Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Hears Conflicting Views on Afghanistan from Democrats
WASHINGTON - As President Obama ponders a request from U.S. commanders for as many as 80,000 more troops for Afghanistan, Democrats in Congress are deeply divided over whether the strategy can succeed and at what cost.
In this July 14, 2009 file photo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from left, is joined by other House Democratic leaders, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Pete Stark of California, Henry Waxman of California, Charles Rangel of New York, and John Dingell of Michigan, in a news conference. Democrats in Congress are deeply divided over whether the strategy can succeed and at what cost.
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) Obama met for the fifth time Wednesday with his national security
advisers as he moved toward a decision viewed on Capitol Hill as the
most important of his presidency.
In recent weeks, congressional leaders have issued wildly conflicting advice, from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's support for a troop increase to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey's warning that a counterinsurgency effort could take 10 years and cost $1 trillion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has refrained from promising passage of a war funding bill. Meanwhile, anti-war activists have scheduled a protest today outside Obama's appearance at a fundraiser in San Francisco.
There are currently 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 21,000 Obama sent in the spring, that have proved insufficient to quell a resurgent Taliban.
Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, raised pointed questions last week about the feasibility of the strategy recommended by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to use the military to protect the population while rebuilding civil society.
"What will that policy cost and how will we pay for it?" Obey said. He compared inattention to the cost of the war to the obsession with the cost of health care legislation that four congressional committees are "twisting themselves into knots" to fit into Obama's $900 billion, 10-year limit.
The Congressional Budget Office "is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing health care plan," Obey said, asking: "Shouldn't it be asked to do the same thing with respect to Afghanistan?"
Other challenges
He insisted that any commitment to rebuilding a nation with a high illiteracy rate must be measured against other challenges for the United States: joblessness at home, weaning the nation off oil imports, controlling the federal deficit and putting Social Security and Medicare on a sound financial footing.
House liberals said opposition to a troop increase is building. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, has introduced legislation prohibiting funding, while Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, wants to reverse the ratio of military to civilian aid.
"We have plenty of Republicans that will vote for whatever escalation comes about, and we probably have a moderate number of Democrats who will vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, co-chairwoman of the House Progressive Caucus. "But we have more Democrats than ever that may not vote for anything."
Pelosi has said many times that passing Obama's request for more troops last spring was the most difficult effort of her speakership. "Nothing to compare to it," she said in an interview last month, adding that Obey's warning "is one that should be heeded."
Feinstein's support
Other leading Democrats, however, are publicly urging Obama to follow the recommendations of his generals.
Feinstein, who met with Obama last week, said Sunday, "I don't know how you put somebody in who was as crackerjack as Gen. McChrystal, who gives the president very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations if you're not going to pull out."
Feinstein said Obama ruled out a withdrawal. "If you're going to stay, you have to have a way of winning," Feinstein said.
From her view as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she said Afghanistan is critical to stability in one of its bordering nations, nuclear-armed Pakistan. She also cited humanitarian concerns such as the fate of women and girls under Taliban control.
Likewise, the chairmen of the Armed Services committees in the Senate and House urged Obama not to allow another vacuum to develop in the country that harbored terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
Pelosi's stance
Pelosi has outlined the difficulties facing any nation-building effort, compounded by the weakness and corruption of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government. Still, she has been careful to pose such challenges in the broader context of U.S. security.
"Protecting the American people, keeping our people in our country safe, is our first responsibility, because without that, what else really matters?" she said in a recent interview.
"We all supported going into Afghanistan to begin with. That was where the threat was. We are training an army there. We cannot let the Taliban then take over the country and the army that we just trained."
Troop build-up by the numbers
The number of U.S. troops now in Afghanistan and how much they could increase:
21,000
Troops President Obama sent in the spring
68,000
Total troops in Afghanistan now
Source: Associated Press
108,000
Troops after an increase of 40,000 requested by U.S. military commander
148,000
Troops after an increase of 80,000 that is now under consideration
- Posted in
52 Comments so far
Show AllAfghanistan is where empires go to die...look what happened to the Soviets...just look at the terrain there, it looks like the kind of area that strangers have no choice but be ambushed, so then what, blow it off the face of the earth? To what end...this looks all too much like the tragic Gahan Wilson cartoon of the 60's, the last soldier standing amongst total destruction saying "I think we won"...and what exactly does 'winning' look like? I have never heard of any clear objectives to be accomplished...we need to curtail the profitable industry of war/death/destruction and rearming nations, and turn to the peaceful occupation of protecting our planet and making sure life here is a meaningful experience...haven't we evolved yet?
