Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Surge That Failed
Afghanistan Under the Bombs
A bit past midnight on a balmy night in late August, Hedayatullah awoke to a deafening blast. He stumbled out of bed and heard angry voices drawing closer. Suddenly, his bedroom doors banged open and dozens of silhouetted figures burst in, some shouting in a strange language.
The intruders blindfolded Hedayatullah and, screaming with fury, forced him to the ground. An Afghan voice told him not to move or speak, or he would be killed. He listened for sounds from the next room, where his brother Noorullah slept with his family. He could hear his nephew, eight months old, crying hysterically. Then came the sound of an automatic rifle, after which his nephew fell silent.
The rest of the family -- 18 people in all, including aunts, uncles, and cousins -- was herded outside into the darkness. The Afghan voice explained to Hedayatullah's terrified mother, "We are the Afghan National Army, here to accompany the American military. The Americans have killed one of your sons and his two children. They also shot his wife and they're taking her to the hospital."
"Why?" Hedayatullah's mother stammered.
"There is no why," the soldier replied. When she heard this, she started screaming, slamming her fists into her chest in anguish. The Afghan soldiers left her and loaded Hedayatullah and his cousin into the back of a military van, after which they drove off with an American convoy into the black of night.
The next day, the Afghan forces released Hedayatullah and his cousin, calling the whole raid a mistake. However, Noorullah's wife, months pregnant, never came home: She died on the way to the hospital.
Surging in Afghanistan
When, decades from now, historians compile the record of this Afghan war, they will date the Afghan version of the surge -- the now trendy injection of large numbers of troops to resuscitate a flagging war effort -- to sometime in early 2007. Then, a growing insurgency was causing visible problems for U.S. and NATO forces in certain pockets in the southern parts of the country, long a Taliban stronghold. In response, military planners dramatically beefed up the international presence, raising the number of troops over the following 18 months by 20,000, a 45% jump.
During this period, however, the violence also jumped -- by 50%. This shouldn't be surprising. More troops meant more targets for Taliban fighters and suicide bombers. In response, the international forces retaliated with massive aerial bombing campaigns and large-scale house raids. The number of civilians killed in the process skyrocketed. In the fifteen months of this surge, more civilians have been killed than in the previous four years combined.
During the same period, the country descended into a state of utter dereliction -- no jobs, very little reconstruction, and ever less security. In turn, the rising civilian death toll and the decaying economy proved a profitable recipe for the Taliban, who recruited significant numbers of new fighters. They also won the sympathy of Afghans who saw them as the lesser of two evils. Once confined to the deep Afghan south, today the insurgents operate openly right at the doorstep of Kabul, the capital.
This last surge, little noted by the media, failed miserably, but Washington is now planning another one, even as Afghanistan slips away. More boots on the ground, though, will do little to address the real causes of this country's unfolding tragedy.
Revenge and the Taliban
One day, as Zubair was walking home, he noticed that the carpet factory near his house in the southern province of Ghazni was silent. That's strange, he thought, because he could usually hear the din of spinning looms as he approached. As he rounded the corner, he saw a crowd of people, villagers and factory workers, gathered around his destroyed house. An American bomb had flattened it into a pancake of cement blocks and pulverized bricks. He ran toward the scene. It was only when he shoved his way through the crowd and up to the wreckage that he actually saw it -- his mother's severed head lying amid mangled furniture.
He didn't scream. Instead, the sight induced a sort of catatonia; he picked up the head, cradled it in his arms, and started walking aimlessly. He carried on like this for days, until tribal elders pried the head from his hands and convinced him to deal with his loss more constructively. He decided he would get revenge by becoming a suicide bomber and inflicting a loss on some American family as painful as the one he had just suffered.
When one decides to become a suicide bomber, it is pretty easy to find the Taliban. In Zubair's case he just asked a relative to direct him to the nearest Talib; every village in the country's south and east has at least a few. He found them and he trained -- yes, suicide bombing requires training -- for some time and then he was fitted with the latest model suicide vest. One morning, he made his way, as directed, towards an office building where Americans advisors were training their Afghan counterparts, but before he could detonate his vest, a pair of sharp-eyed intelligence officers spotted him and wrestled him to the ground. Zubair now spends his days in an Afghan prison.
A poll of 42 Taliban fighters by the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper earlier this year revealed that 12 had seen family members killed in air strikes, and six joined the insurgency after such attacks. Far more who don't join offer their support.
Under the Bombs
In the muddied outskirts of Kabul, an impromptu neighborhood has been sprouting, full of civilians fleeing the regular Allied aerial bombardments in the Afghan countryside. Sherafadeen Sadozay, a poor farmer from the south, spoke for many there when he told me that he had once had no opinion of the United States. Then, one day, a payload from an American sortie split his house in two, eviscerating his wife and three children. Now, he says, he'd rather have the Taliban back in power than nervously eye the skies every day.
Even when the bombs don't fall, it's quite dangerous to be an Afghan. Journalist Jawed Ahmad was on assignment for Canadian Television in the southern city of Kandahar when American troops stopped him. In his possession, they found contact numbers to the cell phones of various Taliban fighters -- something every good journalist in the country has -- and threw him into prison, not to be heard from for almost a year. During interrogation, Ahmad says that American jailors kicked him, smashed his head into a table, and at one point prevented him from sleeping for nine days. They kept him standing on a snowy runway for six hours without shoes. Twice he fainted and twice the soldiers forced him to stand up again. After 11 months of detention, military authorities gave him a letter stating that he was not a threat to the U.S. and released him.
Starving in Kabul
If you're walking his street, there isn't a single day when you won't see Zayainullah. For as long as he can remember, the 11 year-old has perched on the sidewalk at one of Kabul's busiest intersections. Zayainullah has only one arm; the Taliban blew the other one away when he was a child. He uses this arm to beg for handouts, quietly in the mornings, more desperately as the day goes on. Both his parents are dead so he lives with his aunt, a widow. Given the mores of modern-day Afghanistan, she can't work because a woman needs a man's sanction to leave the house. So she puts young Zayainullah on the street as her sole breadwinner. If he comes home empty-handed she beats him, sometimes until he can no longer move.
He sits there, shirtless, with a heaving, rounded belly -- distended from severe malnutrition -- as scores of other beggars and pedestrians stream by him. No one really notices him though, because poverty has become endemic in this country.
Afghanistan is now one of the poorest countries on the planet. It takes its place among desperate, destitute nations like Burkina Faso and Somalia whenever any international organization bothers to measure. The official unemployment rate, last calculated in 2005, was 40% percent. According to recent estimates, it may today reach as high as 80% in some parts of the country.
Approximately 45% of the population is now unable to purchase enough food to guarantee bare minimum health levels, according to the Brookings Institution. This winter, Afghan officials claim that hunger may kill up to 80% of the population in some northern provinces caught in a vicious drought. Reports are emerging of parents selling their children simply to make ends meet. In one district of the southern province of Ghazni last spring things got so bad that villagers started eating grass. Locals say that after a harsh winter and almost no food, they had no choice.
Kabul itself lies in tatters. Roads have gone unpaved since 2001. Massive craters from decades of war blot the capital city. Poor Afghans live in crumbling warrens with no electricity and often without safe drinking water. Kabul, a city designed for about 800,000 people, now holds more than four million, mostly squeezed into informal settlements and squatters' shacks.
Washington spends about $100 million a day on this war -- close to $36 billion a year -- but only five cents of every dollar actually goes towards aid. From this paltry sum, the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief found that "a staggering 40 percent has returned to donor countries in corporate profits and salaries." The economy is so underdeveloped that opium production accounts for more than half of the country's gross domestic product.
What little money does go for reconstruction is handed over to U.S. multinationals who then subcontract out to Afghan partners and cut corners every step of the way. As a result, the U.N. ranks the country as the fifth least-developed in the world -- a one-position drop from 2004.
The government and coalition forces may not bring jobs to Afghanistan, but the Taliban does. The insurgents pay for fighters -- in some cases, up to $200 a month, a windfall in a country where 42% of the population earns less than $14 a month. When a textile factory in Kandahar laid off 2,000 workers in September, most of them joined the Taliban. And that district in Ghazni where locals were reduced to eating grass? It is now a Taliban stronghold.
Biking in Kabul
A spate of suicide bombings and high-profile attacks in recent years have turned Kabul into a sort of garrison state, with roadblocks and checkpoints clogging many of the city's main arteries. The traffic is, at times, unbearable, so I bought a new motorbike, an Iranian import that can adroitly weave through traffic. I was puttering along one day recently when a police commander stopped me.
"That's a nice bike," he said.
"Thank you," I replied.
"Is it new?"
"Yes."
"I'd like to have it. Get off."
I stared at him in disbelief, not quite grasping at first that he was deadly serious. Then I began threatening him, saying I'd call a certain influential friend if he laid a finger on the bike. That finally hit home and he stepped back, waving me on.
Journalists may have influential friends, but ordinary Afghans are usually not so lucky. Locals tend to fear the neighborhood police as much as the many criminals who prowl Kabul's streets. The notoriously corrupt police force is just one face of a government that much of the population has come to loathe.
