Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOfficial: Obama Wants His War Options Changed
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
![[US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry during a press conference in Kabul in October 2009. The US envoy to Afghanistan has warned against sending thousands more troops to the country as President Barack Obama weights strategy options in the eight-year conflict, reports said Thursday.
(AFP/Massoud Hossaini)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/eikenberry.jpg "eikenberry.jpg")
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy - most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.
But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.
Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.
The president was considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table Wednesday were ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.
The key sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.
Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.
Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Eikenberry's cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with them who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified documents. Other administration officials raised the same misgivings in describing Obama's hesitancy to accept any of the options before him in their current form.
The options presented to Obama by his war council will now be amended.
Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.
The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.
Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.
The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.
Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.
Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.
Another official stressed that Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion and that his eventual decision will cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.
With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama's tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.
Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.
93 Comments so far
Show AllPresident Obama knows well that the Vietnam war became rapidly unpopular after Tet and that opposition to the war in Iraq began to grow exponentially when the casualty figure of that war rose alarmingly. A Tet-like offensive by the Afghan insurgents is unlikely but casualty figures will rise when more soldiers are on the ground. My hunch is that one of the discussions in Washington is: more soldiers on the ground or more drones in the air? After all, Obama has already demonstrated his predilections for drones.
What the Washington insider-idiots do not understand is that the occupying forces never have "the options". It is always the occupied who have all options because they have the inside track; they are "at home". The Washington talk about options is yet another trial balloon to gauge how the nation reacts to soothing garbage. Obama has only two options, both political poison for him, stay or leave.
Shout out to Obama... war is over, if you want it.
O'Nam.
George C. Brown - It seems to me that the President may be beginning to learn one of the lessons of both ancient and several recent lessons of history, and that is that the Afghans prefer to be left alone (to their own devices). Alexander the Great couldn't "conquer" them, the British couldn't, nor could the Soviets (with over 100,000 troops).
The longer we stay there, the stronger the influence of the Taliban will be; the sooner we get out, the more quickly their influence will diminish. Are Karzai and his cronies corrupt? Undoubtedly! Why have we in recent history managed to wind up with allies who are corrupt? Or maybe the question should be rephrased to: How come WE (the U.S.) seem to pick crooked guys with whom to ally ourselves? Part of the answer may be that our Military/Industrial/Corporatizing Complex sees that it is to their advantage to keep our country in a War Economy. The net result of that is that our infra-structure is crumbling, we, as a nation, are getting less "green" (or should I say that the entrenched power-elite will not allow us to attempt to get more "green"?), we are at the doorstep of disaster capitalism, our young people are having their lives wasted in combat that is mis-focused, and future generations are being burdened with a monstrous debt. We need to get out of there; we need to seek to be part of a fellowship of nations instead of creating a world wide empire; we need to encourage the President to get some new blood among his corps of advisors - - folk who are influenced more by the welfare of humankind than amassing great fortunes for the few and the destruction of a democratic society which was once the model for the rest of the world.
"How come WE (the U.S.) seem to pick crooked guys with whom to ally ourselves?"
birds of a feather . . .
(and it's only "WE" so long as you choose to identify. liberate yourself. join the world.)
Crooked guys? Our chosen ones cannot be otherwise. If they were not crooked, if they were to care about their people and their resources, they would not be abetting imperialists who have no business in their land.
Joe
well stated.
tramaker - a lettered response to your earlier points:
a) all those Americans died for nothing in Afghanistan because you pulled out before the mission was complete.
actually, they have died for something: to further the interests of the great american industrial war machine that does the bidding for its corporate masters.
b) the people who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 have won and will regroup and plot new attacks
b/c the 911 attacks were a reaction, albeit a heinous and desperate one heavy on shock value, to u.s. hegemony in muslim states, a gesture on the part of the u.s. to pull back from its hegemonic interests in the region may actually result in the opposite: willingness on the part of the muslim world to reach out to us in reconciliation thereby reducing the threat of future attacks.
c)You're abandoning NATO - many other countries still have troops there and are committed to efforts to help Afghans
yes, we led them into it, but by leaving we can finally be a role model for positive change. hopefully, nato forces will be right behind us! the best way to help afghans is for all imperial foreign forces to go home.