Physical evolution happens naturally. Emotional and intellectual evolution takes real effort by those who wish to evolve along those lines. It makes me nuts when I hear people say, "Why does _________ still happen in this day and age? It's the 21st century! We shouldn't have _________ anymore." As if the passing of time itself is supposed to make certain behaviors go away.
Good point, NM.
And this is probably why the Empire tries like hell to prevent any "Emotional and intellectual evolution" from taking place in what passes for our educational system.
The level of triviality, banality, distraction, distortion, and electronic anesthetizing of the potentially radicalizable students is massive --- which I see daily in the high school 'holding tanks'.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
concerned, an increasing number of principled progressive intellectuals and academics are sensing and writing that Afghanistan has the marks of Obama crossing the Rubicon and overtly committing the US as the global ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE that it is covertly disguised as behind its facade of two-party 'Vichy' sham democracy.
Prof./Ret.Col. Andrew Bacevich is high on the list of those who fall into this broadening category.
Bacevich's interview (on the 'Frontline' web-site) is vastly more insightful than "Obama's War" itself, and clearly indicates (along with his recent Boston Globe Op-Ed, "Afghanistan --- the proxy war") that he (and other leading intellectuals and academics) recognize that this is a 'proxy war' for the corporate/financial Empire that controls 'our' country behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy.
I maintain some hope that beyond the increasing number of radicalized American policy voices who are tagging this disguised Empire as the seminal cause of our global sorrows, that even the reformed intellectual voice of this corrupted neo-con project of Empire, Francis Fukuyama himself, will come out publicly against America taking the road to Empire at this critical "American Crossroads" that we now face.
Bacevich also wrote an excellent and prescient Boston Globe article, "Afghanistan ---- the proxy war", on the topic of Afghanistan, but the real focus and 'Proxy' is Empire.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/11/afghanistan___the_proxy_war/?comments=all&csort=desc
Bacevich outlines that if President Obama approves the McChrystal plan he will be implicitly, "Affirming that military might will remain the principal instrument for exercising American global leadership, as has been the case for decades" ---- i.e. that America will be choosing to be an EMPIRE.
Bacevich rightly senses that Obama’s decision on Afghanistan, the ‘Graveyard of Empires', will lead us toward either publicly accepting or ending ‘The Last Empire’.
Although the Pashtun - Taliban kicked the Soviet Communist EMPIRE out in the late 1980s, they will not so easily be able to kick-out this 'last Empire standing' on earth, the disguised "Corporate Communist" Empire, without the concurrence of the American people and Obama agreeing, for our own values and future, to voluntarily renounce Empire.
Without question, Chalmers Johnson ("Sorrows of Empire"), Christopher Hedges ("Empire of Illusions"), and many others are convinced that America has already crossed a watershed point to global Empire, but it would be interesting to hear from Fukuyama himself regarding whether we have truly reached "The End of History" --- and whether it is in the form of an American centered corporate/financial Empire, merely hiding behind the facade of its two-party, 'Vichy' sham of democracy.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
The empire builders would do well to read Paul Kennedy's great book: The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. He traces the empires in the west from 16th century Spain through France, Holland, England, etc. up to the post WW2 period. He carefully documents how they all fell because after a time the costs of expanding, or even maintaining, their empires always outgrow the profits gained from them. But the empires can't seem to see themselves as losers so they borrow ever more heavily from bankers and other nations to fund their military costs. Finally the lenders decide to stop throwing their money into a bottomless well of unsustainable wars and ...
Well the US empire is replicating the entire imperial cycle as if history just began yesterday.
JonE, Kennedy's four century scope of 'National-centric Empires' was preceded by centuries of 'Church-centric Empires' and is now being succeeded by the new 21st century era of 'Corporate-centric Empires' --- which Kennedy, despite his brilliance, did not foresee.
We are now in the new era of Corporate-centric Empire --- what I call the 'global ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE' and which Dylan Ratigan, on MSNBC calls "Corporate Communism".
