the central government). Obama is doing the reverse--withdrawing military frontliner from Iraq and reinforcing the force in Afghanistan, while the military is emphasizing considerable more counterinsurgency tactics and community development. Change you want? No, but still change (and I think improvement).
The great turmoil in Afghanistan began with an internal revolution, a misguided indigenous attempt to forcefully created a People's Republic that included state sponsored atheism, the Soviets' and indigenous branch of the Afghan Communist Party's fear of going too fast and too forceful, attack of Soviets to remove faction going too fast and too forcefully, US arming of indigenous resisters to the Soviets with Pakistan as conduit, defeat of Soviets, gradual downfall of last Communist government which really was nationalist more than communist; US indifferent once Communism ended and civil war among mujahhadin factions, mixed with ethnic and tribal factors; rise of Taliban to put things in order; al-Qaeda attacks US; US and other nations respond by driving Taliban out of capital and nearly rooting out al-Qaeda in Pushtun areas; US backs off and Uturns resources to Iraq; Taliban regroup, al-qaeda still functioning; Obama promises if elected to get back to original mission and to include more regional diplomacy and community development; Obama as president increase US military presence, as he pledged in campaign; Pacifist/Isolationist/anti-Establishment hurl tried and true chestnuts at him on websites. So no, the great turmoil in Afghanistan stems from much more than invasions of foreign powers. And we are not even talking about the tradional and endemic poverty, illiteracy, and lack of integration, among other contributors to the great turmoil.
Yes, " most everyone else here gets" it? But what they get is the echoes of stereotypical antiwarism (to be applied to every use of military).
PragmaticLiberal. Hello, Thanks for the PDA input. It's moving forward quickly.
PL. You relate 9-11 to attacking Afghanistan. The Taliban did not do it.
You relate al-Queda to attacking Afghanistan. 9-11 was an inside job, and beyond that killing the tribal chieftans w/predators in Afghanistan is stoking Islamic militancy in Pakistan. Ultimately but quickly potentially threatening even Islamabad's stability.
SWAT has been granted virtual autonomy by Islamadad. Sharia is the ONLY Law there now and Pak forces will leave them alone. The quickest way to insure that ALL of Pakistan is governed by a strict interpretation of the Koran is to continue bombing it.
I support Obama but know stemming the tide of Islamic militancy which is largely a response to U.S. Imperialism & Israel will require a perfect 180 degree change in policy.
Where we bombed, now build madrassas, mosques, clinics and schools.
Where we strafed, now dig irrigation canals.
Pay the opium growers for their opium. It's cheap at that point. Refine it into morphine and provide it where needed throughout the world. Africa, Gaza etc.
All people respond to genuine kindness and help when they need it.
We could see a calm Afghanistan & Pakistan, less hostile to the West, but only by reversing our past-now current-policies.
Quite Most Cordially, Joseph.
joseph, I agree with several, if not all, of your prescriptions, except building madrassas. However, each you mention will require security both for those who build and those who use. Believing that al-qaeda or Taliban will allow community development projects they don't authorize (and the Taliban authorized very few, if any, when in central power. They did destroy attempts by locals to do their own, however, not to mention things put in during earlier periods).
Radical Islamic militancy did not start with "American imperialism." It existed even at the turn of the previous century when the US was considered by Middle Easterners when the US was considered the only fair Western nation. Wahhabism started long before anything remotely reflecting American imperialism in the Middle East.
PragmaticLiberal ...
I actually agree with you on most everything except the part where you seem to imply our primary motive in Afghanistan is to help Afghanistan. i dont have that kind of faith in the U.S. government and i dont think i will either despite Obama.
However ... Pakistan is primarily responsible for creating and allowing the Taliban to flourish, aided by the U.S. Pakistan has managed to keep the Taliban in power so as to gain strategic depth in Afghanistan as you know, but they seem to have completely lost hold of them. Like Frankenstein, the Talibs have morphed into this all consuming monster and nothing we do is going to stem this. Pakistan itself is on the verge of complete collapse and the repercussions of that are mindboggling.
Im not sure if anyone has answers at this point. The creeping influence of the Taliban will continue till they engulf Afghanistan and Pakistan completely. That is clearly the worst case scenario. Tariq Ali definitely has a point in that we need to engage Russia, Iran, India etc in solving this problem. Im not sure if we have the political will to do so ....