d)You're letting The Taliban take over again and bring back their brutal reign.
there is no doubt the taliban will resurge. perhaps our military efforts, though actually motivated to control or access oil reserves and extend u.s. power through the construction of additional military bases, have slowed the taliban down in their fundamentalist zeal; however, any real defeat of the taliban must of necessity be an internal process of transformation inspired and undertaken by the afghans themselves. our best efforts would be to reempower the afghan citizenry by giving up the strangling control we exert over their livelihoods politically, economically, and ecologically.
e)You said this was a war of necessity and now you're abandoning it. How are we going to be able to know where you stand on national security issues in the future given that you've done such a dramatic 180 here?
a 180 turn toward the truth is a radical step in the right direction. an apology for a hitherto tragic and misguided policy of aggression would go a long way toward finally establishing obama's credibility in the eyes of progressives who have been deeply concerned about where he actually stands. on the other hand, majority republicans and democrats will get their first taste of what a truly sane future will look like under a president who has finally turned toward the truth.
you say responses to your points must reflect political reality. you are correct: by transforming national policy in afghanistan and elsewhere away from u.s. corporate control – the endpoint of which will inevitably be extreme political instability, economic collapse, and global ecocide – toward acknowledgment of regional sovereignty and localized control, the political reality of today, scary and dangerous as it is, will be given cause to bend toward a more sane reality in the future.
thanks for restating what I said earlier, more eloquently.
Has Obama gone to China to seek financial help for his
interference in Afghan? China is interested in the Pipe-line also.
What an utterly pointless, meaningless operation this has been from the git go. Except perhaps to secure that alleged pipeline for stealing as much oil as "we" can. This is pure conjecture based on speculation backed up by lots of impressive facts grounded in strangeness and towering deceit. In other words, the stock in trade of US foreign policy. Who knows where this nightmare train is headed? Stay tuned for the next inexplicable chapter of "USA Imperialism: It's What We Do." The more insane, the more we energy we expend rationalizing it.
Six months after everybody goes home, nobody will know the taliban as anything other than the repressed wackos that defaced the Buddhist cliff carvings, and AfPak will be back in the 19th century.
Let it go, big O.
Where is a Ken Galbraith when we really need him?
AD
Obama should explain the "Mission" to us. Many of us know
that Obama and his gang want insurance that the population
will be controlled so that we can build the pipeline and that will take decades. We can show our own dissent in the next election. We have been fooled long enough. Let's moveout of Move-on and change things in the next election.
Just(ly) Pull OUT, NOW! Just think of the celebrations on both sides of the world ... it's WIN/WIN. Obama, be a Gorbachev and make universally equable history; OR join les miserepubs in the BushCompany bunker!
Afghanistan corrupt?
Ha! Ha!
The finger pointing is is a piece of propaganda intended to blind Americans and the world to the truth.
America, playing the role of (the Christian) God while deeply corrupt itself, is now the primary corrupting influence in Afghanistan. It is clear that American efficiency in killing people is a sign of psychopathy.
The only value in the country is to be found amongst those who tell America to go home. The local grease so thoroughly at home amongst the mechanical and human components of the psychopathic American war machine there are American inspired, financed and led.
America today is what is meant by the mediaeval idea of the Devil, who either presents himself as God or the only realistic alternative.
The true alternative is that America in the balance is nothing but greed, currently the major enemy of mankind; the Great Satan.
Funny really. Osama is right. Islam has been correct; Christianity incorrect. Ha! Ha! indeed, but not happily.
Go away today Obama! Fix your country and your people before you come back.
It is revolting that this progressive forum spent the last 6 years screaming at the Bush-Cheney Administration for leading this country into illegal and illadvised invasions and occupations of the Middle East.
NOW this same progressive forum is out to condem President Obama for standing back and evaluating the Middle East Mess.
He is strong enough and smart enough not to be pushed or rushed by the NeoCons, Military-Industrial Complex Interests, Israeli Lobbies, and the Armchair Hawks.