Although Dylan's term is actually less accurate than "Corporate Fascism" (which Mussolini would note is redundant), the phrase "Corporate Communism" has great linguistic power to frame the contested concept of 'democracy' in favor of real democracy and to expose this corporatist Empire --- and thus I strongly advocate, in the following article, repeating his terminology to successfully disarm the hard-right fascists.
Use Dylan Ratigan's phrase "Corporate Communism"
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarymanage.php?submit=view&did=14528
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Thanks Amacd for the link. A few years ago there was a very good picture "The Bank" which focussed right in on the aims of the Corporate-centric Empire. At one point in the film the CEO of the bank states that we are entering an era very like the feudal system which succeeded the fall of Rome, but with the difference that the great banks will be the feudal barons. In this sense it would be rather different from either Musso's Corporate Syndicalism (Fascism) or Corporate Communism in that both of these imply top-down centralised control. The bank barons would at best agree to an IMF - World Bank "Pope" with only some sort of ideological and advisory role.
The real goals in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, are much too crass and mundane to be discussed in public. That's why the rationale keeps shifting, from "smokin' the terrists outa their holes" to sparing women the embarassment of veils.
Also, as an aside, do those troop counts reflect the number of mercenaries and non-US military?
In the first place, this nation and especially this government has lost every trace of empathy it ever possessed. If any remains it is empathy for the wealthy banksters who fear that their profits may be diminished by such ill considered acts as making peace.
In the second place, every time the Congress considers something, it seems to be only after the lobbyists have had a chance to go over the bills to see that nothing restricts the Oligarchy's profits or power. Then and only then does it get a vote, and is rarely defeated.
If you follow the money, you will have a pretty good idea of who the handful of extremely wealthy families and individuals are who run the "shadow government" that gives the "electeds" their marching orders.
We will never commit peace. It is too costly to the MIC et al., and would incidentally benefit We the People, and the people of the world. That is not part of the plan.
The CLASH of civilization as COMBAT ROCKS the region,
"Should I stay or should I go?"
Maybe the wavering Democrats should check to see if China is willing to loan us the trillion or so to fight this war on their border for the next decade.
All members of Congress and Obama's administration and its advisors who support the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan should be required to serve one year in that devastated country.
If that immoral, destructive occupation is so "necessary" to our national security, they should all be more than willing to do their "patriotic duty" by serving at least one year in Afghanistan.
If they won't serve, they should shut the hell up and be forbidden from speaking or writing about this issue.
Looks to me like the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower worried about is in full swing. We can't eliminate terrorists by attacking their current location. It's like swatting a fly, or a dozen flies or a hundred flies: there will always be new individuals to take their places. At least that will be the case until the US starts dealing with causes and not symptoms, i.e. why so many detest us as opposed to squashing their anger (which is often legitimate) with force.
The only reasons for this aggression that make sense are that it will make the military more arrogant and the profiteers more wealthy.
Pippilin, yes the MIC is certainly part of the Empire and provides the 'tip of the spear' plunged in the face of those in the way of exploiting the Empire's 'oil territories' ---- and of course the MIC benefits from the US gaining over 68% of all world-wide weapons sales, in addition to our domestic war budget (greater than all other countries) acquiring more weapons for the Empire's over 800 global military bases.
What a business. What an Empire.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Where are the clowns who insisted a year ago that there really is a difference between Dems and Reps? Are they persisting in their delusions? Of course they are. Even though Obey is speaking sense to power now, during the entire criminal Bush administration he scoffed at and ridiculed anti-war groups routinely, called them "fucking liberals" and mocked them to their faces when they would show up at his office. Now he's getting a little religion, but to his core he remains a centrist who is perceived as a "fucking liberal" himself by his further right stooge colleagues. Washington is a grotesque circus of these warmongering fools, with Feinstein at the top of the rotting heap. No, wait, there are hundreds of them sharing the top position, with Feingold, Kucinich and a small handful of others at the bottom, getting the life crushed out of them.
Rebuild Afganistan?
There is something else going on.
The House just passed legislation #1327 (414 to 6) for applying sanctions against Iran while Hillary Clinton is trying to entice the Russians to do likewise. There is an unwarranted rise in aggressive talk and actions against Iran right now.
Afganistan may just be a staging ground for the NEXT war. That may explain why we don't give a rat's ass whether Afganistan has a legitimate government. It is probably the wealth of energy next door that we are really after.
