Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFeingold to Obama: Announce Withdrawal Timetable from Afghanistan
The Obama administration has been keenly aware of discontent among many in its liberal base with regard to its Afghanistan policy and an expected request for additional troops following General McChrystal's upcoming assessment of the situation there.
![[ Democratic Senator Russell Feingold, seen here in 2008, has called on President Obama to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. (AFP/File/Aamir Qureshi)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/feingold-2_0.jpg "feingold-2.jpg")
That liberal base just got a high-profile voice to lead its charge.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, called on President Obama to announce a timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. "This is a strategy that is not likely to succeed," Sen. Feingold said about the troop buildup in Afghanistan.
"After eight years, I am not convinced that pouring more and more troops into Afghanistan is a well thought out policy," said Feingold. The liberal Democrat said he has expressed his reservations with President Obama, Admiral Mullen, and others inside the administration and he says he has "never been convinced they have a good answer."
"I think it is time we start discussing a flexible timetable so that people around the world can see when we are going to bring our troops out," said Feingold. "Showing the people there and here that we have a sense about when it is time to leave is one of the best things we can do," he added.
Sen. Feingold didn't offer up a specific timetable for when he would like to see American troops out of Afghanistan. The senator opposed the war in Iraq and eventually became a leading voice among Democrats in pushing the Bush administration to adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
In an interview with the editorial board of The Post-Crescent in Appleton, WI this afternoon, Sen. Feingold highlighted that the three top terrorist targets originally in Afghanistan - Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar - are now in Pakistan.
"Aren't we helping to drive more extremists into Pakistan?," Feingold asked. He went on to call Pakistan the home of the "witch's brew of every kind of nightmare."
Sen. Feingold pointed to Af-Pak Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's recent comments when asked about what success will look like in Afghanistan. "We'll know it when we see it," said Holbrooke.
"That's not good enough for me," Feingold responded.
Mr. Feingold said that he believes the United States needs to maintain its ability to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and continue operations there to "make sure we can do the most we can in the remaining time."
The Wisconsin Democrat is starting to be a bit of a liberal thorn in the President's (left) side and has some Democrats wondering if he may be plotting a 2012 primary challenge to Mr. Obama.
His call for an Afghanistan timetable withdrawal today comes on the heels of his pressuring the president to include a public option in whatever health care reform bill he signs into law. "I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it," Feingold said last week in response to some perceived wavering on the public option from Obama administration officials.
Last April, Sen. Feingold issued a report card on President Obama's handling of "rule of law" issues and gave him a "D" on his administration's posture on "state secrets."
68 Comments so far
Show All". . . . do as much as we can before we leave . . . "?
Isn't that something like defecating on a carpet after commiting a burglary?
Oh well, the world's starved for heroes. It's certainly better than 0bama.
Let's hope we do see some life at the D convention in '12.
2012??? We might all be dead by then. Get active now.
YES . . . !!!
That's what Dems were elected to do in '06 . . .
We should be smashing the MIC -- especially after 9/11 --
when supposedly NORAD and all intelligence failed us in
permitting 19 young Arab hijackers to do what neither
the Russians nor China would have dared to try to do !!!????
And, supposedly on a day when NORAD just happened to be out of town????
And we believe it!!???
These wars have bankrupted our Treasury --
End the wars - End the tax cuts for the rich!!!
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Russ Feingold is right, and the people in this country are too, if the mainstream prostitutes for war echo chamber would get the hell out of the way, we might get a peace dividend.
AD
It's great that people are pretending that there is somehow on the table the possibility that we will stop the war machine.
It will continue. In fact it must continue if we want to have our current life style of over-consumption and ignorance. The election of Obama guaranteed that.
Until we vote for a candidate that is committed to peace and justice, and has voted for it and voiced it, it is just a pipe dream.
www.NotOneMore.US
Hope is the opiate of the masses
It's been more than 60 days and Congress hasn't declared war on Afghanistan (that I know of). So, under the War Powers Resolution, withdrawal of U.S. troops must begin.