This will produce a rational plan to withdraw the United States Military from the Middle East. This will formulate a new U.S. Defense long term policy....providing for the rebuilding our badly over-extended Military.
We should be supportive of our President's measured approach to forming solutions to problems.
.
Why should we be supportive? It shouldn't take this long. Any rational person would have concluded the need to withdraw years ago and should have hit the ground running with the outlines of a plan. I would hold Obama to the same standards as the moron, at least.
End the friggin wars.
Joe
"standing back and evaluating "
so WTF was he doing before he was selected?
Mr. Obama, is that your final answer?
c`mon, let's give the man a chance!
there are reasons that a 'man of color' and from a historically overly oppressed race comes to 'the throne' in the most powerful nation of the world after all ...
even if he does make mistakes, as long as it's not going to be on purpose and because of fraud, he's surely to be forgiven imo.
(whatever became of impeaching Bush junior btw?)
I don't see why people bash Obama, when Bush had 8 years to do something, and Britain,as Russia messed up, so why don't everyone butt out. If bin laden had okeyed the oil pipe line there would not have been 9/11,- and the hate against muslins would not be. 9/11 was our Reichstag, and in time the dirt will come out.
RETHINK AFGHANISTAN
Frantic creation of foreign scapegoat to swallow blame for inevitable shatter of imperial agenda, accidentally revealed in imperial media propaganda piece designed to propel oppressive idea of societal dependence on "dear leader". Heil Bam Bam! Imperial collapse wasn't your fault!
RAILROADED??? RUSHED????
You media folks are really grasping at straws these days. The tragic, lonely, heroic, Lincoln-like, figure you want to convince the public that Obama is won't wash, won't take and won't fly.
We know that the president is just another cog in the machine. We know, as Dr. Bains pointed out, that our people could be eating dog food and this administration will continue to send troops to fight for elite profits.
Okay - so it's the usual Obama-bashing here on Common Dreams but how about everyone momentarily leaves their Utopian cocoons for a second and tackles reality...
What should Obama actually do now? To play this game, you actually have to deal with reality - no Utopian fantasies. Okay, so you still say he should just bring the troops home now?
First off - could he, even if he wanted to? That is - would some American military lives be in danger if he pulled out entire platoons quickly? Would Afghan civilians? Would the schools and other institutions being built there right now with American funds be in jeopardy with no soldiers to protect them etc etc?
Secondly, if he pulls all the troops out now, what is his rationale, given that he campaigned for two full years on the fact that Bush didn't give enough attention to Afghanistan and did not catch Bin Laden or any of the other training forces behind 9-11? I'm seriously asking for your opinion on how Obama should spin this, given that he does want to get re-elected in 2012.
What are the arguments you would throw out against those who will say:
a)All those Americans died for nothing in Afghanistan because you pulled out before the mission was complete.
b)the people who attacked the U.S.on 9-11 have won and will regroup and plot new attacks
c)You're abandoning NATO - many other countries still have troops there and are committed to efforts to help Afghans
d)You're letting The Taliban take over again and bring back their brutal reign.
e)You said this was a war of necessity and now you're abandoning it. How are we going to be able to know where you stand on national security issues in the future given that you've done such a dramatic 180 here?
etc etc
These will all be real criticisms - whether you think they are valid or not - that he will have to answer to in the political arena. How would you handle it? Remember - your answer must deal with political reality, not how you would like things to be.
Yes, he will get a lot of criticism for pulling out, but he will get more for staying in, or escalating. Remember, the majority of Americans want out of the middle east. That is political reality. If those on the right, or who are making money off of our occupations, yell and scream, their screaming can fall on deaf ears. The country needs a change of direction. Unfortunately, the rich and powerful have more "votes" than you and me.
As for the "mission"-- the world has changed since 2001. It's a little late for going after binLaden. If he's even alive. But no matter, the network that spawned him, if it still exists, has moved on to other places-- it cannot be vanquished by wars.
If they admit to the american public that the mission is actually not about Security, or Democracy, or other such hogwash, but about securing pipeline routes and controlling oil for U.S. corporations, how much support would the public give for that mission: especially when it requires the horrific amount of blood and money it does.