Police are known to rob passengers at checkpoints. Many of the country's leading members of parliament and cabinet officials sport long, bloody records of human rights abuses. Rapists and serious criminals regularly bribe their way out of prison. Warlords and militia commanders run wild in the north, regularly raping young girls and snatching the land of villagers with impunity. Earlier this year newspapers revealed that President Hamid Karzai pardoned a pair of such militiamen accused of bayonet-raping a young woman.
What Karzai does hardly matters, though. After all, his government barely functions. Most of the country is carved up into fiefdoms run by small-time commanders. A U.S. intelligence report in the spring of 2008 estimated that the central government then controlled just 30% of the country, and many say even that is now an optimistic assessment.
Drive a few miles outside Kabul and the roads are controlled by bandits, off-duty cops, or anyone else with a gun and an eye for a quick buck. The Karzai government's popularity has plummeted to such levels that, believe it or not, many Afghans in Kabul wax nostalgic for the days of Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, the country's last Communist dictator. "That government was cruel and indifferent, but at least they gave us something," an Afghan friend typically told me. The Karzai government provides almost no social services, expending all its efforts just trying to keep itself together.
Shadow Government
Power abhors a vacuum, and so, in those areas where central government rule has crumbled, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan -- the Taliban government -- is rising in its place. In Wardak, a province bordering Kabul Province, the Taliban has a stable foothold, complete with a shadow government of mayors and police chiefs. In Logar, another of Kabul's neighboring provinces, some "government-controlled" areas consist of the home of the district head, the NATO installation down the road -- and nothing else.
With the rise of the Taliban in these areas comes their notorious brand of justice. Shadow courts now dispense Taliban-style draconian judgments and punishments in many districts and ever more locals are turning to them to settle disputes, either out of fear or because they are far more efficient than the corrupt government courts. The Taliban recently chopped off the ears of a schoolteacher in Zabul province for working for the government. They gunned down a popular drummer in Ghazni simply for playing music in public. Even the infamous public executions are back. The Taliban recently invited journalists to watch the execution of a pair of women on prostitution charges.
The Taliban are as uninterested in social services and human rights as the Karzai government or the international forces, but they know how to turn a world of poverty, insecurity, and death from laser-guided missiles to their advantage. This is how the Islamic Emirate spreads, like so many weeds at first, poking out of areas where the government has failed. As the central government spins towards irrelevancy, the whole south and east of Afghanistan is becoming a thicket of Taliban before our very eyes.
A War to be Lost
One night the Taliban raided a police check post near my Kabul home, killing three policemen. The following morning, when a police contingent arrived on the scene to investigate, a bomb that the rebels had cleverly hidden at the site exploded and killed two more of them. I arrived shortly afterwards to find pieces of charred flesh littering the ground and a mangled, burnt out police van sitting overturned on a pile of rubble.
The raid didn't make much news at the time, but it was actually the deepest the insurgents had penetrated the capital since they were overthrown seven years ago. They have dispatched many individual suicide bombers into the capital and rocketed it as well from time to time, but never had they marched in as an attacking force on foot. When I told an Afghan colleague that I couldn't believe the Taliban were coming into Kabul this way, he responded: "Coming? They've been here. They were just waiting for the government and the U.S. to fail."
Failure is a notion now preoccupying the Western leadership of this war, which is why they are scrambling for yet another "surge" solution.
Of course, the Taliban won't be capturing Kabul anytime soon; the international forces are much too powerful to topple militarily. But the Americans can't defeat the Taliban either; the guerrillas are too deeply rooted in a country scarred by no jobs, no security, and no hope. The result is a war of attrition, with the Americans planning to pour yet more fuel on the flames by throwing in more soldiers next year.
This is a war to be won by constructing roads, creating jobs, cleaning up the government, and giving Afghans something they've had preciously little of in the last 30 years: hope. However, hope is fading fast here, and that's a fact Washington can ill afford to ignore; for once the Afghans lose all hope, the Americans will have lost this war.
77 Comments so far
Show AllI've just finished reading "A Thousand Splendid Suns" by Afghan author Khaled Hosseini. It tells a fictional story of two women living in Afghanistan over the last 50 years woven into the factual background of politics, power and survival. It is clear that the best time for Afghan women was under Communist rule.
Of course it was the Americans that were then allies of the Taliban in their efforts to oust the odious soviets. Now we want to take their place.
It really does matter which master beats you.
Ric Abreau & OREZ_ENO:
Do you believe the US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks?
If so, does it influence your opinion on the war in Afghanistan?
Not sure, but entirely possible. There is ample evidence that the Bush administration may have had something to do with it. I wouldn't put anything past our government from the Gulf of Tonkin, fabricating stories of WMD to trying to assassinate Fidel Castro and topple Hugo Chavez. You would have to be a fool to put anything past our government.
We don't even have any idea how big the budgets are for Black Ops. The military has black budgets even the Congress knows nothing about. Top Secret.
Trust me, you should really look at the videos and do some research. If you do I I'm sure you won't regret it. You have nothing to lose.
I had a discussion with a co-worker who scoffed at me after I said that 9-11 may have been an inside job. He thought I was nuts! After viewing the copies of the videos I gave him he said the matter certainly deserved another look.
Isn't it weird that the evidence, the smoking beams were removed from the site and destroyed before the investigators could examine them. As Orez said, no plane hit building 7 and it went down like a pancake in free fall. There is a ton of other unanswered questions.
The neocon Project for A New American Century (1980s) in a report stated they wanted to invade Iraq (this was a long time ago). They said in their report that absent a Pearl Harbor type event, the American public would not support a war against Iraq.
Notice Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but the US quickly started a war and let Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora where they had cornered him. If they would have captured him that would have ended the war and their profiteering.
The causus belli for the war against Iraq was 9-11 and false claims of WMD. How nicely things fell into place so we could spend the "peace dividend" after the fall of the USSR on endless wars, and endless profits for Cheny's Haliburton, KBR and a host of MIC-related vultures like Blackwater .
Look, I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about it. If you have an open mind look at a 9-11 conspiracy video. David Ray Griffin is a respectable professor and many scientists have serious doubts also. Loose Change is another and can be Googled and located on the net.
Right wingers like ctrl-z that call themselves Democrats amaze me in their defense of the bloody wars currently being prosecuted by the US outside international law.
It used to be you could an Obama supporter on the defensive by pointing out that Obama supported the Iraq war by voting to fund it, and that his idea of "ending" the war means leaving tons of troops behind to defend "non permanent" bases and the Green Zone. Back then dougnwagner and co. were hailing Obama as the "antiwar candidate". Haven't seen him posting lately.
Well those days are gone, now the Democrats actually defend the US role in trying to dominate the oil-rich region of the Middle East for the exclusive benefit of the record-profit making Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex.
It is like Chomski said, we have one political party, that of Big Business and the corporations, with two wings. Support for one is support for the other. Eventually the laggards of thought will catch up but by then the situation will have evolved so they will continue lagging.
So basically, as the Democrats tack to the right their supporters like ctrl-z tack with them. To them war is only bad if started by Republicans but if prosecuted by Democrats then it's cool because it's done to "save" Afghanistan and its people. Remember we need to destroy the country in order to "save" it.
They have no moral compass and seem obsessed by the difference in party slogans, talk of lipstick , number of houses owned, colors (red vs blue) and non issues but oblivious to the deeper and true intentions (by the one party of Big Business with two wings- the Democratic-Republican Party) of global empire and criminal domination of the planet's resources by "patriotic" and greedy US multi-national corporations that locate overseas to avoid paying US taxes.
Ric Abreu wrote:
"Right wingers like ctrl-z that call themselves Democrats amaze me in their defense of the bloody wars currently being prosecuted by the US outside international law... Well those days are gone, now the Democrats actually defend the US role in trying to dominate the oil-rich region of the Middle East for the exclusive benefit of the record-profit making Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex."
He was reacting to my response to the question: "Besides, who are you to dictate what political group will rise to power in any other country besides your own?"
My response:
"You are making talking points of a very serious issue. Are you seriously proposing that we should let al Qaeda rule Afghanistan?
And the Taliban made religious prisoners of a whole society. Are we supposed to let them in to subjugate women, non-Taliban muslims and non-muslims?
Is this what we have no business preventing?:
Wikipedia/Taliban
"Life under the Taliban regime
Sharia law was interpreted to ban a wide variety of activities hitherto lawful in Afghanistan: employment and education for women, movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events...."
He also ignored a slightly later post of mine:
"OREZ_ENO
As you can see from my response above I think there is a big downside to just leaving Afghanistan. I don't know if it is bigger than the one that will result if we remain. I agree our presence there is helping the Taliban gain support. Perhaps if we quit killing civilians we'd do better with the Afghanis.
As I said before, I'm not sure what should be done there. You & Ric may be right in thinking that leaving ASAP is the best policy."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Ric, I'm sorry if you and OREZ_ENO can't see that there isn't a one size fits all answer to our involvement in Afghanistan. There is a downside to staying and a downside to leaving. Seeing that there are two sides to the issue doesn't make someone a right-winger, but refusing to see that there are consequences to either course of action is just short-sighted.