Only 3 democrats voted against the bill.
Re-institute a M/F universal draft and start yanking kids out of college and off the streets to fight this insane war.
At least then, an organized grass roots opposition might arise.
As it is, a corrupt government with an all-volunteer military at its disposal can and will continue doing pretty much what it damn well wants.
Feinstein clearly misspoke. She said: "I don't know how you put somebody in who was as crackerjack as Gen. McChrystal ..." I am sure she meant "is a crackpot like" instead of "was as crackerjack as." She should be more careful with her choice of words.
kivals
As I understand it, he is indeed an excellent General, one of our best by report. Don't blame him for doing his duty, blame the government and President that defines his duty.
A speedy USA withdrawal from Afghanistan would tempt many persecuted Tribes in Pakistan to flee to Afghanistan.
Thus lessening tensions in Pakistan.
I doubt the Dems in Congress even have the brains to realize that Obama is plunging the US from a covert global Empire to an overt global corporate/financial Empire by 'Crossing the Rubicon' in Afghanistan.
Nor do they have the collective intelligence to understand that history will judge them all as weak-kneed and gutless as the Roman Senate in standing by aimlessly as Empire consciously stepped on the throat of democracy and the Republic.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Sen. Feinstein proclaims, "If you're going to stay, you have to have a way of winning" and then believes that the best way of "winning' is by deferring to the [alleged] wisdom of the generals. That sounds like the name of a movie from the 1960s, the Night of the Generals. It also sounds like rhetoric that could have originated from another era in a place called Vietnam. One wonders how long it will be before Obama and the sycophantic Democrats start saying that they think that they see the light at the end of the tunnel and that the US has somehow turned a corner in Vietnam [make that Afghanistan].
A better refrain from the 1960s would be this one:
"Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
and the Big Fool said to push on"
It turns out that the Pentagon/Wall Street Complex is running the country, indeed the world, into the ground. These crackers want to be positioned well in the middle east--that's where all the action is--the gas, the oil, the Muslims, the Christians, the jews.
Sorry, it aint gonna happen. China--a bunch of ex buddhists-- is gonna eat your bacon...
Not so "ex" actually, Buddhism is spreading (or reawakening) in China as religious restrictions are being lifted, sort of.
Nobody on any side seems able to provide a coherent answer on what to do about the Taliban. Especially the treatment of women by the Taliban. Women have it bad now, in Afghanistan, whether at the hands of the government (whatever that is), the Afghan army (again, whatever that is), the Afghan police (thugs of no particular loyalty with the only paying jobs in town), the warlords (crazier and more narrowly self-interested than the Taliban, if that is possible) or the Taliban, where they reign. Women in Afghanistan, are, in other words, just the necessary casualties of Empire and its wars. They live to provide the cannon fodder and the "object lessons" each side keeps trying to "teach" the other via bombing and bloodshed. Women suffer either way. Even in the best possible scenario there is little we (progressive anti-war americans) can do for Afghan women. We invaded the place and turned it into a war zone. There are always consequences for this, which our rulers will always deny and they will always fall hardest on those least able to defend themselves.
Likely scenario - after 10 exhausting and meaningless years of horror and slaughter, the US will roar and rumble out of Afghanistan, leaving a vaccuum, to be followed by more horror and slaughter. This will be followed by the establishment of an Iran-like theocracy, which will only make the business page, with occasional stories about gas pipelines. We will all have lost untold amounts of wealth and many thousands of dead and thousands more severely wounded. Nothing of military or political importance, will be solved. At home, however, in the interest of the "war effort" and "national security", whatever was left of due process and representative government will be "suspended".
"Freedom" will be re-defined to mean the "freedom" of Christian medievalists to practice their arcane, anti-human, atavistic religion without criticism from anyone. And also "freedom" to make lots of money by any means available without government interference or taxes. Between war taxes, "re-structuring" and economic collapse, the american middle class will be destroyed, replaced by an angry, resentful, insecure mass of "self-employed" "freelancers", with no security, no benefits, no future, and no one to blame except each other and the designated bogeyman of the year (when we tire of the "hajis", who will we pick on? There's always the Mexicans!). Women in America will likely suffer terribly in the wake of all this, too.