"All those Americans died for nothing in Afghanistan because you pulled out before the mission was complete."
didn't hurt junior's re-selection chances, did it?
Bush pulled out of Afghanistan? I must have missed that.
Already you have defined the political landscape between those who deal with "reality" and those who entertain "utopian fantasies". So much for change, huh? Already your worldview is limited by the parameters of the projected status quo and accept that if Obama is no change from Bush than, well he is dealing within the framework of the "real world" and expecting anything different, anything to change is "utopian fantasy".
Eventually we left Viet Nam--that was the reality that could no longer denied, we couldn't sustain our continuing agression, but while we continued to cling to the "reality", so much more lives were lost and treasure squandered. So, I ask you, sooner or later, do you want to face the real world inevitability--or do you want to postpone it until the day comes when all is lost to shoulder the illusion that somehow pulling out troops endangers them even more? As for Obama breaking campaign promises--why should this be any different from all the other ones he couldn't be bothered to keep? Really, you need to wise up.
Why am I even having this crazy conversation?
Thanks for not addressing a single thing I asked. Do you accept that there is any political reality at all to Obama withdrawing the troops? I'm talking about the political reality I sketched out in my list of responses that would come if he did indeed announce he was withdrawing. Do you think what I listed there is all fantasy? That no one would accuse him of:
a)Abandoning the mission and letting American soldiers die for nothing.
b)Letting the people who planned 9-11 get away and perhaps plan more attacks.
c)Abandoning NATO.
d)Completely contradicting what he has spent over two years arguing was said was an important war and crucial to American security, and drastically changing U.S. foreign policy.
Please don't misunderstand me. I would love it if Obama pulled the troops out ASAP, I'm simply asking how would it be done, both literally and politically, with little or no damage to Obama.
Regarding literally...You imply above that there is no risk to troops by just withdrawing them all now. Do you have any proof of this or are we just supposed to accept that it's true? If that's just a military talking point, than it should be easy to disprove, no?
You're looking for a way to play/win the game that elites have rigged to ensure the people can't win. The only way to beat the elites in their game is with violence. We're taking a different approach by not playing the rigged game. We reject all of the elites' ideas and assumptions. It becomes a contest of ideas, a new game. The key idea is that the people don't need elites. So act accordingly, by disengaging from the elite establishment, and help build the alter-economy which keeps elites completely out of the loop, irrelevant.
This is the best thing said yet. Perfect and spot on. Tramaker is obsessed with his circumscribed version of "reality" to the detriment of the imagination, which is the only way to free ourselves from the death grip elites (including Obama, his knight in shining armor) have on this rotten, corrupt society. It is they who have rotted and corrupted it and dweebs like Tramaker think it's only intelligent and expeditious for the rest of us to accept it as "reality" and deal with it strictly on their terms. "Question authority" my ass. Ignore authority, and imaginatively defy its worthless ass. They have fucked up the entire world, and we're supposed to defer to their surpassing wisdom? Sit at the feet of Obama the Magnificent if you can't do any better, Tramaker, but don't expect to lead everyone else down that fetid garden path. Ok, mixing my metaphors, but still.
Please stop referring to these parasites as 'elites'.
No, I'm looking for a way to get the troops home from Afghanistan.
Planes? Ships? I'd suggest trains and automobiles, even tricycles but I realize there's the issue of the ocean.
"U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians."
"...protecting Afghan civilians?"
This absurdity will test almost anyone's capacity for outrage. But drowning in blood, we slosh on!
–The next generation of Predator drones will be increased ten-fold to "protect Afghan civilians." Most certainly!
-(Jill Bains)
Dr. Bains,
Well said.
Take a look at tramaker's attempt at status quo propaganda. The false premises and assumptions leading to hysterical warnings of admitted failure are mind numbing. This guy doesn't have a clue about what the military is doing in Afghanistan. To justify further killing and waste on the defense of the president's political future is the epitome of situational ethics bullshit.