As for -- "Wahhabism started long before anything remotely reflecting American imperialism in the Middle East."
While the above is true, Wahhabism as State policy (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) is relatively new and is a consequence of our encouragement.
I'm sorry that I have been insufficiently clear. I don't think we are primarily in Afghanistan to help Afghanistan. I think that helping Afghan towns and villages with community development and security is the best way to meet the objectives I mentioned. I don't believe old fashioned military tactics and strategies will work (attain those objectives).
I agree, and Obama seems to also, that increased and better diplomacy with all the stakeholders is necessary. I can't believe that any of them favors a Taliban government or spread in their region. Somehow the Paks and Indians need to find a compromise.
I think you are corrected about Pakistan and Wahhabism, but Ibn Saud made a deal with Wahhab, if I am not mistaken, to get Bedouin warriors for his conquest of the pennisula.
Yes, you are correct. The one's most responsible for 911 are still on the loose--and still issuing threats--why, I believe it was just 2 or 3 weeks that Cheney did just that. They shouldn't be that hard to track down and some are fairly close--no need to trek to the mountains of Afghanistan. Try Dallas, maybe the mountains of Wyoming (although that one might have already fled to his digs in Dubai), might have to make a few trips to Riyahd, Tel Aviv, and Islamabad. Good hunting!
Then you may wish to tell al-Qaeda not to take responsibility formally for it and for them to inform adorning publics throughout the Middle East of their audacity of terror. Amazing that you admit such a weak argument for withdraw that you depend upon an eccentric collection of facts and causation, a collection that can't and hasn't met the public test (I know all but you and those believing like you are deceived or are deceivers, you counterfactuals are really the only factuals--not unlike the Dittoheads of Limbaugh Land).
The "public test", whatever that might be, doesn't seem to have been much help the past eight years, or go back even further if you like. Oh, of course I'm sure you and others would probably consider the election of Obama as proof of the "public test". We can all keep throwing the accusation of "Dittohead" back and forth. 911 was as inside job and is not dependent upon some "eccentric collection--wait a minute--did you say "eccentric collection of FACTS"?? You know, you can try to make the tinfoil hat/Limbaugh/Buchanan/whatever-you-wish-linkage, that's all well and good. Al Queda never took responsibility for 911. The tape where Osama supposedly bragged about 911 has been shown to be a fraud. But no, that will not stand the "public test" of Official Truth. Below, another poster has listed a number of links to 911 truth sites. You may know something about the Pashtuns, but in this area of our government (not really our government anymore) you are right--I do consider you to be deceived.
pragmaticliberal, i won't call you all those things in your last paragraph, just blind.
even if what you say is true about our objectives, that what most people here at CD take as propaganda is in fact reality, what are 17000 more troops going to accomplish? what would 170,000 more accomplish?
if we are in such a huge danger from a chaotic 'pashtunistan', is 17-30k more troops (and many more drone attacks) going to solve that problem?
the same people who sold us (most of the u.s.) the 'wmd in iraq' nightmare are now trying to sell us once again the original premise of the 'GWOT', pacifying/liberating afghanistan who threaten the world w/their machine guns.
your scenario cannot be made to jive with reality. if afghanistan is such a danger, the entire media/political establishment is seriously screwed up for diverting resources into the non-existent threat of iraq. the same people now selling the afghan bill of goods (and on the basis of what other actions would you trust the media/political establishment? not a good track record, at all.)
more importantly, our actions in afghanistan are totally destabilizing pakistan. you know pakistan? the fragile nuclear armed state that is practically at war non-stop w/its nuclear armed neighbor, india?
on second tho't, maybe we really do have to destroy the village in order to save it.
Actually the chief "salesman" of this Afghanistan buildup is, like myself, someone who rejected the sale of Iraq. And yes, Obama, like myself long ago, said those moving resources from Afghanistan were foolish. He has been very clear about these differences now and during the campaign. I have no idea why you don't seem to know this.
Pakistan for longer than anyone who pays attention to that area has been a basketcase. Placing its meltdown on Western presence in Afghanistan is a huge stretch. Further the Pak government has never had control of the Tribal Areas on the Durand Line. So yes, I know Pakistan. The question, based upon your statements, is do you, or is your understanding limited to echoed arguments from the "pull-out now" camp?
