Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama 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) 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 Obama has now announced additional American troops are headed to Afghanistan before he has withdrawn any troops from Iraq.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.
- Posted in
121 Comments so far
Show AllNo good! Now it's Obama's war!
Obviously this is not the real Obama but the Obama under the control of the Pentagon.
Let's be clear--our rulers want to rule the world. They will fight "evil-doers" (aka women and children) until someone puts a stake in their collective hearts.
Stop for rich from running/ruining the world!
"Obviously this is not the real Obama but the Obama under the control of the Pentagon." What? $#@! You have to be kidding. No? Obama said during his campaign that he was going to take the troops OUT of IRAQ and move them INTO AFGHANISTAN. Why the surprise, all of a sudden? Amazing.
Coming out of denial can be a rough and bizarre process. I've noticed a lot of these little schizoid expressions since the coronation. But it's o.k. Maybe it won't take a 100 days for a lot more people to get a clearer picture of what we are facing. Obviously, it seems not to take that long for Obama to do his review and reflection thing, maybe by the end of the week we can get another 13,000 over there to complete the first 30,000. I have a feeling there's going to be something to replace that old "Vietnam Syndrome" for good.
Remember 911?
Remember sanity, remember dying children, remember failed strategies, remember a sinking economy, remember when you once made sense...oh cancel that latter thingie....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Gawd, now I'm really starting to feel depressed that I voted for this guy. I guess I should have listened to my wife after all as she was brave enough to vote for Nader while I got stuck voting "practical" for Obama. Oh well, maybe there's still that GOP residue in me to clean out. I apologize to the Afghans who will suffer for this as if enough of them didn't suffer enough already. :..(
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Nader told you so. McKinney told you so. Ron Paul told you so. Disgruntled progressives told you so. Independents told you so. Remember, however, that you really had no other choice. Right? Sheesh.
binban,
This IS progress of a sort, after all. The American people have been swindled for so long, deceived and made quiescent for decades, removed from the results of their inaction by the death of the free press, frightened by a huge debt load and threatened with the loss of their paychecks.
I would applaud all who rise up from the muck and move towards the light, especially when viewed in the perspective of so many who still fail to see the obvious.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"I would applaud all who rise up from the muck and move towards the light, especially when viewed in the perspective of so many who still fail to see the obvious."
If this were the case, then I would completely agree with you. But, it is not. The tide for Obama did not come from a rising out of the "muck". It came from a carefully orchestrated and produced option from the top. And "the muck", unfortunately, "still fail to see the obvious."
Terrance,
Well, you have waken up before most. Congratulations!
Now you get to enjoy paying for this misadventure with the knowledge that you helped put this corporate shill into the White House.
Ha,ha,ha. Life is pain and suffering, no worries; you have much company.
Why the shock, he is just doing what he said he was going to do. Those who voted for the lesser evil got what they voted for.
Exactly. Only those who wanted to be fooled by Obama, were fooled by Obama.
No one should be surprised. But can we drop the "lesser evil" thing already? Obama is clearly a good man, a good father, and a good President. Obama is not the slightest bit "evil". Okay? So drop it.
I have noted an almost Pavlovian response that occurs whenever I read your increasingly out of touch commentary...Mouth falls open and head shakes slowly from side to side.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
So much for bringing the troops home. Want to know the real stimulus package? Try the war on terror, whatever that is.
Obama is listening to the same bunch Bush listened to, including that retired general named Keane, who is really running things.
Between the civilians being killed by drones, the troops who have been used to death (literally, and the Karzai ineffective leadership, no way does adding more troops in Afghanistan solve the problem.
Shame on Obama for caving. The people who voted for him deserve better.
Dave B. " It's just what they deserve ". I agree, but is it what we deserve?
The U.S. War Machine marches on! Nothing stops it, not even a bankrupt economy.
Why, you just print more money, borrow more money so you can keep those armament factories going, anything to keep those soldiers killing and destroying while talking about spreading freedom and human rights.
You're right, Dr Wu, a stake in their collective black hearts is the only remedy.
That and becoming a neo-human, one whose brain has been cleared of all propaganda, false education and faulty social programming.
www.dangerouscreation.com
"The U.S. War Machine marches on! Nothing stops it, not even a bankrupt economy." Think about it. What are the manufacturing industries that remain profitable? Ayep. Those that specialize in manufacture of weapons and the making of war. In other words, war is necessary to keep the failing economy going a bit longer. Until? Until the really big collapse and the really big WWW III. Bank on it. The ruling elites are.
Still plots available in the Graveyard of Empires.
Bush III
This just proves my mantra from the last election: The definition of political insanity: Voting for the same two,corrupt parties over and over and expecting a different result! Until the MIC is destroyed; " there will be no change we can believe in ".
Wowa! Escalating the war in Afghanistan? 17,000 more troops? More war, death and destruction? Obama doing that? Nah. Couldn't be. You see Obama is different than G.W. Bush. Right?! Watch. In 6 months, Afghanistan will be Obama's war the way Iraq was Bush's war. Welcome to: more of the same.
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.
First, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union fell on its nose in Afghanistan.
Then, Wall Street fell and, some time later, the U.S. fell on its nose in Afghanistan.
And earlier in the twentieth century, England had gotten its ass kicked in Afghanistan.
Apparently, the U.S. and, unfortunately, Obama have not learned their lesson from history.
What is it, again, that we call someone who does not learn from experience?
Too bad that an intelligent man such as Obama is going down that road, 'cuz it ain't gonna look good on his resume.
Just keep the following in mind: Caspian Sea petrol and gas profits, and, how to get them out?
i seriously doubt good ole boy 'murkins will fall for another bush.....why would they, when they will all happen under the obama admin....
That's the gist I'm getting, too.
I have thought about that too, that Obama would have the trust of the vulnerable and thus would be in a better position to stab them in the back. And I agree that is possible, but I see Obama backing off in the face of significant pushback.
Though I agree that Democrats and Republicans mostly serve the same corporate masters, I do see some important differences. Democrats are more sophisticated and risk averse. Republicans are coarse and reckless. Democrats will play chess with us, making a move here or there, like providing offers to improve our welfare and then slyly trying to slip out from their obligations. Republicans are perfectly happy to offer us nothing but poverty, hopelessness, and virtual enslavement, or maybe even our own future eradication, and then challenge us with "So what are you going to do about it?" They will risk revolution to create a final and absolute chasm between the haves and havenots. And that frightens me not so much because I fear revolution, but because I fear that the Republicans are correct in assuming that Americans are too hopeless to rise to the challenge.
Now we have a smart black man doing the bidding of the ruling elite, instead of a dumb white man. Feel good, America.
Yeah, unfortunately true.
Malcolm X called blacks like Mr. Obama "House Negros."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
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.
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
All in the name of cluelessness. Why would we expect the mythology to stop with the New Testament?
A nasty day for Afghanistan, the citizenry of the United States, and the world as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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