This is our future - this is the "hope and change" we voted in in 2008. There is no hope for women in the empirial future, whether here or elsewhere. There seems precious little anyone can do about it.
Who knows? Maybe civilization will return after about 500 or 600 years of a new "Dark Age". Maybe not.
Pelosi;protecting american people,without that what else really matters?I cut her words short because she is full of shit and all of them must think we are dumber than a rock.It has been everywhere that the taliban might have 200 folks and we were supposed to a power sharing agreement with them?Is there something I'm missing here?Safety without freedom is an illusion and we are fighting over there to feed the MIC and make money for the few in their monied cesspool.Tony
Well said.
Goldman Sachs is far more dangerous than the Taliban to National Security. If Pelosi had any integrity, she would say we need troops to occupy Wall Street.
Good choice of photo, worthy of Daumier. Or Goya's caprichos. It shows the the comfortable, the corrupt, the shallow and the silly, glazed over in denial and self satisfaction. The pinched and enervated Harry Reid would have been a good addition to the photo.
(The Republicans are more Goya "Disasters of War".)
Joe
I just emailed progressive senators and suggested they introduce a bill banning lobbyist bribes, gifts, perks and revolving doors to address the rampant government corruption that keeps us pouring over half our tax dollars into the MIC for war-profiteering, Zi*nsm, global warming oil companies and other counter-productive purposes. A bill to get money out of politics would have wide public support.
Please write your Congressperson and suggest they introduce this bill.
1) There is NO indecision.
2) There is NO wisdom.
3) The only poverty is the one our government has permitted Wall Street to foist on us.
4) These legislators and the administration are elite liars. They want to keep the war profiteering money rolling along, no matter how much the "little people" (most of us) suffer. They're just pretending to deliberate for the rubes.
The rest is bullshit.
Tell everyone you know the truth. Scream and holler. Show passion. Reject the myths. Explain that support of the status quo is treason. The zietgeist will define the movement. The new belief will dictate constructive action. It is happening as we speak here.
"Scream and holler".
I thank Barbara Ehrenreich for saying it is OK not to be all sunny and positive all the time.
Joe
Goldman Sachs is far more dangerous than the Taliban to National Security. If Pelosi had any integrity, she would say we need troops to occupy Wall Street.
"Goldman Sachs is far more dangerous than the Taliban to National Security"
Now by God, thats the gospel truth and well said.
Thanks. If you ever decide to march on Wall Street, count me in. I'm a pacifist but, where Wall Street is concerned, I cannot be passive. They are killing us.
Agreed AGG. Goldman Sachs has caused more misery among our people than the Taliban ever has or could. People have lost jobs, homes, cannot retire.
And yet the latest appointee to oversee legal enforcement at the SEC is 29 year old Adam Storch, another yuppie spawn of Goldman Sachs. Their hedgemoney continues to grow.
Joe
Money talks again. What is so sacred about that Pipeline that everyone is so scared to mention?
Go to Google and hit, "Afghanistan proposed pipeline"
and get a wakeup call. Then send it to Obama.
The pipeline is and has been the main reason for occupying Afghanistan. Even if it were ever built, it wouldn't last a week without an attempt to blow it up. Karzai has figured out by now that he can line his pockets faster with opium kickbacks than by waiting for pipeline profits to manifest.
To say I'm disappointed again is an understatement. Since our "elected" representatives don't seem to believe in listening to We their Constituents I guess we'll have to make sure they hear our voices AGAIN.
To stay in Afghanistan with INCREASED TROOPS is folly, no matter what the Generals say. Think about it. The Generals and their military-industrial complex are who benefits from waging wars. The rest of us DO NOT BENEFIT. Our kids are killed. Our former friends in formerly friendly countries are killed. We don't need this any longer. If more PEOPLE are to be sent to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, et al, then they should be CIVILIAN TEACHERS, ENGINEERS, ROAD BUILDERS, DOCTORS AND NURSES. Then perhaps we'd WIN. Otherwise there is no win. Bush put our country between a rock and a hard place. Now is the time to GIVE UP BUSH'S WAR. Let our Military come home. Send the Congress to those countries. Perhaps they can do some educating of THEMSELVES and of the PEOPLE THEY WANT OUR MILITARY TO KILL. Perhaps they can learn diplomatic skills instead of merely relying on bullets, bombs and bullying!