That's the kind of power Feingold could exercise, rather than giving a speech. Why doesn't he invoke the War Powers Resolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
-TIA
George C. Brown - We have no business being in Afghanistan. First, it was to get Bin Laden when he was holed up in the mountains near Tora Bora, but of the several routes that led from there to the equally mountainous northwest of Pakistan, we "happened" to leave one uncovered, and, surprise! surprise! Bin Laden moved on. And while we were deploying troops in the northeast of Adghanistan, the Taliban was building its forces in southern Afghanistan. Now, we are increasing our deployment of troops to Afghanistan, supporting Hamid Karzai (maybe even teaching him how to cheat in the "democratic" election game) while at the same time, the death toll of our troops and out NATO allies is increasing each month. And for what? Our oil barons need a new pipeline from one or more of the former Soviet republics to go from there to the Arabian Sea so they don't have to go through Russia to eventually get to the Black Sea (we don't want to have to deal with the Ruskies and their tariffs). The lives of our boys seen to be of lesser value than the eventual profits from a new fossil fuel source.
Besides that obvious factor, those oil barons and their congressional lackies are delaying here at home the necessary steps that need to be taken to drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
I hesitate to call Afghanistan a "rogue state", but its history has not been kind to outsiders - - not only the U.S., but also the Soviet Union and Great Britain before us. We continue to ignore the lessons of history: this time here in Afghanistan, and prior to that Iraq. It is more fitting that Afghanistan's neighbors bear the responsibility of dealing with Afghanistan - - folks like Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, China, India etc.
In the meantime, let's deal with our burgeoning deficit by drastically slashing our military budget and support of the military/industrial complex - - just as George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower (belatedly) advised.
Ray Berthiaume
The 15-20,000 Taliban sure give us a run for our money!
Ray Berthiaume
The 15-20,000 Taliban sure give us a run for our money!
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. It isn't a choice as to whether the USA stays there or not, from the capitalist class's point of view. Global capitalism, to function, requires a single hegemony power to keep the system functioning. The USA is THE hegemonic power that history has assigned to this task. This hegemonic power has already started a major decline in terms of its economic vitality within the global capitalism world-system. Within the next 10 years, it will no longer be the world's largest economy, having been overtaken by China. China will not be able to assume the role of the hegemonic power and without such a power, the world-system is going out of existence. The only thing the USA has left to try and maintain its hegemony is its military might. This means that it must continue to base its military machine throughout the world and most essentially within the geopolitical sphere of Western Asia, where Chinese, Russian and Indian states compete for influence. Billions are not spent to protect a gas pipeline, yet to be even built. The analysis must go deeper then that.
So, why has the U.S. reached a commercial agreement with China? So that General Motors and other companies can move their factories to China where labor costs are totally controlled......Remember the Haymarket Square Riots of Chicago......The Problem is American Capitalism and the "GREED" of its leaders and political leaders.
Look, "The Media" is predicting 9 TRILLION DOLLARS more debt over the next ten years. Whoa Nellie, we already have a National Debt of over 12 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
That would mean a debt of well over 21 TRILLION DOLLARS and China will own over 50% of the Debt...........Human Rights, forget it! Constitutional Rights, Forget it!
"War, humpf, What is it good for?" It is good for a few hefty MULTI-BILLIONAIRES and the rest of the 1% of the walthiest people in the world!.......
F...the people of Iraq! F...the people of Afghanistan! They are worthless to "The Power Elite" So far the invasions have been "Cost Effective" for the oil companies and military industrial complex.....They have garnered "TRILLIONS" of dollars of profits without paying a cent in penalties for the deaths of well over 1.5 million people......It was worth waiting for the attacks of 9/11!!!!!
Obama reminds me of a man who has an affair, leaves his wife and children to marry the other woman in order to validate the affair.......Obama has chosen to valdate every one of Bush/Cheney's illegal and immoral decisions by continuing each and every one of their decisions: Guantanamo Open, Renditions Continue, Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan Forever, Use of Mecenaries increasing, National Debt Increasing, and who knows what agreements have been made with "The Power Elite".