You do offer a good question of what will 17,000 new troops do? I suspect they will be of good effect come the spring offensive (when the snows melt in the mountains and the paths and roads become usable). They will also allow some in the provinces to rotate to the capital ( life in Afghanistan has always been quite different in the core than in the periphery). They will also be useful to provide security for the increased emphasis on development projects in some of the many thousand small Afghan villages, particularly in Pushtun areas. I am rather sure that the Hazarars, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks are glad about Obama' announcement, as are secular Pushtuns (some of the remnants of Najibullah's government).
In sum, I am far from blind, nor the simple gullible guy you seem to believe. Nor am I a militarist, having opposed every American use of military, excepting the action in Kosovo and Bosnia, since the early days of Vietnam. We have just cause for being in Afghanistan and we seem to be moving more from just military involvement to greater diplomacy and greater small-scale community (village/town) development. No amount of wishful thinking, repetition of Pacifist or Isolationalist credal points, or willful ignorance change that reality.
To which I'll add, PL, you're deluded. The reason the U. S. is in Afghanistan is the same reason the U. S. government attacked Iraq: oil. Afghanistan is a critically positioned buffer from Chinese and Indian designs on Middle East oil. If reducing the threat of terrorism were really the purpose for American involvement in Asia, that would be much more effectively accomplished by cutting off U. S. exports of all sorts to Israel, and getting our military and corporations out of the Middle East: Osama bin Laden has emphasized this point again and again, and at this point, he's a lot more trustworthy than Obama. Just think of all the accomplishments possible if the billions spent on military adventurism and futility were dedicated to domestic industries in alternative energy development, health care, environmental stewardship - precisely what we need to improve our quality of life on this land, instead of exporting violence and mayhem so that a relative few corporate American traitors can continue sucking the earth dry. Don't you and the rest of the continuing cascade of apologists for American imperialism get it? Arabs, Persians, Iranians, Afghani, Pakistanis, etc., don't want the U. S. on their lands or involved in their domestic affairs. Nor do a lot of Americans, except the deluded, the greedy, and the traitorous.
"Osama bin Laden has emphasized this point again and again, and at this point, he's a lot more trustworthy than Obama."
Yeah, Usama has no innocent blood on his hands, does he? Trustworthy? I can't believe anyone who wants to be taken seriously would say this nonsense.
I have been crticial of Obama in other settings for not being as open to various orientations on the Left as he has been to Republicans and corporatist Democrats. Yet if the ahistorical eccentric views here are represented of some of those orientations, then he is smart to not waste his time,as those who want their own reality have nothing to offer the national dialogue.
None so blind, huh?
You write very well, but your premise is false, sadly. You are nothing more or less than an apologist for a strategy proven to be unworkable. Military interventions guarantee only one result, escalation of hostility. Oh, and huge profits too....
AlQaeda, according to most intelligence estimates prior to the invasion of Iraq, numbered between 20,000-30,000, and none of them was actually in Iraq. After that invasion they found fertile ground to recruit and grow stronger. Now they have a strong presence in a nation that once shunned them. The same will be true of any country we bomb, slaughter and harrass the indigenous people.
The solutions to such as AlQaeda is not to be found in such intervention but in working to strengthen the govts and the economies of the nations so infected. One cannot expect to win hearts and minds while slaughtering children. Extremism flourishes among those who are downtrodden and it fails to take root among the economically healthy and the thriving.
Our entire strategy is simply wrong, is sponsored and abetted by those who make the fortunes on war machines and those who win elections amidst a frightened population.It simply assures a fertile ground for more recruits as patriots see AlQaeda as the only way to save their children's lives. I cannot help but find it odd that one who posts with such eloquence fails to draw conclusions that appear obvious to an increasing number of people, both here and abroad.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
While I reject any notion that being in a majority is an endorsement of one' position, I also reject that being in the minority, even a growing one, improves one's argument. So regarding your last sentence, I draw only indifference what an "increasing number of people, here or abroad" conclude. I am very attentive, on the other hand, of the premises they offer.
Let's look at yours: First the ad hominem, that I must be an apologist. But let's move on and look at your ipse dixit statement of incredible certitude that the strategy is unworkable. Of course, it would be, if it reflected solely your simplistic and inaccurate frame of it as solely military invention. As Obama and others have said, it includes beyond more troops to greater diplomatic initiatives, and much more community development. It amazes me that you have the efficacy of characterizing my argument and Obama's action without knowing what is actually be discussed.