Note: The invasion/occupation of Iraq was/is against international law. I have seen nothing to indicate that the war against Afghanistan violated international law (but our conduct during the occupation has with regard to the killing of civilians).
ctrl-z wrote:
“As you can see from my response above I think there is a big downside to just leaving Afghanistan.”
I respond for the benefit of other readers. I have accepted that you are incorrigible and possibly even playing the roll of devil’s advocate.
Of course there is a down side. Where have I indicated that I do not realize that? But the down side that you mention is not something that you have a legitimate right to do anything about.
When we left Vietnam many talked about the down side of over 2 million killed by communist forces as punishment for those who sided with America, and before that with the French, and before that with somebody else I guess. But would any of those people have been persecuted if no one from the west had invaded the country in the first place and tried to control it for their own interests? I think not. The country would have naturally evolved into the country that Vietnam is today, which is a fine country that has chosen its own culture. But once we invaded and once these people sided with us, an association that we did not understand the consequences of, the damage was done and they were destined for punishment at the first opportunity. Who is really to blame? I say America. Can America somehow undo the damage that it has inflicted? No. The murders were inevitable as a consequence of our forced influence in the culture of a country that we did not understand.
In Afghanistan of today we have a very similar situation. An unjustified invasion. No, I’m sorry, the Taliban, Al Queda, or Bin Laden, or even Donald Duck did not really orchestrate 9/11. America did. This is the same government that murdered President Kennedy in broad daylight and laughed about it, the government that lied to get into Vietnam and laughed about the 50,000 lives lost, the government that lied to get into Iraq and is laughing about the 4,000 suckers dead so far, and also lied to get into Afghanistan. All lies. And the consequence is that we have affected a culture in ways that we do not understand.
You say people in Afghanistan aren’t allowed to watch TV. Well, when I was young my father did not let me watch TV either. I suppose you feel that as I child I was abused by that and I should have been rescued? Perhaps I should have been removed from my father’s custody and placed in an orphanage where they had TVs? I’m glad people like you were not in charge.
Some of Afghanistan’s cultural practices are ancient and diametrically opposite to our own. Yes, I admit that. But those are their cultural practices. Many countries today still consider adultery a crime for women punishable by the death penalty. That is their custom. That is their belief. Years ago we had similar beliefs about women, although agreed not as extreme. We allowed our culture to evolve under our own influence. Afghanistan deserves the same.
The cultural damage done to Afghanistan by us has been done. You cannot take it back. The crime has been completed. And now, just as in Vietnam, many innocent people will be persecuted by their own culture for taking part in our influence. The country will now move in a direction completely opposite to what we intended, just as Iran did as a result of us installing the Shaw. Shame on America. And shame on anyone who thinks they can limit the punishment of the Afghanistan people who must now pay for the cultural crimes that we encouraged them to commit. It’s time for people like you do admit you have absolutely no idea what you are doing. You are completely incompetent. You should not take part in influencing America’s foreign policy until you demonstrate a better understanding of human nature and the power of different cultures. Even more shameful is the fact that most of our legislatures and leaders, Obama included, demonstrate the very same incompetence as you do.
It is clear that we disagree, and I don’t expect that to change. Hopefully people like me will encourage enough change by voting independent, and eventually people like you will begin to realize the failure of your approach. There is nothing wrong with trying to better a foreign culture by helping it evolve into modern times. But invasion is not the means to achieving that. You always create much more damage and in the end cause the country to recede further back into antiquity. But of course our government is not in the least bit interested in rescuing a cultrure from antiquity, or didn't you know? It's suckers like you who believe their lies, convince yourself that your county has noble objectives, and vote to keep them in power.
Hey OREZ_ENO I always think of Oreo when I see your tag. No offense. I agree with your post. I also have several 9-11 videos that raise some serious issues about the possibility of it being an inside job. Have you seen Loose Change or 9-11 Revisted by David Ray Griffin? I have my serious doubts about 9-11 and lean toward a government conspiracy. The "investigation" was certainly a cover-up.
Hi Ric,
I’m happy you enjoy my user name and you are free to attach to it any humor that you can think of. It really represents “Zero One” spelled backwards. As a retired engineer I like the suggestion of binary arithmetic.
Yes, I have seen all of that material that you mention, and I have read a whole lot more. I guess retirement has given me the time to look at these things. I don’t consider myself an expert on it. Indeed, I am surprised that more people do not know as much as I do since all the material you mention is so easily available. But of course, as I suspect you already know, few people know much about it. I have not met a single person who even knew there was such a place as “Building 7”. Of course I don’t live near New York City.
In all of my country's defining moments over the course of my life I have found that there is always some small detail that raises a flag and causes me to doubt the whole story. It’s sort of like the husband who cheats on his wife and she never suspects it until she sees some silly little detail that he hesitates when asked about. Something like, “Didn’t you have a brown pair of shoes? What happened to them?”
At the time of Kennedy’s assassination I was in the service and I spoke to someone in the Philippines who saw a newspaper announcement of it just minutes after the event, leaving innsufficient time to print the paper. The newspaper or possibly the source reporting it to the newspaper probably made a miscalculation in the time zone. Second I saw on TV a pedestrian in Dallas who had blood on his forehead caused by flying chips of concrete, chips that flew up from a missed shot that hit a curb. Unfortunately the location on the curb where the bullet hit indicated a sniper location that very few people have talked about, although you can find references to it on the web. Within 24 hours the bullet impression in the curb was repaired.
With 9/11 I saw that famous image of the woman standing in the open wound in the building waving to TV cameras, proving that the fire was not hot. Then I started noticing other things. The obvious characteristics of building demolition at Building 7, the lack of aircraft parts at the Pentagon (suggesting some sort of cruise missile), the lack of aircraft parts at the crash site in Pennsylvania (suggesting another cruise missile), and on and on it went. The most ludicrous was the finding of Mohamed Atta’s passport undamaged in the street below after the crash. If there were honest explanations for these things, they would have been given. But our government sealed the site, shipped off the evidence (just like they did with Kennedy’s limousine in Dallas) and suppressed any investigation. It is my experience in life that people who refuse to answer legitimate questions usually have something to hide. I am amazed at the country’s naivety and gullibility over this issue. But I also understand the great fear in allowing yourself to think about it. I have already been conditioned to think about the criminal nature of my government from Kennedy’s assassination, and later by the Bay of Tonkin incident. What I don’t understand is why year after year no one seems interested in these events, even the older ones where the pain of admitting that you live in a fascist military state is not so severe because it happened so long ago. But no one seems to care.
No shock there.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"I have accepted that you are incorrigible..."
On this we have a point on which you and my parents would have agreed.
OREZ ENO also sez:
" No, I’m sorry, the Taliban, Al Queda, or Bin Laden, or even Donald Duck did not really orchestrate 9/11. America did."
While not outside the realm of possibility, there is no proof of this.
OREZ ENO again:
"It’s time for people like you do admit you have absolutely no idea what you are doing. You are completely incompetent. You should not take part in influencing America’s foreign policy until you demonstrate a better understanding of human nature and the power of different cultures. Even more shameful is the fact that most of our legislatures and leaders, Obama included, demonstrate the very same incompetence as you do."
It's obvious you are putting ideology over the welfare of the Afghanis. You want to leave without regard for the consequences. I think we need to consider the results of our actions.
The world is in color. You're seeing black and white.
And OE, as I said before, you may be right about leaving.
But to me it isn't certain.
OREZ_ENO also wrote:
"It is clear that we disagree, and I don’t expect that to change. Hopefully people like me will encourage enough change by voting independent, and eventually people like you will begin to realize the failure of your approach."
Out here in the real world, the world of color and nuance, it matters who the President is. There may come a time when third parties have enough support to have a chance in the elections. I look forward to that day, but it isn't going to happen at the Presidential level this year.
By voting 3rd party you are choosing to let others decide who will be President.
If you want to vote for President vote for Obama or McBomb.
If you want to opt out, vote 3rd party.
Okay, look at it this way. What if a group of 20 right wing, Christian fundamentalist whackos hijacked a plane and crashed it into a village in Pakistan that performs abortions and the ensuing fire killed a couple thousand civilians.
Would Pakistan be justified in launching a war against the US that basically destroyed it (let's pretend they could) and then occupied it indefinitely, setting up check points everywhere and interfering with our way of life in every conceivable way?
Even if there was no international law against it, wouldn't it be morally wrong?
ric_abreu
You forgot to add that the U.S. had allowed the Christian fundamentalist whackos to set up training camps, provided support and safe harbor to them and refused to turn them over to Pakistan after the hijacking/attack.
Nor did you state that at the time of the attack, only one other county in the world had diplomatic relations with the U.S. and many countries did not recognize the religious group running the U.S. as its legitimate government.
You also didn't mention that Pakistan had 49 other countries offering physical, financial or logistical assistance in the war and that in the year following the attack joined in a NATO mission to stabilize the U.S..
-----------------------------------------------
There are huge differences between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
While is very clear that the attack on Iraq violated international law, in the war against Afghanistan it is debatable.