Thank you, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski and your Council on Foreign Relations and Tri-Lateral Commission for some of the worst and most heinous policy decisions in the history of mankind.
ddg716:
I was wondering if you have seen one leaving or entering the Air Force I during the past 6 or 7 months?
In Borders yesterday I met a big strapping kid, Will, about to start Marine boot camp. He was reading an Ian Fleming novel.
I asked him if he was a tennis player since I wanted to show him the great photo of the Bryan brothers doing a chest bump in The New Yorker Magazine, but I showed it to him anyway.
He was a wrestler here at Reynolds High School, Winston-Salem and in football a specialist on the kick-off team. He volunteered that his high school grades had not been very good. We talked about improved educational benefits for people in the Military after they return. And very perceptively he smoked out my objection to the war in Afghanistan.
I gave him a clear but very light version. You can't tell people what to do. They have to decide for themselves. And he explained to me exactly where the terrorists were in the mountains of Pakistan.
Was he correct, President Obama? Are there a bunch of terrorists still in those mountains after all the drones and bombs and bullets? Have they found a way to rapidly procreate fully grown, fully armed, and 25-year-old new terrorists, sort of like goonies in the film THE GOONIES? Have they purchased airline tickets from Logan International Airport? And built a wormhole from the back of their cave to The Golden Gate Bridge? Do they behead people and torture them and do we?
Are you juking my friend Will, President Obama? Are you jiving him, or punking him, or sending him on a snark hunt? A cave in Pakistan? Still? Oh where in the world is Carmen Miranda or Osama Bin Laden? Is this a game? Is every kid in the United States who contemplates a hitch in the Military told about a cave where he (or she) can go and get the terrorists?
"These people" are much worse than naive people such as yourself can imagine, a posting Military person explained to me and others at The Daily Beast.
But I think you should explain, President Obama. Did the drones and bombs and bullets not work? Do the goonies keep multiplying? Will they be upon us the second we get out of there?
Or, Mr. President, is there a chance we could reach accomodation, sort of the way that Great Britain didn't obliterate Ireland or France Algeria?
What's it all about, Alfie?
great post bottle:
should the kid live
he will learn
as a lot of us have
ken
"Hey, Bottle"---are you smoking that 'stuff' in a joint? Or some other apparatus?
You missed an opportunity that comes to few: you could have mentioned some reading for the 'recruit' (he will soon find out that as a USMC 'recruit' he will be considered 'lower than whale shit---which sits at the bottom of the ocean'--until he 'graduates'---unless they have changed their approach since 1970) 'real reading' like the Geneva Accords, The Nuremberg Accords.
The Constitution might be a good reference, but tell him to take it 'with a grain of salt' since most other americans do to---unless of course it directly impacts them ----then you can hear them sing the 'star spangled banner'---backwards if needed. It is a 'catchy document though'----makes for some good reading, if you like fantasy---which in this case only truly needs 'uncompromising application'--to become a beautiful reality.
You could have mentioned that he was about to enter into an adventure that if he succeeds, he will be a 'brother' to the rest of us. If he doesn't he should not worry---when I was there 80% who tried did not succeed.
Then it would be nice to mention that he would be considered a 'member of a few, of the worlds finest fighting force'.
Then advise him that he is not required to follow the illegal orders to go to any field of combat that the USA in engaged in presently; and to do so tarnishes his credentials and makes him a 'war criminal'. Which truly is 'lower than whale shit'.
He owes it to himself for his future and possibly for his life. To lay down his life in the cause of an illegal war of aggression; is the greatest waste anyone can make.
Taking this advise into consideration; he would not need to worry if Pres. Obama or any president brings 'him home or not' ----he will not have gone.
And that, is what its all about.
Good Luck you may need it.
Hi: We must support Senator Feingold with deeds and actions. In writing and public protest. Where are the church and religious leaders, who speak of peace on their holy days? The Pope is silent as are others. Where are the Nobel Prize winners? The journalists? Labor leaders? The people? We need them all to get on with ending all the wars now, close the 800 military bases and use the savings to fund health care, education and jobs for a humane and sane economy! Let's firm it up and take on the war makers. Peace now!