AGG,
Thanks again. What is grotesque about this 'tramaker's scurrilous 'arguments' is exactly as you say: In the service of same spurious and imagined 'realism,' he amorally justifies the unconscionable in the service of fascism and certainly of right-wing opportunism.
Typical, right wing and reactionary Democratic Party 'boiler plate.' Probably on sick leave from "The Daily Kostapo" or "Digby" trying to re-claim the Common Dreams blog for the Obama bots.
And this imperial warmonger tramaker probably claims to be an honest 'Progressive.' The point here being is why is it so easy to assume membership to this club?
–(Jill Bains)
Wars bankrupt empires
Is POTUS having a Mikhail Gorbachev moment and wondering why we are there in the first place?
"Is POTUS having a Mikhail Gorbachev moment and wondering why we are there in the first place?" –(Humbaba)
–No.
"With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians."
Of course the Taliban are expanding their power. They are the Afghan People's only defense from the warlords and the foreign invaders. They are the only organization coordinated enough to fight off the invaders.
Hell, I'd probably team up with a bunch of (gag) Republicans if it meant getting rid of a bunch of invaders here.
Remember, the Taliban were our treasured friends while they were fighting the Russians. They only became "evil" when they objected to the new American and NATO invaders.
To Afghans that hated the Taliban regime, they are probably now considered heroic patriots, fighting for the independence of their country against horrible odds.
God a lot of people on both sides are going to die or be maimed before we are finally driven out!
All We the People have to do is "just say NO!" to wars of conquest and greed, to the trashing of the American populace to ensure still more profit to the Oligarchy. Just say NO to the endless increases in money paid to our bloated war industry and the Pentagon. Insist that some of that money be returned to We the People by rebuilding our infrastructure, providing decent medical care for all. Assisting the Americans who were ripped off and are now in the streets due to the rapaciousness of the banksters, insurance companies, et al., and bring jobs back to the United States, rebuild our industrial base.
We are probably at the point where only a national strike would get the attention of the Oligarchy. Shut the country down. Nothing moves, nothing bought or sold, turn off the TV's and the propaganda. Just hunker down. That would get their attention in the only way possible; their pocketbooks.
For the people to emancipate themselves from elite rule, they need to "just say no" to elite rule and also "just say yes" to popular rule. Get to work, people. You don't have forever.
Afghanistan.
22 gallons fuel per GI per day. $400.00 per gallon.
22 X 80K X 400= $88,000,000 daily US fuel expense in Afghanistan, X 365= $32,120,000,000.00
Thirty Two Billion Dollars annually transferred from taxpayer to Rex Tillerson's pockets. And Obomya bush dicks and murdochs.
Source for base #'s= antiwar.com right now. Multiplication errors would be mine. And I'm looped on pain meds, so "I could be wrong."
Makes sense; we steal the oil from SA, ship it crude to Texas, refine it, sell it to the govt in no bid contracrs, they pay shipping, then we ship it to Iran for shipment overground to Afghanistan. Yeah, Iran.
Or we fly it in. Maybe mix some with detergent, call it Napalm and make air-drops.
"Maybe mix some with detergent, call it Napalm and make air-drops."
be sure to use unleaded - better for the environment.
eco-friendly fire.
vdb, and mixes better w/ defoliants too, thanks for making me laugh.
vdb; if drones are controlled by a radio signal, could it be jammed? The ISI, Tehran, Moscow might whip up some little kits. Like our Stingers to Usama & Co. They changed that war 180 degrees.
The radio signals......mimi-stingers float up, follow that same radio signal..... small pop on contact. This weapon will inspire it's own demise quickly.
"could it be jammed?"
you may be on to something - but you would need to know the frequency.
as for the laffs:
funny will get you through times of no hope better than hope will get you through times of no funny.
Eikenberry's cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government . . .
Guess Obama's going to have to off Karzai and find some other patsy who smells like a whole can of bathroom deodorizer. Considering the very nature of Afghanistan and the size of the dump we've taken on the place, Barry's going to have to find someone as big as Paul Bunyan who smells like a French perfume factory.