But regardless of the legality of the war, the question is what is now best for the people of Afghanistan?
Oh, let me guess, according to you this is a right-wing viewpoint.
No not necessarily, but seeing as you advocate voting for Obama I would say you are definitely to my right. Let me cease the name calling however and address your argument.
How do you know all these things about the Taliban involvement? You may well be correct, but if your sole source is the US government and its propaganda arm, the compliant MSM I would be suspicious. If the attack on the WTC was a criminal act then those responsible should have been tracked and apprehended, not an attack against the whole country.
You admit that Iraq war was illegal and started on false pretenses but buy the line about the need for the war in Afghanistan. You admit the Bush Administration are liars but accept their word on Afghanistan.
You cannot take as good coin any US claim about anything, especially the Bush administration. The US is involved in many Black Ops that they, by definition, will deny. You accept that the US can act as judge, jury and executioner. For all we know the CIA may have been aiding the Taliban like they assisted the Mujahideen. I am not claiming it's a fact but how the hell would we know what they are up to?
And what right does the US have to maintain an indefinite occupation of a sovereign nation? Are we going to stay there until every "Taliban" is dead? Who decides who is a "Taliban" and who is a patriot trying to rid their country of foreign invaders, or a distraught Afghan trying to avenge the murder of their family? The US? Who decides when they are all dead? The judge, jury and executioner?
The US has killed perhaps millions of people already. How long should the bloodbath continue? Who should decide? The US?
Hey could the possibility of running an oil pipeline through Afghanistan have anything to do with this? Are you curious? I am curious.
Where your argument completely falls flat on its face is where you appear to be in favor of the war because of your concern for the Afghan people. If you care about the Afghan people then shouldn't what they want matter? I believe the overwhelming majority of the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan WANT US OUT!!!!! Shouldn't that count for something? Hasn't the US killed enough people for crying out loud?
Can't the US just say look, you killed 3,000 innocent people on 9-11 but we have killed over a million of your innocent people. WE WON! Then pack up and leave.
Ric Abreau sez: "I believe the overwhelming majority of the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan WANT US OUT!!!!!"
According to the only recent poll (2007) I could find that was done in Afghanistan, that isn't the case. I have seen numerous polls from Iraq saying they'd like us to leave.
Canadian Poll in Afghanistan
http://research.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=653
A 2006 poll in Afghanistan found that "eight in 10 Afghans support the presence of U.S., British and other international forces on their soil..."
ABC/BBC Poll in Afghanistan
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_12_06AfghanistanWhereThingsStand.pdf
It looks as if the polls are reliable, but any polls done in a situation where an individual may be afraid to give an honest answer have to be suspect.
If you know of a better way to gauge the will of the population of Afghanistan I'd be interested to see it.
Ric Abreu October 12th, 2008 11:45 am wrote earlier in this thread:
“Here crtl-z displays the basic right wing ideology that is dominate in Democrats today. He believes …”
Thank you for this post and enlightenment. It has encouraged me to make this one last post.
I admit that I have been a bit naïve about crtl-z. I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt of having genuine, progressive principles, but at the same time being simply too indoctrinated and confused by American culture to understand simple issues, like whether there is any value to voting for an underdog. But I have been fooled by him. I believe you have assessed him correctly and I both complement you for your analytical skill and I thank you for enlightening those like me who fell into his trap. I think you are correct. Under the disguise of the Democrat label he, like his hero Obama, really has a very right wing, fascist, imperialist agenda.
crtl-z
In the end I wonder about your motivation in depicting yourself at this site as a progressive by saying that you want to end America’s war policies, when if fact you favor them. I now suspect that your constant advice that we all vote for Obama is not because he is less of a hawk compared to McCain as you say, but because Obama IS just as much a hawk as McCain but disguises it to make it seem more ethical. Perhaps that allows you to feel less guilty for the genocides that your country is on course to committing in the next four years.
As far as Obama is concerned, between shouts of “Enough” and “Change”, while at the same time promising to AIPAC his devotion to the state of Israel, I have not been able to identify his policies. His plan for Afghanistan is a formula for military disaster. Any average soldier or veteran like myself can see it clearly. Putin in Russia is rubbing his hand with glee. His military is probably greasing up and fueling the helicopters right now to support the Taliban. The people of Russia are buying popcorn so they can sit in the audience and watch America being given a licking. What fun it will be.
By the way, although I fear that Nader will do worse this time around, I will still vote for him, and I will be very proud to do so. But a vote for Obama would only fill me with an overwhelming feeling of shame. These exchanges that I have been having with you (ctrl-z) have made that even more apparent to me. Thank you ctrl-z for making me even more committed to vote for Nader.
OREZ_ENO
You can say black is white but it doesn't make it so.
If showing the likely consequences of an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan is enough to 'convince' you I'm a right-winger, so be it.
I answered your questions honestly and in good faith.
Only you can know if your question and response are the same.
"Canada MUST divorce its Policies from the US war machine, or we will be dragged down into the gutter with them. We MUST imho withdraw from NATO and repeal the recent agreements that allow US forces into Canada."(GwNorth October 9th, 2008 1:35 pm)
I agree but first we must remove from power our own neo-cons and lessen our dependancy on the US markets to support our economy.
I know that you will agree with me when I say that we must never divorce ourselves from the American people. For some reason I never feel like I am in a "foreign" country when visiting the United States.I also never view Americans as "foreigners" when I meet them here in Canada. There is a connection with the people that goes beyond trade and politics. One that I could never put my finger on. Somehow we are joined by more than a border. In my mind every American is a cousin who happens to live just down the street.
WELL...I agree that the stories truly tear one apart --
not unlike the stories out of iraq --
not unlike the stories out of nam --
not unlike the stories out of byellorussia in wwII --
and so on...
where does it end? certainly not with obama, who, instead
of being annoyed with war protesters, will calmly allow
for their dispersal by the same thugs who disperse protesters
at any dnc or rnc gathering ----
this is where we're going, folks -- a brutal police state --
far more poverty than we ever imagined seeing either here or globally --
far more pathological and reckless military slaughter than
anyone ever thought imaginable -- including obam's, who will simply stand
before us all and deny that it's happening --
which is what he does now --
wake up sheeple, indeed
“I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.”
[George W. Bush]
If you've got a better solution than Obama, please let us know about it.
Solutions are staring at you right in the face. Vote outside the two party system.
If Nader or McKinney could end the war I'm sure they would.
But they can't.
You betcha they would, and they can.
Don’t be fooled. Nader and McKinney are the very people who can curtail the war the most. They are not yet slaves of the MIC. Plus they have public opinion behind them. An immediate withdrawal by President Nader or McKinney in the same manner as the withdrawal from Vietnam (I remember is very well) will go unchallenged by the MIC, just like the withdrawal from the Bay of Pigs by President Kennedy went unchallenged at the time. Of course Kennedy eventually paid the price, and perhaps Nader and McKinney would face the same danger. But they know that, and like Kennedy these are brave people, as opposed to dishonest criminals like Obama or McCain. Nader and McKinney would also like to go down in history as the one’s who did it. And they have a lot more on their agendas. Look at McKinney’s performance in the house when she was a member before she got ousted. She was the only one demanding floor debate about the unanswered questions of 9/11. They shut her up because they had no honest answers. They would not be able to shut up President McKinney. I believe both these honest and brave people would do such things, and they have the advantage that they have the people behind them. Over half the population wants to see these things happen. But even if they only partially do it, you can be sure that their withdrawals will be a lot more extensive than Obama’s. Indeed Obama’s will be only cosmetic. Not really a withdrawal at all. With Nader or McKinney it would be different. The MIC would be forced to concede, take a back step for a few years. Of course they would regroup to once again gain control of the country and eventually all of the world, which is their current mission. But with a public that truly desires an end to our policies of immoral wars, perhaps the MIC would never again reach the level of control that they enjoy today. And yes, it would be a difficult road. A lot of powerful groups would bear a lot of pressure on the rest of us. Many would stage false flag operations to prove to us that the war on terror is real, not fabricated, or at least exaggerated. But with commitment and real devotion to building an honest government by people like you and me, it could be done. You might see an honest (non fascist) America within your lifetime. I won’t though. I’m too old. I’ll be dead before the entire evolution and change is fully implemented. It would be the most exciting of times for our country to finally get rid of its criminal elements that have been controlling the rest of us for over two hundred years. You’ll be proud to be a part of it by being one of the first ones brave enough to vote Nader or McKinney.
orez_eno
McKinney is not going to win.
Nader is not going to win.
The next President will be McBombIran or Obama.
You can help decide which one it will be.
Or you can vote 3rd party.
I wish you would stop suggesting that people vote for candidates based on their probability of winning. Such an approach is completely undemocratic. This is not a basketball game. You don’t win anything if you guess the winner on the ballot. People of other countries, like Canada, England, Australia, France, … are laughing at you for your failure to understand the foolishness in that misconception about what democracy is all about.