Your analogy of Iraq (which by the way I and Obama opposed) regarding Afghanistant ignores so much about the differing causes of action; the differing groupings of people (even in Iraq, the Kurds seem accepting at least of Western military presence, in Afghanistan so seem the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazarras, secular Pushtuns (reminants of Najibullah's government), among other groups; the different experiences with Westerners, along with differing traditional responses; the level of modernization v. traditonal rural in the countries; the total lack of integration between peoples in Afghanistan compared to preinvasion Iraq; etc. Thus I feel calling on the wrongs of Iraq does not support the wrongs of Afghanistan argument you appear to be trying.
Government, economies, and hearts and minds can not be "strengthened" without physical security, both for those helping to fix such and those wanting to use such. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, the bandits, the rogue tribal leaders (who you may see as freedom fighters, as did the Reagan Administration, but limit their freedom concerns to their kin and certainly don't extend it to their neighbors). Indeed I and it would seem the emergent administration policy agree with you, only with the realization that security is necessary and won't just evolve from the earth.
The trouble with this format for discussing a critical issue is the spread of any individual's thought throughout the topic, so that repetition each post is necessary or those commenting on another's post needs to read the other posts from that person, which are spread over the topic. I think much of what you bring up, in other words, I have addressed on this topic but in other posts.
You are, I believe wrong on so many fronts. You propose a sort of "big brotherism" that is not our right nor our necessity. It is simply doomed to fail and will bring nothing of value and much negativity with it. Afghan security is the responsibility of the Afghan people, and the more we try to force a puppet govt upon them the more the resistance to such will grow.
The nonmilitary solution requires no such number of troops, but needs cash and civilian contractors, teachers and diplomats. I doubt a majority of Afghanis embrace the Taliban , but, as we send more death and destruction into that nation they will be forced into an alliance with them. You seem completely unable,or unwilling to learn from history.
I find you little more than an educated apologist for failure, a neoconservative preaching war under the banner of pragmatism. Are the profits of our war machine your sole concern? Are you motivated by a need to continue to fight the cold war? Your responses seem simple trickery, word games that will result in war games which in turn will result in greater numbers of dead children. This will inevitably will turn that nation further against us.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
I would suggest that you are simply denying objective reality. Individual villagers can not provide the security needed to build and use community projects against the determined effort of an organized, well funded, and violence prone opposition, read Taliban and al-Qaeda. You seem to only see the US/NATO as agents of violence. Your prescription of community development without security is pure wishful thinking ignoring history and intents of al-Qaeda and Taliban. Talk about an unwillingness to learn from history!
You also seem to generalizing from the legitimate grievances of several Pushtun villages and the likely consequences to all ethnic groups in Afghanistan, some of which more than happy to see a pounding of any Pushtuns. In short, your view of Afghanistan is simply too simplistic.
I'll ignore your last paragraph which is nothing but rather sad and groundless pouring of ad hominems and attacked straw men, and instead deal with your one valid point in your post. We can not prop up Karzai as has been done. The central regime is really now a continuation of the podshah's Afghanistan, with a "president" rather than a king. To many nonPushtuns it is but a continuation of internal Pushtun imperialism which has existed since the beginning of the 20th century. Although these nonPushtun groups, who cumulatively are a majority within Afghanistan, support US/Nato presence as they don't want again a Taliban Pushtun domination and pogroms (see Mazir-i-sharif circa 1999), they will turn against the US/NATO also if they perceive that presence is to enable Pushtun (whatever type) domination.
But outside of that point, your critique is grounded not in objective contemporary and historical reality, and thus not useful. Given your reliance on trying to demonize me, I suspect you already know that.
Demonize you? I could care less about you as a person, it is your warmongering solution to everything that I criticize. You claim the high ground yet become increasingly sarcastic and insulting with each response....why I wonder?
You claim to be insulted by my reference to your militarism and the opinion that you share the same "solutions" as did the neocons yet that seems exactly the truth of the matter...
War will never resolve the matter at hand in our favor, never ever.It will make some few even more wealthy, it will result in many thousands dead and hundreds of thousands who will hate the USA until the day they die. It is the best recruiting tool that Osama bin Laden could hope for in fact.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Again you have long surrender any credibility as Ms. Manners.
That you believe my conclusions refelct those of the neocons indicates either a misreading of my words or an ignorance of the neocon positions, or both. But the positions are not identical nor close to being so.