There's a very mafiosi aspect to all of this, isn't there? Can't you just hear McNamara to Diem or Rumsfield to Saddam saying, "Nuttin poisonal, you understand: it's just business."
America is in serious internal decline, yet we persist in fighting external forces. Ignoring our internal decline while blindly fighting external forces forms a cycle of downward momentum ultimately ending in national collapse. History is replete with just such examples with Rome being just one example. Wisdom, knowledge, and courage are all absent in Washington. Nearsighted oligarchs are driving the collapse. Blind ambition for power and world dominion, buttressed by the Christian doctrine of the Nicene Creed are driving us to national self destruction and perhaps even human annihilation. Obama is ill suited to change the course of human history. We are currently at the mercy of blind oligarchs unless the Earth Mother intervenes. Turning light to dark, promise to damnation is no easy task; yet, we seem to have done it. It does not appear that we as a species deserve to live.
"History is replete..."
That reminds me of this:
"...history is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external, 'improbable' event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people--a 'Space Pearl Harbor'--will be the only event to galvanize the nation and cause the US government to act. We are on notice, but we have not noticed."
- a bipartisan national commission, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization (January 2001)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1121/1
War. Barbarity. Greed. Pollution. We are on notice, but we have not noticed.
"SHOULD THIS NATION FALL....IT SHALL FALL NOT BECAUSE OF FOREIGN THREATS OR ENEMIES, REAL OR IMAGINED.....IT SHALL FALL BECAUSE THE PEOPLE *ARE* CORRUPT"........
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
note the present verb tense - in that while speaking from the time-line of his day - it was already an acknowledgement and observation that americans ARE corrupt...
no wonder franklin was a very , very big skeptic of the "american experiment" echoed later by sigmund freud upon a visit:
"AMERICA is a Monumental Accident...a TRAGIC one".
This on counterpunch today.
http://www.counterpunch.org/stahl11122009.html
the multiple comments in the media and congress about karzias legitimacy are puzzling. he was selected as a pliable leader after the 2001 invasion. not having lived in afghanistan for more than a decade before this, he had no political or power base of his own.he was not a leader then or now.the difference is that with the elections, tainted as expected in a war torn country,where everything is permissible to achieve power, he is a convenient excuse for lack of any meaningful economic,security or political progress. the only 'legitimate' leaders were the warlords, who would provide a semblance of ethnic security in there areas, if not any other benefits.
All the posters catch the gist of the article.
I am left with the understanding that the debate is between whether it be thirty or will it be forty thousand more troops next year ( and of course another 30 the year after).
Remember the production contract being implemented as we read is for 1000, specialized for Afghanistan, attack vehicles to be produced every month.
The USA is having a difficult time raising an Afghan army because 1) The private contractors are corrupt 2) The Afghan much rather kill USA soldiers than Pastun freedom fighters.
And "Reconstruction Teams" are USA Special Forces ----- the only thing they are reconstucting is society and politics through assassinations.
Trenchant and correct. –(Jill Bains)
I have a serious question.
Yesterday was Veteran's Day.
Was I supposed to pay tribute to the Blackwater and Triple Canopy mercenaries who've served in addition to our regular troops?
no - they demand (no-bid)tribute on the other 363 days.
AP states without explanation: "...since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year."
COMMENT: So if we need reenforcements now, we can't send them until next year? Why? Our troops are dying over there right now? Shouldn't they get help? If we were being invaded by Mexico, would we have to delay the fight until early next year? AP apparently is content to pass along talking points without question.
It's sad that someone uses the name "Progressive101" and talks like an imperialist thug wearing dove like wings. I don't know who you are, but I certainly don't have any troops, and I certainly don't want to support the U.S. government's troops in Afghanistan as they continue to murder thousands of innocents, including those unlucky souls that happen to attend children's soccer games, funerals, and weddings.
And if Mexico invaded the U.S., how different would that be from the U.S. stealing half of Mexico 150 years ago? I for one, would welcome a change to this current death culture.
"It's sad that someone uses the name "Progressive101" and talks like an imperialist thug wearing dove like wings. " –(agitkid)
It is most certainly "sad" but also most certainly true. If it walks like a progressive, talks like a progressive then it IS a progressive. Modern American 'progressivism' is as ideologically soft and full of holes as a fine Swiss Cheese.