But I don’t blame you personally for having that misconception. After all, you are an American, and as such you have been carefully cultured since childhood by your Republic to believe that you live in a democracy, when in fact you do not. The practice of holding elections when in fact those elections are rigged so that no matter what the outcome the same people remain in power is NOT a democracy. That is what we have today. No matter what main party wins, the same MIC remains in power, and as a result America’s policy of worldwide control by bullying, and preemptive wars to all countries who don’t comply to our interests will continue. And we are all carefully cultured since childhood to believe that we must always vote either Republican or Democrat.
You have proven your dedication for justice in your country by the number of posts that you leave at this site. If only that dedication could be steered in a democratic direction (not the party Democratic but the real definition of democratic).
This is the hell the US helped create and the "antiwar" Sen. Barak Obama calls the central front on the GWOT. This is where this soulless bastard plans to send the troops he wants to pull out of Iraq when he "ends" the war there.
The chicken hawk Obama talks about the Bush administration's "dropping the ball" as if the terrible horrors of war were a football game. He can propose more escalation of suffering because he knows the closest he will come to harm is a staged photo-op in the Green Zone surrounded by the troops he "supports" by keeping them there.
That in turn can be turned into a 30 sec. campaign commercial for his next election where he says in a deep and cadenced voice, "Yes we can". Yes we can sacrifice your son or daughter so Big Oil and the MIC can continue making record-breaking profits.
Well Hic,
What is your solution? Are we just supposed to abandon them?
You turn a heart-rending article into an attack on Obama.
What is your solution?
And if it's Nader, just hang your head in shame.
Cause Nader can't fix this.
The solution is the one 95% of the people will not choose. Too brainwashed? Who knows. The solution would have been to put Dennis Kucinich into the White House or someone who as enlightened as he is.
That will not happen because the most Democrats are too far to the right. Honestly your average Democrat is not that far to the left of a Republican. That's why they chose Obama and almost chose Clinton. Most people are just too dumb to vote for what's best for them. That's why we'll get either Obama or McCain.
My solution? Pull ALL the troops out and send them home immediately and then pay reparations to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Perhaps the biggest fear that most Americans have is that the emotional pain of retreat will do great harm to the country, perhaps politically, perhaps to our national pride, perhaps economically. I recommend to young people to review the history of Vietnam. I remember the day of the final pullout from Saigon as if it were yesterday. I remember seeing on TV the scramble to get into the helicopters at the embassy. I remember seeing the attack helicopters being pushed into the ocean from the deck of aircraft carriers to make more room for people. I remember seeing armaments being disabled and left as junk. That day I was on an army base in Newport News, Virginia. I’ll never forget it. The base was surreal. Except for the usual pack of idiots calling to nuke the commies, most people I saw that day were speechless. Everyone feared what was going to happen. What would be our orders? How would all this affect our current postings and missions? Would we be called upon to protect the country from some kind of uprising or conflict between various groups or even ordinary citizens within the country whose opinions were so diametrically opposite on this whole issue? Would there be economic collapse? But as the day, and then the week, and then the month progressed nothing really happened, at least not in our country. We seemed to all be in a state of self-reflection and possibly even shame, as we well deserved to be. Naturally in Vietnam thousands of people suffered persecution from the advancing communist forces. But most people like me began to think that most of those atrocities were a result of our own actions in the country, actions that upset the natural balance of forces in a world that we did not understand. Such is the price that humans must pay when foreign armies invade for no good reason. But at home and in my life there was great calm. It was finally over. The retreat was a good thing. For a short while, my pride of America began to grow. I started to believe that down deep we really were the nation that we claimed to be, a nation that respected human life and decency.
I am amazed that a person like McCain can get political mileage out of claiming hero status in a military defeat? Here’s a man who crashed three planes and who is personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilian lives. I’m not suggesting that he might be ostracized for his part in the war. After all, many will think he was just following orders. But I am surprised that he is raised to the status of a hero. I guess it shows that in the end as a population we did not learn the lesson of our defeat. We do not admit the unjustified murder and damage that we caused in Vietnam. I still hear some people say, “If only we had committed more troops.” I guess the madness did not die, as is certainly evident today.
I have heard it said that even death row inmates don’t actually regret the murders that they commit. Sure, they fear execution. But I’m told that in their heart of hearts they still feel justified in committing the murders that they committed. Perhaps their best friend slept with their wife, and if so, then both deserved to die. For that noble cause they would willing do the crime again regardless of the punishment. Ask OJ. The will to kill is strong in so many of us.
A retreat from both Iraq and Afghanistan would be a very noble action that we could all be proud of. It might be the first step on the road to recovery from the ancient, barbaric attitude that it is our God given right to murder for our own best interests. Those colonial times are over. We need a president who sees that, who is brave enough to encourage it, and who has the will to enforce it. I don’t know if such a person exists, but he is needed desperately. Perhaps by voting outside the two party system you can play a small part in encouraging that person to rise up to the challenge of leading us out of our barbarism. Obama is not that person. Perhaps Kucinich, perhaps Nader, perhaps McKinney, perhaps someone else, but not Obama, and certainly not McCain.
Ric Abreu and Orez_Eno
You may well be right on this.
It seems to me the factors are the welfare of the population, the likelyhood the Taliban will again rule and the possibility al Qaeda will return.
I don't think there are any easy answers.
One thing is certain: You cannot 'win' an occupation.
I'm not sure that our continued presence will benefit anyone. I'm not sure that just leaving the country in shambles is right either.
That being said, I am sure that voting for candidates who cannot win the election will not resolve anything.
I think Obama is far more likely to find a good resolution than McBomb.
Obama '08
Ctrl-z: You may well be right on this.
-Thank you for the concession. Mighty big of you.
ctrl-z October 11th, 2008 1:42 am wrote:
“It seems to me the factors are the welfare of the population, the likelihood the Taliban will again rule and the possibility al Qaeda will return.”
Do you realize that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the American invasion? It was our invasion that put Al Qaeda there. And it is our presence in Afghanistan that is encouraging the rise in power of the Taliban, as this article very well points out. Just like it was the British presence in the Thirteen Colonies that encouraged the rise of the Continental Army here in America and the American Revolutionary War, we are causing the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Just as the British lost here in America in 1776, America today will lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Besides, who are you to dictate what political group will rise to power in any other country besides your own? And why are you doing it if not to steal their oil. Why do you continue on this course of genocide for your own self-interests? Of course I know that is not your personal intention. In your heart and in the heart of any average American for that matter, you are not a murderer. But murder is the result of your voting record. The only way to stop America’s worldwide genocide is to stop voting for the government that is doing it in your name. Vote outside the two party system.
And, if you are truly concerned about the population of Afghanistan, you should advocate leaving immediately. In all of America's preemptive wars, it is America who causes the suffering of their populations.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"Vote outside the two party system."
You can vote to select a President or you can vote 3rd party and let others decide.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"Do you realize that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the American invasion?"
I thought we were discussing Afghanistan where there were al Qaeda before we went there.
OREZ_ENO sez:
"Besides, who are you to dictate what political group will rise to power in any other country besides your own?"
You are making talking points of a very serious issue. Are you seriously proposing that we should let al Qaeda rule Afghanistan?
And the Taliban made religious prisoners of a whole society. Are we supposed to let them in to subjugate women, non-Talibn muslims and non-muslims?
Is this what we have no business preventing?:
Wikipedia/Taliban
"Life under the Taliban regime
Sharia law was interpreted to ban a wide variety of activities hitherto lawful in Afghanistan: employment and education for women, movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events. One Taliban list of prohibitions included:
pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards.[51]
Possession was forbidden of depictions of living things, including photographs of them, stuffed animals, and dolls.[52]
...
Theft was punished by the amputation of a hand, rape and murder by public execution. Married adulterers were stoned to death. In Kabul, punishments were carried out in front of crowds in the city's former soccer stadium.
Treatment of women
Main article: Taliban treatment of women
A member of the Taliban's religious police beating a woman in Kabul on September 13, 2001. The footage, which was filmed by RAWA, can be seen here.
Women in particular were targets of the Taliban's restrictions. They were prohibited from working; from wearing clothing regarded as "stimulating and attractive," including the "Iranian chador," (viewed as insufficiently complete in its covering); from taking a taxi without a "close male relative"; washing clothes in streams; or having their measurements taken by tailors.[54]
Employment for women was restricted to the medical sector, since male medical personnel were not allowed to examine women. One result of the banning of employment of women by the Taliban was the closing down in places like Kabul of primary schools not only for girls but for boys, because almost all the teachers there were women.[55]
Women were also not permitted to attend co-educational schools; in practice, this prevented the vast majority of young women and girls in Afghanistan from receiving even a primary education.
Women were made to wear the burqa, a traditional dress covering the entire body except for a small screen to see out of. Taliban restrictions became more severe after they took control of the capital. In February 1998, religious police forced all women off the streets of Kabul and issued new regulations ordering "householders to blacken their windows, so women would not be visible from the outside."[56] Home schools for girls, which had been allowed to continue, were forbidden.[57] In June 1998, the Taliban stopped all women from attending general hospitals,[58] leaving the use of one all-women hospital in Kabul. There were many reports of Muslim women being beaten by the Taliban for violating the Sharia.