President Obama, please listen to the people! I'd like to volunteer as a Peace Grandma who will rock babies to sleep, read books to kids, give baths to toddlers, sing lullabies, cook soothing soups and love the little ones instead of scaring the living crap out them with our bullets, bombs, and bullying.
MaddiJane
Excellent point which is the same argument that Barbara Tuchman used in her classic work The March of Folly which described how various countries would pursue policies that were in direct conflict with their interests. But their wooden-headedness, as Ms. Tuchman describes it, prevented them from implementing a more common sense approach which would have ameliorated the issues that they had faced such as the United States committing troops and more troops into that quagmire known as Vietnam. And now we have more wooden-headedness rearing its ugly head as the US under Obama seems desirous of adding even more soldiers into that quagmire that is currently known as Afghanistan.
Estimated total cost of the wars since 9/11/01: A mortgage of $50,000 per four person household.
Estimated cost of four more years of similar war: A second mortgage of $40,000 per four person household.
The problem is that the country's foreign bankers don't think we can repay the mortgage now. Hong Kong (owned by China now) just asked for all of its hard assets (actual gold) to be physically removed from banks in the US.
When the dollar is worth a dime, what then?
That's when an answer to Afghanistan will emerge.
--There is no domino theory.
--The "Muslims" don't all hate us, they're human beings.
--Dirt-poor farmers won't really care about us after we've left. All we left them was alone.
--Western government has been no good to the poor. They may be angry that 2 million of their countrymen are heroin addicts, that we installed a corrupt heroin government, that we used them as political pawns and then left the poor to starve or to be shot in drug wars.
--Afghanistan is a giant heroin cartel. Many of the heroin kingpins are on the CIA's side. Does this political position square with the best of Evangelicals living their Christian faith? What is America the land of, anyways?
Bring America Back !!!!
****While you may use fancy words to say Team ObAma suffers from a 'Poverty of Wisdom'===let's just call it sheer
stupidity. Team Obama don't have a Clue!
****King George and his merry band sold Obama the party line
that the boogieman still hides in the caves of Tora Bora, and a Holy Crusade is needed to vanquish the dreaded dragon !
--They hate us for our freedoms, don't you know ?
****The entire basis of this war was a Neocon lie concerning terrorists====it was and is a criminal, immoral, illegal,
pre-emptive War. A Surge of a criminal war, is and was a
criminal surge.
****The insanity of keeping a Neocon war monger and war criminal==Robert Gates==with the same boots on the ground,
General Betrayus==only assured Obama that he would get No
Exit Strategy from Iraq, or Afghan !! Stupidity and
absurdity !!
****Obama locked himself into King Georges Team, and now is most certainly reaping what "W" reaped==about a 20% approval rating of the American people.
These military minded creeps are part and parcel of the military industrial complex==The War Machine, and all they know is War, and thats all they can produce. It has absorbed Team Obama, which must now deal with the sword of Damacles, without the benefit of Wisdom !!!!
When candidate Obama declared his intention to run for the presidency I warned several times on this site that he is a megalomaniac ("we will first change America and then the world" he intoned) imperialist who would start his own wars, most likely in Afghanistan. My conclusion was based on his published interviews with the Chicago Tribune and speeches at AIPAC. I was not the only one who had come to this conclusion but I was also roundly booed by Obama's sheeples. Shedding tears today because President Obama will do what he intended to do all along is too late. You should never have voted for this global warlord nor for the equally warlordly alternative McCain.
I think those of us that can, should continue protesting.
Then, in 2010, vote out any member of Congress that voted for war funding.
In 2012, vote out Obama and support and elect Dennis Kucinich as President.
Not once have I seen anyone mention the fact that Afganistan is a larger country than Iraq with a much larger population. Add that to the things mentioned, terrain, illeteracy, etc and the answer as to what to do is obvious.
Withdraw our troops, we are gaining nothing and the Afgans are losing time in deciding the fate of their country.
According to recent estimates the population of Iraq is nearly one million more than that of Afghanistan, but I agree with your last sentence.
The people of Afghanistan see us largely as occupiers from far away supporting their corrupt government. The young people of Afghanistan need jobs, not bullets. More American troops will mean more recruits for the Taliban.
If the stakes are so high, perhaps we'd best nationalize the armaments, security contractors and defense industries---we can't really afford 'profit' at a time like this.