There is something wrong with the Progressive 'club' itself when it is so easily co-opted by imperial fascists like "Progressive 101" who find it so easily to join the ranks. It is good that you bring this up in the way you do.
Many 'lberal' or 'progressive' hawks can all too readily make compelling arguments why they can assume the 'Progressive' mantle. That they are permitted to do so is only because they can.
That they do just that with great ease can certainly be seen as wretched opportunism, but the real fault lies with the ideology of Progressivism itself which has grown flaccid and denatured by refusing to grow more radical. It assumes erroneously that it 'has a seat at the table,' when in truth, it has none.
It has failed and failed utterly to critically and unequivocally differentiate itself by its cowardice to move programmatically further left.
It is not without irony– but not at all surprising–to see the sudden, en masse infestation of this thread by reactionary 'Obama Bots' who claim to be progressives.
–(Jill Bains)
Obama has plenty of facts to make a decision. What he appears to lack is courage-- the courage to look past all his slimy "advisers" and make the choice he knows in his heart is right.
The "right" choice cannot be found in Obama's heart. It cannot be found in Obama, period.
Let's remember who searched through the slime to find those advisors. What indication do we have that 0 wants to do what's right? He's scored a singular set of zeros if he does.
What he knows is right, and what he does, may at this point be two different things.
Question: How did the AP get hold of a "classified" cable so quickly? Anonymous sources, leaks of classified information, consideration of secret options are all diagnostic of manipulation of public opinion.
The Afghanistan invasion/occupation is clearly a losing proposition for the people here and there. (The Iraq nonsense too). An honest government would be more "transparent". Instead we get transparent ruses. People like Emanuel and Clinton do not know how to be straightforward. How I wish that Horton the Elephant were president. "I said what I meant and I meant what I said". That would be refreshing and show respect for the citizenry, including the supposedly treasured troops.
I know Obama, even if he wanted to move toward peace, which is questionable, is facing some very dangerous people who have billions at stake. He has to play them too. But why not try honesty about Karzai, about the prospects of creating some illusory situation in Afghanistan? Most people in the US no longer support the mission in Afghanistan, whatever that was supposed to be. Treat us with respect and tell the truth. Otherwise the far right will come forward with clear, if crazy, statements which will have more cogency than the deception and waffling of the center.
Bring the troops home and continue to pay their salaries as they rebuild the infrastructure, install solar panels, tutor kids, and do a hundred things we need to help our declining homeland. I would even throw a peaceful little bone to Halliburton and Blackwater(Xe)if that would get them off our backs without an assassination.
Joe
"I would even throw a peaceful little bone to Halliburton and Blackwater(Xe)if that would get them off our backs without an assassination." –(jclientelle)
–Now you are getting to the heart of the darkness, albeit with a touch of the sardonic.
But I'm afraid these ghouls (Halliburton and Blackwater) want the whole corpse. The "peaceful little bones" won't do.
As all cancers they metastasize; they are not 'cured,' only eliminated usually with the death of the agent. Euthanizing methods may be appropriate for human beings, but these 'inhuman' entities deserve no such pleasantries upon retirement.
Halliburton and Blackwater must be suppressed and eliminated by fiat, if not force. A politics which permits their continuance can only be spurious and reactionary.
–(Jill Bains).
You finish with more deals with the devil. sick.
It was meant as sick... humor.
Joe
That's the fear in satire.
HEY!
0 DOES want change!
I thought he'd changed his mind.
This nonsense of invading and destroying other countries and then "training" them to take over their own affairs is the height of arrogance and has been proven not to work again and again-- Vietnam and Iraq being the two obvious examples.
Time for another bit of reality/sanity from George Carlin.
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
-George Carlin.
NC-Tom
Good Carlin quote. Here is another of Carlin's observations concerning American militarism:
"Show us a third world country and we'll bomb the hell out of it."