Prohibitions on culture
Movie theaters were closed and music banned. Hundreds of cultural artifacts that were deemed polytheistic were also destroyed including major museum and countless private art collections. At the Kabul zoo most animals were killed or left to starve.[59]
...
Ethnic massacres and persecution
The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks "up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys."[62] More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.[63] Contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial, the Taliban forbade anyone to bury the corpses for the first six days while they rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs.[64] In addition to this indiscriminate slaughter, the Taliban sought out and massacred members of the Hazara, a mostly Shia ethnic group, while in control of Mazar.
While the slaughter can be attributed to several factors — ethnic difference, suspicion of Hazara loyalty to their co-religionists in Iran, fury at the loss of life suffered in an earlier unsuccessful Taliban takeover of Mazar — the belief by some Sunni Taliban that the Shia Hazaras were guilty of takfir (apostasy) may have been the principle motivation. It was expressed by Mullah Niazi, the commander of the attack and governor of Mazar after the attack, in his declaration from Mazar's central mosque:
"Last year you rebelled against us and killed us. From all your homes you shot at us. Now we are here to deal with you. The Hazaras are not Muslims and now have to kill Hazaras. You either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan. Wherever you go we will catch you. If you go up we will pull you down by your feet; if you hide below, we will pull you up by your hair."[33]
Hazara also suffered a siege by the Taliban of their Hazarajat homeland in central Afghanistan and the refusal by the Taliban to allow the UN to supply food to Hazara in the provinces of Bamiyan, Ghor, Wardak and Ghazni.[65] A month after the Mazar slaughter, Taliban broke through Hazar lines and took over Hazarajat. The number of civilians killed was not as great as in Mazar, but occurred nevertheless.[66]
During the years that followed, rapes and massacres of Hazara by Taliban forces were documented by groups such as Human Rights Watch.[67]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
ctrl-z writes: "You are making talking points of a very serious issue. Are you seriously proposing that we should let al Qaeda rule Afghanistan? And the Taliban made religious prisoners of a whole society. Are we supposed to let them in to subjugate women, non-Talibn muslims and non-muslims? Is this what we have no business preventing?"
-Here crtl-z displays the basic right wing ideology that is dominate in Democrats today. He believes it is the right of the US to decide which horrors to allow which we will not tolerate. In this right wing world view the US is the Master of the Planet and takes it upon itself to do as it pleases. We decide which resource-rich area to intervene in and place corrupt puppets like Karzai. As long as the corrupt puppets obey they are fine. Saddam Hussein was once on the CIA payroll.
This world view is rooted in massive ignorance of the role of the US propping up ruthless dictators the world around when it's in their financial interests. To right wingers like ctrl-z the US is the undisputed good guy wearing a white hat while crusading for good.
You might want to read up on an alternative to the history you learned from your high school textbook. Check out Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" you may also want to check out some of Noam Chomski's books about the Middle East. Chomski talks about the role of the US as the dishonest broker in the region. The US tolerates Israel's (ally) nuclear weapons and WMD while denouncing everybody else that it doesn't like.
Basically the US is a corporat-o-cracy where the the real power rests with the big corporations and the wealthy and the role of the US government is to see that their profits are maximized. The rest of it about apple pie, freedom, peace, democracy, human rights, etc. is a lie designed for saps to consume and therefore support the very system that is screwing them and their neighbors.
The US is doing the same things the same way they've always done before.
Since you quoted me so much I suppose I should respond. But I wonder if you are just trying to beat me the death here. So, let my expand on just one point.
I did say, "Vote outside the two party system."
To which you said, “You can vote to select a President or you can vote 3rd party and let others decide.”
Like most political issues, my position is a bit more complex than that. Yes, voting for a generally unpopular candidate does mean that the candidate who actually wins the election may not be the same as the one you voted for. But that is no different than everyone who voted for Kerry in the last election. After all, only one person can win. So, lots of people end up voting for a loser. What’s the problem here?
We have thrown this subject back and forth now so many times I realize that you have some kind of serious impediment to it. Well, if you can’t understand it, then continue with your two party voting record, and continue to vote for fascist governments that invade countries and murder their populations for corporate profit. Because that is exactly what will continue to happen in America until the Military Industrial Complex that owns both main political parties is finally defeated.
I also think you fail to realize that even if a candidate does not actually win, they still profit greatly by earning a significant percentage of the popular vote. For example, if enough people like you had voted Nader in the last election, the Main Stream Media (MSM) would not be able to exclude him from the debates. That extra visibility could affect many more votes, and possibly in future elections help draw the country away from the two party system.
I also think you are guilty of demanding too much instant gratification. If you see little chance that the country will go in your direction, you turn your principles around and go in theirs, again for the gratification of seeing your candidate win and convincing yourself that you are affecting the politics of your country. Democracy is a slower process than that and you need to be more patient and persistent. You should expect change in only small steps. An independent candidate may get 3% of the vote today, 5% the next election, 7% the next, and so on until eventual real gains are made. That is how democratic governments in all countries work. It took a while before women won their right to vote. My goodness, it took almost one hundred after the Civil War that was supposed to free the slaves for blacks to win their supposed guaranteed right to vote. And still today many black voters are turned away due to Republican dirty tricks.
Your stubbornness to vote only for a person who stands a close to 50% chance of winning prevents you from affecting real political change in your country. I’ll even bet that if McCain were more popular at the moment by a very large margin, like maybe 80% popularity, then on voting day you would vote for him. Why? My suspicion is because you are obsessed with picking the winner.
And, it’s not as if the manner I am suggesting that you vote is so strange. Most people in almost every western democratic nation vote in the manner that I suggest. They vote for the person who best meets their needs.
I know from your posts that you are frustrated about the war and about your country’s fascist imperialistic policies. Well then do something that can counter that. Vote in a way that will make your country less fascist, less imperialistic. Vote maturely.
Now I need to make you aware that I cannot continue with this. This site is often a way to relieve my frustration, to vent about issues that I truly believe in but that most Americans are diametrically opposed to. Sometimes it helps. Especially when I am not called an idiot, as so often happens in real life. Despite the fact that I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, few people understand my positions. I get called commie a lot.
Also, much of what I have been reading and hearing has been depressing me very much. I recently heard about major newspapers, possibly the New York Times, sending a DVD video documentary that promotes fear that Muslims want to take over the world. It’s all very sad. Combine that with people like yourself who lack the courage to place a tick mark in the correct place on a voting ballot according to your beliefs and I fear falling into a clinical depression. So I am going to take a rest for a while. I need to accept not only that I live in a fascist state, but that it grows more and more fascist every election, and it’s all encourage by the public’s voting record. It’s an amazing social phenomenon. I feel I am witnessing an entire society doing its best to extinguish itself.
I predict not only that Obama will win, but that Nader will do worse than he did last time. Before the next election we will suffer military defeat in Afghanistan, but even that will be insufficient shock to curtail this fascist disease. I suspect Obama (excuse me the MIC of course) will escalate the wars under the disguise of saving America’s honor. The draft will return. …. I can’t take it any more.
ctrl-z October 11th, 2008 1:42 am wrote:
“I think Obama is far more likely to find a good resolution than McBomb.”
Obama’s play to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan will be a military disaster. It was only a few years ago that Russia suffered military defeat in Afghanistan and was forced to retreat. An escalation of the war in Afghanistan will cause America to suffer the same. After all, what do we have that the Russians don’t have?
Perhaps there is one good thing I could say about Obama’s Afghanistan plan. By causing a military defeat and forced retreat from Afghanistan, as America did in Vietnam, he will end at least one war. The down side is that it will be at the cost of thousands of American lives. Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to just leave now? You can help that happen by voting outside the two party system.
OREZ_ENO
As you can see from my response above I think there is a big downside to just leaving Afghanistan. I don't know if it is bigger than the one that will result if we remain. I agree our presence there is helping the Taliban gain support. Perhaps if we quit killing civilians we'd do better with the Afghanis.
As I said before, I'm not sure what should be done there. You & Ric may be right in thinking that leaving ASAP is the best policy.
I do know that whoever is President will make a difference.
I think Obama will do better than 'Short fuse' McBomb.
Obama '08
Voting for candidates who you think cannot win the election is EXACTLY how this problem will be eventually resolved. 10% this time. 15% next time. 20% the next. Do you realize that if Nader had won only 5% of the vote in the last election he could NOT have been excluded from the debates in this election? Wow! Just think about that. If just a few people like you would vote bravely there would be three people standing at the debates this year. By voting outside the two party system you allow the opening up of your government to qualified candidates.
Just think what people of the 1700s, who fought and lost their lives for your freedom from British colonialism, would think of your cowardice to put a tick mark next to a different box on election day. They’d be disgusted. They’d say you don’t deserve the freedom that they lost their lives for.
Voting 3rd party is just leaving the choice of a President to others.
Nader and McKinney are not going to occupy the Oval office.
Someone wrote that Obama supporters should prepare to be disappointed if he wins.
I'd rather be disappointed by Obama instead of horrified by McBomb.