Didn't we learn from Vietnam? Didn't the Soviets get whipped in Afghanistan after a decade of war? The Soviet troops were just are courageous and battle hardened as our troops are. Why can't we learn from our mistakes that we can't beat these people. What are we going to do? Bomb them into the stone age, like Vietnam? Those people LIVE IN THE STONE AGE! Get a clue. Pull our men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan. Quit killing and maiming our American Armed Forces personnel.
Now we want health care. Where are we going to get the money to pay for this, when we are spending hundreds of billons of dollars fighting TWO WARS! We will be living like the Afghan people once our country goes bankrupt. Remember Germany after WW1. Took a wheel barrel full of German Marks to buy a dozen eggs. Were headed in that direction. God help us all. Get rid of these clowns in Washington.
Yep, the sov's did get whipped in Afghanistan. And they deployed far more troops to get whipped than NATO has done. Of course it might take a bit longer to admit we can't win in that mountain country, but admit it we eventually will. When the bill for georges wars come due is when you'll experience hyperinflation, for now you can skate the bills.
out now! unless, of course, we're there for the oil and gas routes....
In addition to the loss of lives of our troops and civilians we continue to pour our treasure into wars that cannot possibly be won. Iraq and Afghanistan together are worse than Vietnam. I have always believed the purpose was oil or pipelines. No other reason makes sense.
Here is a novel idea. Bring them home and use the billions saved to provide healthcare for Americans.
The tragedy is that for every Feingold there are 100 who just love to blow up things in little countries.
And of course the Drudge Report is quick to yell that Feingold says no health care plan until after CHRISTMAS. These PR types are sly.
Hey Matt Drudge, I know you come here. You are due for hellthcare real soon, pal.
Once again, Russ Feingold demonstrates the meaning of the term, "actual mainstream liberal".
A Jewish, non-Zionist, progressive President? That I'd like to see.
"The economy is worse than he tought" said Obama.
As soon as he realizes that it was his new buddies,
"the Bill Clintons", who outsourced our industrial base
to China and other countries, will he realize that there
is no turning back. Our Economy has been ruined by the
Walmart Clintons. How can we recover from this depression
when we produce nothing, zilch, zero, nada..
The Stimulus is designed to divert attention away from
the public so they will never find out the truth about
the Clinton give-away, Nafta, WTO,Gatt etc.etc.
AS for the dumping of good running cars, to create a phony
demand, it was a stimulus for Toyota and other Japanese
Cars. If there were any loyalty to this country, a clause would have been put in the Dumping Law, stipulating that they must buy American Cars. Why is Bill Clinton still collecting millions of dollars from Foreign countries?
With mind-numbing regularity, it seems impossible for anyone to write a comment about any president since Clinton, without some half-wit seeing to it that Bill Clinton is demeaned and insulted. The anti-Clinton mentality is so deep-seated and ingrained, his detractors resemble automatons, programmed to make hateful remarks about the former president; remarks which are short-sighted, oversimplications, intended to have no other effect, than ridiculing and debasing Clnton.
I don't think I've ever written an anti-Clinton comment before but I think I'll take this opportunity to point out that it was Clinton's job to dismantle the Cold War Military-Industrial complex and he declined to do it. Instead he appointed Lockheed VP Bruce Jackson to head a "Committee for NATO" that oversaw the re-arming of Eastern Europe and expanded NATO into Eastern Europe and thus guaranteed the revival of the Russian Cold War Military-Industrial complex in response. We will be paying for this for many years.
He left the Cold War Military-Industrial complex intact so that it was ready for Bush when he began his "War on Terror."
I voted for the guy in '92, not in '96.
I take it you are in favor of outsourcing the industrial base to China; supporting NAFTA and other extra-legal organizations overriding our legislative prerogatives, bullying countries financially to lose their individual sovereignty and independence and creating a new class of poor; deregulating the telecommunications industry, nailing down corporate consolidation thereby exponentially dumbing down the citizenry; starving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and other Iraqi citizens and degrading their medical system; bombing innocent people to make a point; repealing the Glass Steagall Act to deregulate the financial industry, in so doing playing a large part in the current economic collapse; consolidating Reaganism...I'm sure, as a fan, you can think of many other wonderful accomplishments.