If Obama wants his war options changed, as the article claims, then perhaps our less than intrepid media can ask Obama and his staff if this then means that the Afghans can expect an announcement of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from their country. Or is that, like single payer, considered to be off the table?
In a previous propaganda permutation, Gibbs assured the public that withdrawal had "never been entertained." Yes, like single payer, there is no serious money in it and therefore is not on the table.
off the table?
it ain't even in the same building.
This is getting ridiculous praise from the Democrats right now even though nothing has been announced. He wants to know what the end strategy is. Somehow this is supposed to be a victory for the left? This makes Obama completely different than Bush? The Afghanistan war is now fine because Obama wants to know what the goal is with the Afghan government? What a joke. If this weak bullsh%t somehow dampens the small, but (re)growing, US anti-war movement, there really is no "hope" with the US.
I've identified the President's PR strategy and it's ingenious.
I call it the "Obama Propaganda Samba" (otherwise known as the PR Dance of Bullsh*t).
First a story is leaked sure to make Democrats angry. Then a retraction is released assuring us the President hasn't made any decision. A few weeks later the story is leaked again although this time it has been changed slightly. We're told this is only one possible option of many the President is considering. The outrage lessens considerably. The third time the final draft of the story is reported. By this time the base is too confused, tired and caught up in their own personal lives to protest. We're assured this plan has already been vetted, approved and is ready to go. The public is dragged, exhausted and unsure into submission.
Obama's pulling a similar stunt here by claiming to reject his General's Afghanistan plans'. In a couple weeks he'll be informing us that after long consideration he's chosen one of these options.
He's just dragging the process out to make it look as though he's giving it a great deal of thought and to hope we lose track of the story. The decision to escalate was made long ago. This is simply a shot of steroids to a standard PR strategy.
You just wait and see.
i am pleased that the president, like truman before him, pulled rank on the generals and asserted a larger view.
youall are just too used to critiquing bush to see who we elected.
for peace and sustainability
"You just wait and see." –(Cygnus-X1)
Correct.
We don't have to 'wait' when we already 'see.'
These prevarications, as your x-ray vision clearly sees through, are little more than what has become a classic strategy of imperial dissembling.
Even if Obama announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops what would actually be happening would be a troop increase of 200,000, with an attendant increase in the number of American bases.
Similarly to what is happening in Iraq and now Columbia as well, the basing agenda is all but permanent. It is tantamount to an imperial 'conquest' of said nations.
90% of Americans could be eating dog food out of cans, but the installations of death–the nodes of darkness called American millitary bases that circle the globe– would be fully funded in perpetuity.
–(Jill Bains)
I do not have to wait and see. BO is the super con or like you state: the Obama Propaganda Samba, but you have to admit he is a great tap dancer and also does that Samba quite well!
It's O's MO. Same strategy has been used with health care. That's why, in the end, the worshipers were screaming praise when the horrid House bill passed and if a further-watered down giveaway is passed in the Senate they'll cheer again and Obama will sign the bill. It worked. And now they're doing it again with Afghanistan, as you point out. And what about Iraq? We're too wrapped up in the dance around Afghanistan, I guess.
This morning I heard on NPR that regarding jobs apparently "everything is on the table" regarding solutions. I guess that would be everything as long as it doesn't mean revisiting NAFTA, CAFTA and incentives to bring manufacturing and services jobs back home. This dance is going to start after the Asia trip.
Cygnus, I have saved your prediction to my computers desktop. We'll see what happens. If you are right I'll be with you in saying "I told you so!".
Tom
I call it the Hokey-Pokey.
Joe
Darth Cheney calls it 'dithering'....and he should know.
Ah, the Texas Two Step; Obama is learning his lessons well from the inside the belt way elites. Nicely stated.
You're not the first to notice this strategy and even mainstream media pundits have pointed it out, calling it the "Yo-Yo" strategy. Basically throw out constant "leaks" that appeal to progressives and conservative Democrats over and over, people discuss in a haze of confusion, then they announce their weak strategy with both sides, more so progressives, not realizing they've slowly been conned into supporting the status quo. The same is happening with health care right now, they've done this with nearly every issue the president made big promises on, only to continue the status quo.