Obama '08
The solution is staring at you right in the face. RETREAT! Do what in the end you will be forced to do. RETREAT! Do what you were forced to to in Vietnam. RETREAT! Many young people I talk to actually believe we won that war. This is so painful. Do what in the end all fascist empires are forced to do. RETREAT! Go home and pay attention to your own population, which is in drastic need of your help. Just RETREAT and stop murdering people around the world for your own selfish interests.
But Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan! Some change: escalating an already failed policy.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
But Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan! Some change: escalating an already failed policy.
And your vote for Nader will change all that? If enough of you vote Nader the only change you will have is from bad to worse. From Bush to McCain. Four years of McCain. And if he can't re-offer for the second term you will most likely be content with Sara Palin for an additional four years.( she would have the experience by then lol) Anybody but a Democrat. But let us just imagine if lightning were to strike and Mr.Nader were elected the 44th President of the United States; would he not be a lame duck from day one? Enough of my foolishness. Nader is not going to be president. (The only elected office he seems to desire)Senator McCain or Senator Obama will be the next president.
.Firstly, I doubt McCain is worse than Bush.I doubt anyone is actually. Secondly as a Nader voter ( absentee ballot in the mail already) should he not be available I would vote McKinney, should she not be available I would leave the line blank.
If you wish to discuss politics you should do so in good faith and with a straight face. The myth of Nader as a spoiler is simply naieve and unsophisticated nonsense. My vote is exactly that,mine. It is not subject to your own personal opinion ( which by the by I believe to be useful to the continuance of our horrible governance).
Name me one thing that the Democrats have done to block Bush these last eight years.......Name me one thing Barack Obama has not altered his position on since gaining the nomination.......Name me one thing about Ralph Nader's platform that you personally object too....you have read his platform havent you?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole sez:
"If you wish to discuss politics you should do so in good faith and with a straight face."
She also wrote:
"I.too. have notified my Senators and Congressperson that I will no longer be voting for them because of their cowardly acquiescence on this bailout."
and
"Every vote cast for a democrat reinforces the control of the conservative DLC over the policies and directions of that party, every single well meaning voter who continues to remain a democrat helps further the corporate control of this nation."
and
"Voting for democrats, despite the clear evidence of complicity, of the corporate enslavement of that party, of its abysmal incompetence in the face of clear violations of the Constitution by the Executive branch and expecting things to change is simply insane."
So ardee, who wasn't going to vote for Democrats, called them and said she wasn't going to vote for them because of the bailout - when she wasn't going to vote for them anyway.
Doesn't exactly sound like "good faith and with a straight face", does it?
Sounds like pretty good faith to me to keep reminding politicians of the many reasons we should not be voting for them. And, every day I am reminded of new reasons for not voting for them.
So it's okay to lie to advance your agenda?
Let's see, who else believes that?
Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rove. Colin Powell...
You're in good company.
Perhaps I’m guilty of jumping into a conversation before properly understanding it. If so, I apologize. But I thought you said that it was dishonest for someone to say they would not vote Democrat for one reason when they had already decided they would not do so for another reason. Unless there is more behind your statement than that, perhaps something that due to my own negligence I did not understand, I don’t see anything dishonest with that. I might have ten reasons for not voting for McCain, as I’m sure you might also. What’s dishonest about calling his campaign staff separately on each reason to mouth off about it? But I admit I wrote my reply too quickly. So perhaps I should refrain from jumping into the middle of conversations before I fully understand what they are about. Anyway, I feel that the issues you raised later in this thread were more important and I decided to put more effort in responding to them. I’ll concede this one to you and admit my response was foolish if indeed you feel that it is.
OREZ_ENO
You're a sitting member of Congress. I'm not going to vote for you because I'm disgusted with your party. You then vote for something I don't like. I call you up and tell you I'm not going to vote for you because of your vote.
To me, that's a lie. I'm misleading you. I'm telling you I would have voted for you except for your vote. In fact, it had nothing to do with your vote. I wasn't planning on voting for you no matter how you voted.
Now if I just told you I was disappointed in your vote, that's being honest. But telling you you've lost my vote (the one you never had) because of how you voted, that's a lie.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Afghanistan is just one of numerous examples that destroy the Big Myth that the Republican Party is strong on national defense.
In just a few short months — specifically, on February 23, 2009 — the war in Afghanistan will have lasted twice as long as World War II, which lasted 3 years, 8 months and 8 days.
It is difficult to identify even one significant policy or initiative in Afghanistan that the Bush regime competently defined and executed.
One of the early overlooked historic blunders in Afghanistan concerns Iran, and the discussion below is excerpted from my new book, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages). www.bushleagueofnations.com
Following 9/11, Bush fumbled a long-awaited historic opportunity for the United States to improve relations with Iran and thus possibly even restore diplomatic relations with the strategically most important nation in the greater Middle East. Notwithstanding three decades of broken diplomatic relations due to the Iranian takeover of the American embassy in Tehran, Iran was a good candidate to be a friend and strategic ally of the United States.
The Iranian people had great affection for Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians have immigrated to America.
With the exception of Israel, Iran could be America’s number one partner and ally in the greater Middle East.
Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran offered to fight side by side with American forces in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. Iran despised the Taliban for many reasons, including the Taliban’s slaughter of 10 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1999, and almost went to war against the Taliban in the 1990s.
Negotiations regarding military cooperation in Afghanistan and a possible rapprochement between Iran and the United States were making progress until Bush included Iran in his bizarre Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address in January 2002. "Tough cowboy" Bush preferred militant confrontation with Iran over rapprochement and a possible historic alliance.
The rest is history. Bush’s saber rattling empowered Islamic hardliners, weakened the growing pro-modernity democratic movement in Iran, and caused Iran to look to China as a better strategic partner than the United States. Iran later emerged as the biggest winner in Bush’s disastrous war on Iraq, and the vast majority of Iranians reasonably concluded that with Bush on the loose Iran needed nuclear weapons to ensure respect and security.
Thanks to Bush’s illegal and poorly managed war on Iraq, Iran’s influence in the region is ascendant, and America’s is declining.
In half-hearted, helter-skelter response, the Bush regime tried to counter the growing power of Shiite Persian Iran by cobbling together an alliance of regional Sunni Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. However, these nations preferred to work independently of the Bush regime and its taint. Bush characterized the nations in this new “Sunni Axis” as moderate, but all three are dictatorships, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ranking near the bottom of all nations in respecting human rights. Thanks to Bush’s bungling of “democracy” in Iraq, democratic reform in these nations is now off the table.
Here's a gift -- a compelling free resource -- that I offer to you progressive patriots everywhere: You can now download for FREE a copy of my ENTIRE new progressive book at www.bushleagueofnations.com
I ask for nothing in return for my book, except that you consider using it as a resource to help kick out America's worst president and worst political party ever.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
Given that we need to find every buck possible to pay for the bailout of Republican trashed financial institutions, isn't it about time that those who wanted the War pay for it? How about a surtax on everyone who voted for the war, profited from it or did not earn a combat infantry badge in it?
Maybe give them a break and don't force them to pay off the entire War debt all at once. We could take the total cost of the other national fiasco, divide it by the number of those in favor of the War and treat each of their shares like a mortgage for them amortized over the next eight years with a lien on their mansions (except it doesn't get written off like the bad debts of the Republican owned banks dumped on the rest of us).
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
"A poll of 42 Taliban fighters by the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper earlier this year revealed that 12 had seen family members killed in air strikes, and six joined the insurgency after such attacks. Far more who don't join offer their support."
This says alot. It not about being jealous of our rights and freedoms it is largely about our killing their families. Directly or indirectly. By proxy or in person.
How is that a pilot who gets shot down after killing someone's family gets to be an untouchable hero in our western societies? I forgot. It is because they are so honorable.
A very sad article by Anand Gopal but an unfortunately true one.
I'm sure this won't go over well with the neocons and Fox News, but maybe Obama (once elected) should start a back door relationship with the Taliban. Enemies have made progress in worse situations.
The US could help external security and keep the people fed in exchange for the Taliban not allowing al qaeda or similar organizations to establish sanctuaries in Afgahnistan. The country would be a hard core conservative theocracy for some time (eat your heart out Pat Roberston), but would eventually liberalize. The US (or some neutral nation) could help broker treaties between the Taliban and local warlords that might avoid a lot more bloodshed.
snydly
THEY CAN ONLY CONTROL THE OIL IF THERE IS CHAOS AND DISORDER OR COMPLETE OBEDIENCE/COMPLICITY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND ITS "GOV'T". ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT IS NEUTRALIZED.
"It's not the surge, it's the death squads. They work. Ask any drug kingpin!"
Paul, you said it all.
americans don't like to be reminded how much damage their bombs do
that would make them think and the powers that be don't want that
the dreamlike state............
in the same way you can see someone get their brains blown out on tv but you can't hear them say fuck as they lay dying
very strange
cheers, b
"the dreamlike state ..."
U.S.A.: United Somnambulists of America
.The stories are heartrending, the posts express outrage and the voters continue to vote for those who will perpetuate the slaughter...ahhh America.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
My god, people! WHAT are we doing??