There is NO-EXIT stratgey because the war is not about rooting out Al Queda or Taliban, but the development of the
SOUTH CAUCASUS PIPELINE, thus controling the supply of oil and gas to Turkey, Europe, China, India and Japan.
MONOPOLY and POWER are the goals from which there is no retreat, NO-EXIT.
I'll know a good president when I see one.
Xe cute
So, at West Point, is there a class on how to start BS wars so you can win procurement contracts and secure back-door deals to, say, sell weapons to Somalia?
Sun-Tzu sez winning is not the point. The true leader has a McMansion and an antique pistol collection on the wall next to his table of scotch.
Feingold 2012.
Unfortunately, I think there is little doubt (except for a miracle) that the Republicans will take back the White House in 2012.
Normally, given the failure of Obama and the gormless Democrats to actually govern and/or accomplish what they were ostengibly elected to do, I would agree. But which of their loons would the Republicans find to run? Meaning, who would be acceptable to both the absurdly small but loud fringe groups and enough independents to swing the vote? Depending, of course, on an honest election; without which all bets are off.
More than likely, if nothing changes, the Republicans will chop down the Democrat's majority in Congress in the interim election. Though what difference it will make given the Democrats refusal to use their majority for anything but heading committees to insure greater bribes from lobbyists is beyond me.
They might STEAL it back like they did in 2000 and 2004 but they won't win any more elections except in Honduras, Thomas Moore.
How could Feingold survive a media blitz in a country that can swallow the "death panel" crap without blinking? Obama had to sell his soul to the corporations to drum up enough money to fight back against the rightwing swiftboating attacks. And how many people still think Saddham was behind 9/11? It appears we have a reality crisis in this country.
RV, that was a good comment about the difficulty of defending objectives you're only pretending to pursue. And I would say in the case of the Obama administration that applies to more than war.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
It might not be entirely inappropriate to suggest that the pretense applies throughout the entire electoral campaign process, or at least that part to which the public is exposed.
Feingold is right, but his voice is one that shouts in the wilderness.
If Obama really did want to 'win' Afghanistan he'll have to boost troop levels not by a mere 25-35k, but by 300-500k. He'd have to bring back the draft and flood the mountains of Afghanistan with soldiers, even then the chance of a 'victory' would be slim. The only way you're actually going to find Osama bin-ladin(if he's still alive) is by sending out small teams of operatives, soldiers aren't going to find him or his friends.
But the above posters are right, pulling out isn't an option. The dems would be savaged by the idiot neo-cons. Unfortunately, neither is deploying enough troops to do the job. The draft isn't going to be used to get enough troops, and even in these economic times you can't get enough people willing to do the job of being a footsoldier...
It's bad enough that the future of Americans depends on U.S. politics. If the future of Afghans also depends on it, theirs is a bleak outlook indeed. They don't even get a "lesser evil" option.
BO responds to RF:
"No problem, my good friend. America will begin pulling out of Afghanistan around September, 2011, coincidentally, right before the next Prez election."
"And let me be clear: when I say 'pulling out,' I mean moving them back to Iraq, or somewhere else maybe. But the bottom line is this: private military contractor profits will continue to be outrageous. Make no mistake."
RF responds to BO: "You're lucky Americans would never elect a Jewish President."
Sen. Feingold pointed to Af-Pak Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's recent comments when asked about what success will look like in Afghanistan. "We'll know it when we see it," said Holbrooke.
We've already seen it and we already know what it is: defeat. Obimbo will never get out of Afghanistan. The Democrats desperately need a 21st century version of Gene McCarthy. Feingold may be that person but, in the end, probably won't.
Agree that the Democrats need something to become a progressive and constructive agent of change, but would suggest a 21st Century George McGovern rather than Gene McCarthy. In fact, the progressive left in 1968 led a campaign at the convention with its rallying cry being: "George McGovern Is The Real Gene McCarthy."