Your repetition of your prediction of a future state hardly supports the probability of that future state ever existing. That you are so certain of it really indicates incredible lack of needed self-doubt. Where did you get all this wisdom and foresight?
Truly I don't understand how you belive the Russell quote is remotely congruent with your posts. I see little evidence of critical thinking, just some foul temper and wishful thinking.
We see things as we are, not as they are...You see the need for boots on the ground. I see a history replete with reasons why that strategy will fail.
You harp on my impolitic responses ( mild as they may be), perhaps as a distraction to my continual insistence that war brings death and not solutions. You fail utterly any reasonable smell test here PL. I find your pragmatism callous and your supposed liberal label misleading. That is, after all, my right , just as it is your right to call me rude and sarcastic as you do.
I have seen war and I will never again support such a solution to a so-called "war on terror" that is, in reality, a fight to throw off western imperialism. You ignore the dead children in making professorial excuses for policies that bring great suffering and great profit to the very few. You remove yourself from the realities of the events and hide behind ivy covered walls to avoid smelling the gore that the policies you so vigorously support inevitably bring.
When Afghanistan has become another Viet Nam, when that nation is as implacable a foe as is North Korea, when you have moved on to other defenses and washed your own hands of any guilt or complicity, the dead will still be dead, our nation will still be suffering the internal chaos of dissent and economic ruin. But you will be wrapped in the certainty of your own beliefs and thus protected from your own conscience.
Insult me all you wish, it says volumes about you and little if anything about me, other than I cannot stomach war or those who support it and eagerly send others to fight them.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Unlike our new president, Sand Flea doesn't speak with forked tongue.
The criminally deceitful horseshit, "they hate our freedom," put forth by the Bush Gang was a con, still employed by Obama.
Anyone willing to look past the crap called "TV news" will clearly see the three main reasons Osama viewed our "empire" as an enemy were 1) putting a military base in his country's Holy Land; 2) supporting the murdering, land grabbing state of Israel; 3) instigating sanctions that killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children.
All pretty good reasons to hold a grudge, but conveniently never addressed by our "untrustworthy" leaders.
I have to feel vindicated. I have been calling Mr. Obama a corporate shill/House Negro since before the election.
It was pretty easy to see that the public loved the guy, indeed, most still think he is a demigod. In about a year, when many American live at the dump sifting the trash for food, clothing, and necessities for life, they will hate their lives and remember with bitterness that they saw Mr. Obama as "change we can believe in."
Ha,ha,ha, ha. May the fools parish.
A nasty day for Afghanistan, the citizenry of the United States, and the world as a whole.
All in the name of cluelessness. Why would we expect the mythology to stop with the New Testament?
Take all the bitterness in this thread, multiply it by 100, and that's how I feel. Vote for a third party? Pointless! Vote for the lesser of two evils? Useless! Quit voting? Might as well. At least you won't be wasting your time.
Organize! Not a waste of time.
Joe
Paul Siemering
well no it is not exactly surprise, but see in the first place some people thought that sabre rattling at Afghanistan was just campaign talk to look tough. ok so it wasn't. others thought well, when he becomes pres he will be real careful about what he does, won't do anything rash. wrong there too. but the last month everyone- old generals, old pentagons, even old Russians, and yesterday an old reaganite- has been saying "DON'T!". so we had to think he would listen. guess not. HOPE! CHANGE! has turned to hopeless.
remebmer when Ziggy tricked the Russians into invading Afghanistan, so we could give them "their own Vietnam"? remember that? Obama don't need to be tricked. he just walked right into it. just shoot me
Please don't forget that Obama decides nothing. I guess that it is quite possible that Obama himself is being set up by his handlers. One thing is certain--he does not work for the people.
Now we have a smart black man doing the bidding of the ruling elite, instead of a dumb white man. Feel good, America.
Malcolm X called blacks like Mr. Obama "House Negros."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
Yeah, unfortunately true.
So Obama is walking right into his own Vietnam. Brilliant. I guess this means Jeb Bush or some other maniacal ghoul will win in 2012 and you can say goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, college education for kids of the non-wealthy, and the middle class. You can also forget about an open Internet, any serious pretense at fair elections, the Bill of Rights, and any opportunity for significant public protests or marches. Ol' Jeb will have his soldiers mow those protestors down in the streets, at least the ones who make it to the streets because they were not picked up for "subversive activities" as a result of electronic surveillance.