How can we just "take troops from Iraq " and shove them directly into Afghanistan? Our miitary is goin gto break.
The article about theUS/UK derision on Afghanistan was good. There was no comment on it--I guess it is a pc mistake.
If the UK is against staying in Afghanistan, how can we possibly do this??? This is just the least helpful thing we couldve done.Alot of these people have seen their country so war-torn (Reagan decided to right the Cold War there--)for so many generations, that they live without the basic requirements for life
Remember what Putin told Bush, right before the invasion.---
"When youre lying and bleeding on Afghanistan"s plains
And the women come out to pick at your remains
Just turn to your gun and blow out your brains
And go to your god like a soldier"
Rudyard Kipling
We are a occupying force , people. We will soon be totally alone.
If we are going to "increase troop strength", then lets see a draft!! You guys want Obama's plan--YOU go fight it!
KDelphi,
Without rancor I ask you: What do you think we should do?
The solution is staring at you right in the face. RETREAT!. It's time to go. Every day we remain in both Iraq and Afganistan we create more problems. The entire problem was of our own creation anyway. You have been tricked by your own government, who by orchestrating the 9/11 disaster, led you to believe that there was a War on Terror that we all needed to fight. There is no such war. It's all a lie. Go home and let people of other countries decide their own destiny. And, if you want their oil, stop murdering them for it. Just buy it, like other decent countries do. And, if for whatever reason they don't want to sell it to you, just shut up. It's their oil, not yours. Do what other decent countries do and buy oil from someone else.
I remember a joke in a military magazine. There were two American soldiers in any foreign land that they just invaded. Upon seeing some of that countries citizens walking as a group the soldiers say to each other, "Hey, why don't we shoot at them to see if they are friendly."
Disgusting, but true.
Just go home.
.It may be a bit more complex than that of course, but you are correct in the main. The way to defeat terrorism in any form is to win hearts and minds, not slaughter them.
Extremist groups, whether AlQaeda, Taliban, the Republican Party
( ok a smallish joke), whoever, cannot exist without a certain empathy from the masses. When folks own homes, have decent jobs and children in college they are much more prone to resist the call to violence of a small minority. Our grossly inflated lifestyle has made us selfish and uncaring of the fact that it comes at great cost to many, many others world wide. It is long past time to share.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The question is, do we as democracy-loving, God-fearing people want our leaders to be the earth's scum?"
With all due respect, 'God-Fearing'? Are You kidding me? What kind of fascist god would that be, not intervening to remove the legislative and executive scum of the world? What kind of fascist god supports the troops of the greatest rapist nation on earth? Religion is opium for the people and Afghanistan can deliver both. The answer can only be total global disarmament. Nothing less, because every military force is traditionally used to rape the 'enemy'. And enemies You can create in a whiff. When freedom fighters become insurgents and revolutionaries terrorists You have an all out 'You go boys!' with known consequences.
The only time the US was defending itself was in Pearl Harbor and that was not and still is not part of the USA, it is The Hawaiian Kingdom. The department of war has already implemented a policy of counter insurgency on its own territory. They can't wait to hunt down, rape and kill fellow citizens turned revolutionaries or insurgents. Then they don't have to travel to the other side of the world. They can do their state sponsored terrorism right here, at 'home'. The lie that You have to fight them over there will soon turn into US fighting ourselves here.
Forget about elections - the only vote You have is at the register
What do the rightwinger Republicans have to say about this
We are the biggest terrorist. Weather we like it or not.
Both the Iraq and Afgan wars are HUGE sucesses, and should continue to show a profit for years to come...just ask Haliburton, GE, McDonald Douglas, Lockheed-Martin. etc, etc, etc.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
True, but it's interesting that the stock prices of many of these "defense" contractors have since declined precipitously, particularly during the Wall Street crash.
Boeing (merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997) went from $25 at the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 to $105 about a year ago. Since then, it has declined to about $44.
Halliburton went from $10 at the start of the war to $53 in June 2008, and has since plummeted to $19.
General Electric went from $25 at the start of the war to $41 about a year ago, and has since declined to $19.
Lockheed Martin went from $45 at the start of the war to $120 in August 2008, then down to a present price of $92.
It's not the surge, it's the death squads. They work. Ask any drug kingpin!
The death squads worked in Iraq. 4 million Iraqis fled their lives and homes for various slums in other Arab countries, or in Europe or the U.S. These people now have no country, just a memory, perhaps a picture or an old heirloom. Seven figures of Iraqi people have now died for our oil.
The death squads will equally work in Afghanistan. All of the country's poor and illiterate farmers will do anything to live. They will flee if necessary. They will grow opium poppies for the European/American street corner market if necessary.
The question is, do we as democracy-loving, God-fearing people want our leaders to be the earth's scum? Is that going to get us into heaven, if someone else is appointed to do the killing, the stealing and the false witness bit?
We need a surge to get ALL conservative bastards out of government, everywhere.
How about a draft for the kids of all people who continue to vote to fund the wars?
USA,USA,USA, whatever that stands for.
Hey, I’ve heard that they are conducting secret negotiations with Taliban’s Mullah Omar. They’re thinking along the line, “If you can’t beat them join them.”
But if our state terrorist gets into bed with Taliban, It would mean that all that treasure and lives were wasted for nothing. That all that bullshit about getting rid of Taliban and bringing democracy and freedom to Afghan women were just that—bullshit.
The state terrorist must be impeached before he can walk away next January.
How is that people who rebel against invaders and occupiers of their own homes and country are called insurgents and terrorists?
The Americans are the insurgents and terrorists. They are the ones who surge in and terrorize.
Canada MUST divorce its Policies from the US war machine, or we will be dragged down into the gutter with them. We MUST imho withdraw from NATO and repeal the recent agreements that allow US forces into Canada.
We must set an independent foreign policy divorced from Western Europe and America and forgo these imperialistic missions into foreign countries to prop up despots.
The only time Canadian forces should be deployed outside our borders is on peacekeeping missions, fully authorized by the UN to places such as the Congo where the only purpose is to defend lives.
Acting as a force to defend pipelines or gain access to resources for multi-nationals is not why I support the need for a Military.
I am not opposed to a strong Military. I am simply opposed to it being used as a proxy force for US foreign policy, or to advance an agenda of Corporatism.
Please don't close things up too tightly; many of us Americanos may need to escape to Canada if this National Madness keeps up . . . and I expect it will.
I would love to get out of here--cant afford it, I suspect.
Doesnt it concern you that , these other countries that we want to escape ot, might just saY, "Hey, you guys kept voting for people who wanted to continue the warfare. So stay home and fix your own country".
The elites of this world, who think of themselves as “masters of the universe,” are destroying Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure their petty hegemony over energy resources. Yet what they don’t seem to understand is that they are destabilizing the entire world, and in the process destroying their own future income prospects. The vast sums of money the U.S. is expending in Iraq and Afghanistan are finally taking their toll on our economy and financial system, which is becoming manifest.
Now that the U.S. Congress has basically said to the American people, “Fuck you!”, and approved this bailout for the elites, the American people are finally coming to the realization that their government is no better than the despotic one in Afghanistan. Just as the standard of living of Afghanis is being destroyed, so is that of Americans. How long before Americans themselves start acting like Afghanis and reject the “official” government in favor of an alternative? How long before Americans become “insurgents” against their own government, owned as it is by the power elite?
The “masters of the universe” are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, starting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but perhaps coming to America in the not too distant future.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
The result is a war of attrition . . .
Americans do not like attrition. The invention of nuclear weapons wrote The End to large scale conflicts like World War II which is what we really like because such wars are dramatic, with clear cut "fronts and theatres of war". They're Hollywood, with stirring martial music and parades of "our boys" going down Main Street carrying hundreds of flags flying in the wind. Wow! But attrition? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. It's like being in a marriage slowly going down the tubes. Americans want drama, not the dull thud. And that is mostly why, in the end, our heads will be handed to us by wogs and ragheads and fuzzy wuzzies who don't got no H-Bombs or B-2 bombers or carrier battle groups. It's no longer The Ugly American but The Ignorant American, The Bored American, The Frightened American and very soon The Broke American who'll get his/her ass kicked in these little countries that we have no more regard for than the area behind your stove.
A surge that could actually be successful in America would be getting rid of sellouts in both parties and giving us Progressive/Liberal INDEPENDENTS for a change !
When you think about it...it seems like this is exactly the look the US was going for, in all honesty. When has the US ever really FIXED another country--using fix in the version that means "to rebuild, restore, renew"...
The US will certainly never restore either Iraq or Afghanistan--heck--any of the countries we've screwed over because the poorer they are, the more we can exploit them. Can you REALLY imagine a restored Iraq or Afghanistan? With leaders installed that have been elected by the actual people of the country? Do you realize what a gigantic threat they would be to American democracy?
Assuming the US ever gets--or is forcibly kicked--out, those countries will either be on their own or have to collect some influential allies who will be able to assist them in getting their countries back together. I sincerely hope they can do that one day.
They have already asked us to leave, many times. Even Kharzai.
I fear that a little "clatch" of troops will be left to guard some embassy or military installation.