See the documentary film "ONE BRIGHT SHINING MOMENT: The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern" - an outstanding film that could also be titled "Back to the Future."
In fact, Obama and his empty-hearted marketing minions are laughable (in a substantive sense) in comparison to George McGovern and his grassroots army.
Senator Feingold is telling the truth about Afganistan but wasting his time on the "Public Option".
ChrisQueally had a good comment about one of the real problems of the military in this. "ChrisQueally August 25th, 2009 10:12 am"
Decoupling the availability of health care from employment is one of the first things that need to be done to disempower the military-industrial complex. When people who are directly or indirectly dependent on military spending for their jobs and therefore their health insurance (most of us) know that their health insurance will continue if they loose their jobs they will be less likely to suppport politicians who vote to approve that spending. Restoration of the remainder of the New Deal social safety net will further that process.
I am one of Russ Feingold's constituents. I have written him repeatedly to let him know I support his positions on the war in Afghanistan and health care reform. I will write him again about this article. Every one of his constituents that I know supports him on this and I have let him know this.
"Decoupling the availability of health care from employment"
Absolutely! But I'm afraid the moment has passed. It sure feels like it.
I think just the fact that they are part of the "1" party system, cripples their options to make peace.
Feingold will of course stand alone on this, the only sane voice in Congress, as he has done before. Let's hope he will run against Obama the Worthless in 2012, because there sure as hell isn't anyone else out there.Since Obama will no more announce a withdrawal timetable than he will pass any actual healthcare reform, isn't it time to call for his impeachment? He won't prosecute or even investigate the most criminal bunch who ever held power in this country, and this miserable, cowardly Congress wouldn't impeach them when it has the chance for 8 years, so maybe we need to impeach the present sitting fraud of the Oval Orifice.
Impeachment, of course, is off the table. It seems that Barry was clever enough to use Bush's strategy. Namely, pick a VP that no one would want in the white house.
Remember, Feingold explored the idea of running in 2008 and realized he could not raise sufficient funds for a competitive campaign, so he decided not to run. Feingold is a man of integrity and character who does appear to work for what he believes to be the common good, which is why the corporatocracy will not give him any money. And even if Feingold did manage to raise revenue from other sources, he probably understands that the corporate media would do all in its power to kneecap his candidacy.
All true. He stands no more chance under the present system, where corporate money determines every election, than Kucinich or Nader ever did. The corollary to this is that it's impossible to get a non-corporate stooge in the White House. Witness the present occupant, sold to many gullible "progressives" as one of them, who would drastically turn around the ship of state headed over the abyss. Sorry, he's guiding us in exactly the same direction his predecessors did. So long as corporations alone have any real power over this corrupt government, we can only expect the same damn thing every four years.
Good comment!
I have often wondered why the Congress does not repeal the so-called authorization to fight terror wherever that War Against It may take us.
How foolish to invade country after country, to militarize continent after continent, to pour our national treasure into an impossible quest for "safety" in a world made less safe by our military presence everywhere you look. Or don't.
Public Law 107-40 allows the President to wield the US military against enemies to be named later.
Bush named al-Qaeda as the enemy.
Bush said the Taliban would be treated the same.
Obama named al-Qaeda affiliates.
Hillary's taking us into the DRC, where there's a rare resource and lots of people with guns (and undoubtedly a future terrorist).
Stop the DAFT war (Defense Against Future Terrorism)
All those who think that 'quitting Afghanistan' will be an exit strategy that could be accepted by people here in southernest California (where the sound of cannon fire echoes past the hills), please answer the message scrawled into the dust on the back of a pick-up window seen recently,
Are you a stab the troops in the back democrat.
This quittin' time in Afghanistan idea ain't gonna get us out of there, or keep us from getting stuck elsewhere (say, the DRC, where Hillary has just found victims desperately needing US aid to be delivered by US military - in a country with a valuable and rare resource, coincidentally).
Prof. Juan Cole today advises that the US needs to pass laws to curtail torture, not just issue Executive Directives. The same goes with the absurd war against future terrorism. In this case, Congress needs to revoke Public Law 107-40.
Mr. Feingold may win favor with next year's voters, but calling on Obama for a future exit is only a futile gesture.
You are free, of course, to trust a Democrat again.
"This is a strategy that is not likely to succeed"
Knowing success "when we see it" is a strategy?!
And, in the meantime, just keep on bombing more Afghans until that success magically reveals itself somehow.
Jeez! The only thing that might possibly be worse than the "supreme international crime" is a war of aggression based on utter stupidity.
Excuse me....do you know where we could get some "utter stupidity" and upgrade our leadership on this incursion and occupation of Afganistan?
"Knowing success "when we see it" is a strategy?!"
A replay of Viet Nam strategy.....we know there is no solution, no "winning" other than winning battles, which we did then and will do now, but we don't know how to get out without damaging ourselves politically. So lets send more troops!
Any Lt. fresh out of the Naval Academy could tell John WEayne....We ain't gonna win this one either John.
Actually, I kinda liked the old romanticised American cowboy approach to handling the "black hats" where the hero was slow to anger and, even when provoked beyond endurance, used only minimal force. The more recent "bull in a china shop" Rambo-style responses (or anticipatory attacks in some cases) just don't have the same appeal somehow, and they don't seem to work as well either.
In either case, a very clear mission statement would probably be a good start. But I suppose that's difficult when you're trying hard to pretend that the objectives are different from what they actually are, especially where NATO sensitivities are involved.
"Actually, I kinda liked the old romanticised American cowboy approach to handling the "black hats" where the hero was slow to anger and, even when provoked beyond endurance, used only minimal force."
Thats still my ideal actually. My country used to be a bit more like that till the non-fighters/big talkers took over.....the ones that wouldn't go themselves but have no problem sending kids to their death so they can talk big.
George 1 is a good example, he was a combat veteran and stopped before going into Iraq. George 2 "served" without hearing a clap of thunder even, but no problem attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
"But I suppose that's difficult when you're trying hard to pretend that the objectives are different from what they actually are"
You got it for sure.
Henry8, don't give too much credit to George 1. He's been around the barn enough times to learn where to avoid putting down his foot. Don't forget, it was he who set up the Iraqi Shiites for slaughter post Desert Storm, promising them cover, and then yanking it. And he who set up the Carter ambush over the Iran hostages. His whole family history reeks, including their affiliation with the Nazis.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Senator Feingold along with Bernie Sanders restore one's hope that there are a few good people left in our government.
"After eight years, I am not convinced that pouring more and more troops into Afghanistan is a well thought out policy"
Understatement of the year.
One of the best we got in Congress.
Being the only guy in the US Senate to vote against the Bush Unpatriot Act, I often think he is the ONLY good guy in the Congress.
Chupacabra sez: "Being the only guy in the US Senate to vote against the Bush Unpatriot Act, I often think he is the ONLY good guy in the Congress."
***
Bernie Sanders has since joined the Senate.
You can take the other 98, though.
Well, there is the House too...we still got a few.
CQ from Maine
Clearly it is time to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Let the Pakistanis attend to Pakistan. The global war on terror is a fools game start to finish.
The only people benefitting from it now are the mercenary armies and Private Military Firms like, KBR, Blackwater, Dyncorp, MPRI and SAIC whose contracts cost the taxpayers billions more than if the same functions were carried out by our own armed forces. Don't let the Republicans say they are for a strong defense. They are not. They are for a profitable defense. They all but wrecked the US military and gave rise to this obscene corps of private armies. All at taxpayer expense. We need to clean house--before they do.
Senator Feingold bravely tells the truth. Do most Afghans see us as allies or occupiers given their history of fighting off invasions? Do drone attacks on the tribal areas with much "collateral damage" win hearts and minds or enhance Taliban recruitment? Whose sons and daughters will die or become paralyzed? Other ways of defeating terrorists: see building schools for girls (consult with Greg Mortenson).
The only lesson learned from the Viet Nam occupation was that when an occupation ends, the miltary industrial media complex's revenue stream slows down and they don't want that to happen.
Eternal occupation equals eternal revenue for the war machine.